the way things are done in this country." Joyce is pessimistic about the possibility of change through reform, and although he is somewhat cynical about the prospects of radical change, he is no less committed to that goal: "We can conceive of no non-revolutionary way to combat racism; at the same time, we know that no revolution is imminent. It is possible, however, to build a movement, to organize opposition."

David Kramer, executive director of Detroit PAR adds, "We are haunted by the fact that action is always running to catch up with theory. It is true of us. Part of it, of course, is a function of time; we're a young organization. But we have succeeded in constructing a workable analysis, a continuing program, and a strategy for further action."

Not that People Against Racism pretend to have the final answer. "The sad thing is," says Frank Joyce, "that there is no strategy to end racism. The institutions which perpetuate it are hard to get at. There is also that overwhelming pervasiveness of racism; the whole system is so saturated with it, it will be almost impossible to even begin to overcome the sheer inertia of racism."

People Against Racism traces its origins to the Civil Rights Movement of the last decade. Many individuals in PAR have similar experiences to recount: having worked in the South they began to realize that what they were doing was partly paternalistic, partly dishonest ("I began to see that essentially I was using these people, this movement, to prove that I was not like other white people, that I wasn't racist. . . .”). Returning to their own communities, they worked in the ghetto, continued to "do what I could." Finally they saw that as a matter of both integrity and practicality, they could no longer work with the deprived— "help the Negro"--but should be confronting the deprivers, white society.

Such experiences are not the only means by which individuals have found their way to PAR. There are liberals, "men of good will," who have fought the fight for racial justice through the courts and legislatures, reformers who saw their proposals ignored, defeated, or watered down. And they watched the laws which were passed go unenforced. For the frustrated and cynical liberal whose definition of society and strategy of reform no longer seem valid, PAR is an opportunity to renew efforts for social justice.

People Against Racism includes young radicals whose commitment to anti-racism grew out of anti-war activities (reversing the route of graduates of the Civil Rights Movement, who progressed from concern for

discrimination to the issues of poverty and peace). There are a substantial number of clergymen in PAR, ministers or priests instructed by their bishops or presbyteries or consciences to find whether organized relig. ion could have any relevance to the social issues of the ghetto; their perception of the ghetto and what caused it led them to PAR. People Against Racism also includes persons from an essentially apolitical background whose social concern resulted from professional contact with the ghetto-teachers, attorneys, municipal employees, social workers.

People Against Racism come from a variety of backgrounds and offer a variety of approaches to the struggle against racial injustice and exploitation in this country; what unifies them is the common conviction that the basic field of battle has shifted. The fight for human rights and social justice is now being waged where it should be, in the white community. White society must be made aware of the essential perception of People Against Racism and a few similar groups. As Pogo said: "We have met the enemy, and they are us."

By redefining the protagonists in the struggle for equality, the People Against Racism have declared a new war, strikingly analogous to an American war of a century ago. Again the conflict is between white and white. Again, the black man is an issue in the conflict, but his participation in the central struggle is limited. There are echoes of previous calls to conscience and morality, and once more there are governmental attempts at reform and compromise. Again, race is not the only issue but related to economics, political power, technological progress, even foreign policy. Once more, the struggle is to turn men's minds against established institutions and traditions, a similar attempt to eradicate undemocratic and unjust systems from the national life.

There, hopefully, the analogy ends. No one can imagine another conflict of such violence occurring, although there are those who warn us that increasing repressive tactics make the outbreak of widespread violence more probable. And while People Against Racism intends to change radically America's social and economic systems, both their aims and strategy are nonviolent.

In spite of the odds of history and numbers and the power of institutions and traditions, People Against Racism, their colleagues and supporters, show every sign of enduring as a new movement in a new civil

war.

ERBIN CROWELL, Jr.

CALIFORNIA

Thirteen young Mexican Americans led a walkout at four East Los Angeles high schools last spring. They face charges of conspiring to commit a misdemeanor. They say the school system is not responsive to their special needs as children raised in homes where the language spoken is other than English.

Mexican Americans and Indians comprise 8.1 percent of the Los Angeles County population, yet minority persons have made up only 1.6 percent of grand juries in the

last 12 years.

An Indian boy in a Berkeley public school disobeyed his teacher, a woman, so the teacher called him to the front of the classroom. With the help of a colleague who held the child, she allegedly sheared his scalp. A charge of assault and battery was filed against her.

Indians and Mexican Americans comprise 7 percent of the Alameda County population. In the last 12 years 2.6 percent of the grand

jurors there have been from these two minorities.

A grape picker in Kern County, California, was arrested last year while participating in a strike picket line. A car drove through the line and the grape worker was accused of hitting the car with a chain, and charged with disturbing the peace.

