Think of the multitude of ways City threatens and enhances Man.

CITY. Not just so many square miles of buildings and streets marked off by boundary lines. But the complex interplay and interdependence of a myriad of forces: some ordered, some out of control; millions of lives each seeking its own way to a better life; decayed inner cores; insulated suburbs; an explosion and inplosion of peoples; an opportunity and a trap.

This totality of City in America has a name, METROPOLITANISM.

Metropolitanism is a phenomenon of modern society, not exclusively American, encompassing our major social issues, yet little understood by the majority of Americans. Those groups of minority background, Negroes, Mexican Americans, Indians, and Puerto Ricans, may very well be the least aware of how this new force affects the quality of their lives.

The first step toward understanding what this concept is and means to people is to see in it a view of what is happening in our metropolitan centers that considers the many elements of City in relation to each other.

For the uninitiated, the term metropolitanism may sound, on first hearing, like the latest sociological catchword. It may be in the sense that the word is an umbrella casting many shades of meaning. From the standpoint of the physical growth of City, metropolitanism refers to the increase of air, water, and land pollution; burdened transportation systems; inadequate public services; relentless suburban sprawl, the whole range of physical problems which affect a much publicized cosmopolitan complex such as New York or a once-suburban boom city such as in the AnaheimSanta Ana-Garden Grove region in Southern California. The boundless problems of physical growth alone can be imagined from the estimate that in 50 years a megalopolis of 70 million people will stretch from New England to Virginia.

Metropolitanism refers, most importantly, to the manner in which City is governed and its problems resolved, but does not mean a single approach or form of government. It does imply the development of dif ferent political processes capable of devising programs, making decisions, using resources, and resolv ing conflicts on a metropolitan scale. Metropolitan areas may include a variety of political systems and many, sometimes overlapping, jurisdictions of government. The question then becomes one of the adequacy of a particular system to respond to specific

social needs while fully adhering to democratic principles.

To satisfy needs and at the same time conform to our democratic sense of values, metropolitanism suggests, for example, that a slum ghetto can be neither understood nor its problems resolved except through strategies that utilize resources equitably throughout a region. A housing program for low income families, for instance, must relate to the location of jobs and to improvements in the transportation system. But it is important to note that metropolitanism can take place without regard to minority group interests.

But surely, somewhere in the middle of all that is happening in our cities, or perhaps more realistically, off to the side, is the Negro, the Mexican American, or other minority group person. What is his stake in metropolitanism? How does he grasp the concept, make it his own, profit or lose by it? Is it simply beyond his capability to do or say anything about the whole matter?

On the premise that metropolitanism does concern vitally the minority group person and his aspirations for a better life, the Civil Rights Digest posed the same questions to a number of persons for their opinion. The questions generated a variety of responses. No two people approached the subject quite the same way, yet a number of common areas of agreement and concern did develop out of their remarks.

The most dominant strain of thought was that the minority person, the black, the Mexican American, the American Indian, the Puerto Rican, was still the victim, the larger society, the victimizer. In the sometimes purposeful, but most often willy-nilly shifting of governmental centers, of redistribution of resources, and of political power plays, the man of color or cultural difference tends to be the loser. Diluting Black Majorities

"If economic opportunity existed in a vacuum, a metropolitanism which led to better transportation systems between the residential areas of the inner city and the industrial properties would benefit minority groups," begins Dr. G. James Fleming, founder and former director of the Institute of Political Education at Morgan State College, Baltimore, Maryland. "But when it gets to political involvement, I would say that when it looks like Negroes are becoming a majority in a city, whites will quickly find a way to bring about metropolitan units of government."

A professor of political science at Morgan State, a predominantly Negro college, Dr. Fleming suspects that a clear relationship exists between the greater at

tention being paid by whites to achieving metropolitan systems and their desire "to water down the rising majorities of Negroes in the cities." Yet Negroes, he cautions, cannot blindly oppose metropolitanism without fully considering its prospects for them because they may find themselves in the position of opposing a good thing. He points out that the achievement of the “cake" of open housing holds some dangers for blacks because they will simultaneously lose the political advantage of concentrated numbers: "While more Negroes may have movement out of the ghetto, they will not have the political power of the ghetto."

"As a political scientist and in studying Toronto, and Dade County, and all other voluntary plans (of metropolitanized government)," Dr. Fleming asserts, "I think metropolitanism of some kind is inevitable whether informally or formally established. But it should be formal and legalistic to merit support by the people."

He suggests that Congress has already accelerated the restructuring process by approving reapportionment, "another kind of metropolitanism". "Those who supported reapportionment thought it would liberalize the legislatures, by taking the votes away from the rural districts, but the votes went to the suburbs where we have a different kind of conservative, the one who is keeping out the Negro. Metropolitanism looks good and technologically can't be avoided," Dr. Fleming says, "but it won't necessarily bring anything better in the case of the Negro."