Only one out of every 10 minority persons have been represented on Kern County grand juries in the last 12 years.

A Ventura County Indian was convicted of larceny two years ago. Ever since he has been appealing the decision on the basis that Indians are systematically excluded from Ventura County juries. Armed with a a writ of habeas corpus, he has appeared before several juries always white.

In Ventura County Mexican Americans and Indians comprise 9.7 percent of the population. During the past 7 years only one of every two have been represented on grand juries.

In each case, representation of a minority group-Mexican American or Indian-on the grand or trial jury could be crucial to the outcome. Attorneys in the East Los Angeles walkout case say the 13 Mexican American youths will not get a fair trial if Mexican Americans are excluded from the jury. Last fall, their petition that charges be dropped on account of discrimination in jury selection was brought before the Los Angeles Superior Court and dismissed as unfounded.

The California Indian Legal Services is representing the Indian boy and has charged the teacher with assault and battery. So far the school board has refused to pay damages-$100.

A non-biased jury for the grape picker's trial is particularly desirable, his defense attorneys point out, but nearly impossible. Most local Anglo Americans in Kern County are regimentally against the grape pickers' strike. Most local Mexican Americans are farm workers and support the strike. Tensions would be eased and a fair decision reached if the jury exhibited a diversified panel of opinion.

The Ventura County Indian has had to resort to filing his suit before the Federal District Court, where he plans to expand his charge to show that minorities in general, and not just Indians, are outcast from California juries.

The racial or ethnic composition of grand and trial juries and how jurors should be selected is an issue periodically thrashed out in Federal courts. It was even raised in the trial of Sirhan B. Sirhan, the accused assassin of Robert F. Kennedy. Although discrimination in jury selection is prohibited by the Constitution and proscribed by various Civil Rights Acts, violations are still flagrant today in certain counties, according to a recent study of 22 California counties. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recently contracted the California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA), to examine jury selection in California. CRLA is a legal services organization, funded primarily by the Office of Economic Opportunity, to aid rural indigents.

While California has not been dominated by mistreatment of minorities in the 20th century nor been kin to the Deep South in history, spirit, or geography, discrimination of Mexican Americans and Indians in jury duty is as severe -sometimes more severe-as dis

crimination against Negroes in grand juries in the South.

Biased procedures used to select grand jurors are mirrored several ways during a single litigation. Judges violate the Constitution and Civil Rights Acts, when they discriminate against a prospective juror on the basis of race, color, ethnic origin, or economic status. Judges violate the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968 if they discriminate against jurors or rely upon the "key man" system to nominate jurors in Federal Courts. Prior to this Act judges could recruit jurors by asking prominent people in the community, or "key men", to recommend their friends and acquaintances. If a Federal judge who nominated jurors by using the "key man" system were subsequently accused of jury discrimination he could say he didn't know any minorities or none had been recommended to him. The Jury Selection Act outlaws the "key man" system and specifies that names of prospective jurors be chosen from voter registration lists or lists of actual voters. (The Act says U.S. District courts must prescribe some other source of names in areas of the country where voter registration lists may not equitably reflect the population.)

California county court judges who selected grand jurors for the East Los Angeles school walkout case told how they used the "key man" system. All judges who were questioned about their jury selection procedures swore they never discriminated against Mexican Americans and Indians, but most gave different reasons for not nominating minority persons. One judge said he hadn't nominated any Mexican Americans because he didn't know any, aside from his

32

gardener and garbageman. Another judge testified that he knew several persons of Spanish descent, but hadn't asked them to serve because they have families to support. A superior court judge admitted most of his nominees were affiliated with the Los Angeles Tennis Club, but pointed out that Pancho Gonzales and Pancho Segura

were members when someone suggested that Mexican Americans are excluded from the Club. If these judges had been testifying in a Federal court, instead of a county court, they might have been violating the Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968.

Discrimination in jury selection is also reflected by the jurors, themselves. How can juries which represent only selected segments of the population be intimately familiar with the conditions of local minorities and make impartial judgments of their acts?

Serving as a grand or trial juror is the only opportunity most citizens have to participate actively in the administration of justice. Trial jurors sit for several weeks at a time and make final decisions on a few civil or criminal cases. Grand jurors serve single year terms and have two primary responsibilities: they vote to accept or refuse criminal indictments and they examine the conduct of public officials and the administration of local government.

Studies show that participating in government through grand or trial jury service often has a profound psychological significance on minority persons. However, the importance of grand jury service is more than just psychological.

When grand jurors discuss criminal cases the presence of minorities helps minimize potential prejudice. Minority group mem

bers can alert grand jurors to laws which affect minorities that go unenforced. Also, they can lend greater understanding and equity to disputed cases by making fellow jurors aware of mitigating circum

stances.

Grand juries act as the watchdog of justice by evaluating the conduct of public officials and by inspecting the administration of government. Racially and economically mixed grand juries are more likely than all-white juries to punish misconduct aimed at the poor and minority groups. Integrated grand juries tend to be more responsive to traditional minority groups complaints such as local government's failure to make services and facilities equally available to all citizens. Grand juries can censure the misconduct of police and other public officials. Within its official jurisdiction the grand jury indicts individuals for crimes against, or affecting, minority persons. In the course of general inquiry into government procedures the grand jury can examine biases in local hiring prac tices, jury selection, local welfare programs. By monitoring the op eration of local government, grand juries can determine if all parts of the community have equal access to police and fire protection, sewer and water lines, sidewalks, streets, street lights, and recreational facilities.

The nature of an aggressive jury's investigations appears in the 1967 Final Report of the Los Angeles County Grand Jury. This report contains comment, criticism, and recommendations on: Aid to Families with Dependent Children; welfare programs; proposals to install a cafeteria in, and initiate admission fees for, the county museum; debt collection

practices of the county hospital; and real estate management for the county's land holdings.

Grand juries can indict public officials who violate California's criminal law. But where the misconduct does not violate a specific law, grand juries have two primary channels for action: public exposure and censure in an annual report. The effect grand jury reports have on community projects in terms of adverse publicty and public exposure should not be underrated.

Racially mixed grand juries could have a dramatic impact on California's poor and minority cit izenry. Aggressive grand juries can stimulate enforcement of laws which protect the rights of California farm workers. Juries can ensure misdemeanors such as failure to maintain humane conditions in fields and labor camps by providing fresh drinking water and sanitary facilities. They can investigate complaints that laborers do not always receive prompt and full compensation, and that health aid and safety precautions are absent on certain farms. Violations of these statutes are reportedly widespread in California, yet prosecution is practically nonexistent.

All California grand juries studied by CRLA have a history of inadequate minority representation. The study bases this on a disproportion between the percentage of minorities in the population and the percentage represented on juries. If there were three Mexican Americans for every one who served on a jury, CRLA maintains that unconstitutional selection of grand jurors can be presumed to exist. This disparity is evident in 17 of the 22 counties studied, and varied from substantial in the best

counties to grotesque in the worst. In five counties, the disparity be tween minority population and minority grand jurors was greater than 10:1. In one county no Indians had served on a grand jury during the years studied. In three counties only one Mexican American had served. In no county did the percentage of minority group grand jurors approach, equal, or exceed the proportion of minorities in the population.

When asked why such a great disparity exists, and why more minority group members do not serve on grand juries, many judges and jury commissioners have said, "minority citizens cannot afford time off from work necessitated by grand jury service. Grand jurors get only $5 a day, and this makes it difficult for men to support large families."

This financial argument may be a valid explanation for the disparity in Los Angeles County where grand jurors sit for most of each year. However, the same argument cannot be applied to smaller counties where grand juries sit for only several weeks a year and the dates of service are tailored to juror convenience or to avoid peak agricultural seasons. Since most Mexican Americans in these counties are farm laborers, judges would not have to deviate from customary procedures to enable them to participate. Furthermore, a $5-a-day compensation would be economically advantageous for many Mexican Americans during off seasons, and also for welfare recipients. It is hard to take the "financial inability" argument seriously.

Another explanation for the disparity might be that Mexican Americans are often disqualified for not having a "sufficient knowl

edge of the English language." People v. Davis, a California State decision, says a juror must have a knowledge of spoken English, not necessarily literacy in English. The juror's knowledge of English need not be perfect, so long as he basically understands it. Although concrete figures are unavailable, it's probably true that more Mexican Americans than Anglos speak only Spanish. Those people who don't speak English are often aliens-and hence disqualified from jury service. None of the witnesses in the recent California Assembly Hearings on the grand jury used English as a reason for low minority representation. There seems little reason to believe that minorities are excluded from jury duty because they lack a sufficient knowledge of English.

If prejudice has affected grand jury selection in 22 California counties as the CRLA study indicates it is probably as much economic prejudice as racial prejudice. Judges cannot take solace in this because the Constitution requires that juries be selected so as to represent a fair cross section of the community. Juries which include farm workers are more likely to investigate grower violations or agricultural health and safety laws, than recommend that Federal funds for training the poor be withheld. Grand juries which include welfare recipients generally take a more sympathetic look at Federal assistance for the poor and a less nostalgic view of Federal expenditures for the rich, such as farm subsidies.

Minority grievances are seldom promoted by California grand juries. Perhaps if more minority group members were included on the juries the Constitutional ideal of equal justice would be reality.