Another perspective to this unfamiliar verbal terrain comes from Richard Scammon, vice-president of the Governmental Affairs Institute in Washington, D.C. He says, "Metropolitan takes place without reference to civil rights or race. Normally there is little relation between the phenomena. Urban decay would still occur in a city of half a million population even if it were all white with no non-Caucasians. We have an entirely. difficult enough problem in the city, but it is compli cated when race becomes a part of the picture."

Scammon, who is director of the Elections Research Center, an affiliate of Governmental Affairs Institute, served as head of the Bureau of the Census during the Kennedy Administration. He maintains that the harm or benefit to be derived from metropolitanism must be decided by the people in the area where metropolitanism becomes an issue. In any city where some kind of metro-government is proposed, Scammon suggests, "if the Negro people think its purpose is to diminish their political role, it is logical for them to view metro

politanism as harmful." On the other hand, white leaders might not want new structures of government for fear that Negroes might get involved, he points out. Apart from the race issue, suburbs have usually desired independence anyway, he explains, so that suburban whites faced with the added personal threat that some of their institutions might be taken over by Negroes, might also reject metropolitanism as harmful.

While there have been increasing moves toward cooperation on a wider than city or suburb scale for sewage disposal, airport planning, pollution controls, "the most ticklish issues still are the schools and po"Opinion is split," Scammon believes, "between the need for smaller or larger structures" in regard to sewage disposal, pollution, transportation, but on the matter of schools and police, he sees a trend toward smaller units. "The smaller the unit to be governed, the better for the minority group," Scammon states.

But the dynamics of community control cannot be confined only to minority group interests according to Scammon. Blacks may feel they benefit from local control in the school districts of New York City. Affluent whites may also take up the community control banner, for example, as in the case of recent elections for the first elected school board in Washington, D.C., which resulted in a majority black membership. Residents in the predominantly white upper N.W. section of the District, who had previously been in the minority only in numbers, but not in influence, might opt for local control in school matters to offset the apparent loss of influence on the school board. Blacks, Scammon observes, would still face a dilemma. They could not make decisions wholly oblivious of white interests and risk the increase of the white exodus from the District unless they were will ing to lose that degree of integration.

"If metropolitanism tends to deny a balance of control and services and ignore the needs of the people does this exacerbate the problems of the urban area? -it most certainly does. We are faced with the problem that if his own situation does not improve, the minority person may be left in control, but control of what, the slums?"

Survival for the Cities

That rhetorical and somewhat ominous question is taken up by George Schermer, head of a Washington human relations consulting firm which bears his name: "Strictly from the point of view of political involvement, in gaining political experience and sophistication, black people have nothing to gain in metropolitanism. One would be hard put to justify a drive for

metropolitanism in terms of civil rights or welfare of the minority group. But there are many, many arguments from the point of view of the city. Our major central cities may not survive except through some system of metropolitanism."

A former director of the Philadelphia Human Relations Commission, Schermer adds that on the basis of equal opportunity, if metropolitan government could incorporate the development of "rational transportation systems" which would provide equal access to all jobs to Negroes, Mexican Americans, and others, he would welcome its advent.

On the issue of school integration, Schermer posits that a metropolitan form of government would be useful toward developing a totally new approach such as the education park which is designed to distribute Negro and white children proportionately throughout a school system. Taking Philadelphia as an example, Schermer points out that since its public schools are more than half Negro, "any program to develop meaningful racial integration is likely to be impossible, impractical without a metropolitan basis."A better quality education for Negro children may depend on creating a milieu in which integration can be promoted, he proposes, or it may require a milieu in which Negro parents through political power can make increasingly meaningful demands upon the authorities for better quality schools.

Schermer's comments emphasize a recurring theme, expressed in some way by every respondent, of contradictory movements: an apparently inexorable metropolitanization as against a decentralization seemingly based on self-interested aversion to the former. In other words, metropolitanism has its opposite, particularly in relation to minority groups' aspirations to full recognition and participation in the social and political scheme of American society. Developing Sub-communities

The Negro, Schermer indicates, is in the predicament of choosing between longterm and shortterm goals. While he himself would consider metro-government necessary for the "overall viability of our cities," the Negro, he believes, "would want to work toward achieving maximum power within the existing system." The Negro has no way of knowing what kind of government will evolve or what role he will have in it. At the same time according to Schermer, the urban turmoil which is symptomatic of a rejection of the existing system, is occurring without apparent determination.

"We seem to be moving in the direction, first of all,

of a metropolitan system that will serve metropolitanwide needs-transportation, pollution controls, waste disposal. Yet, when we put the management of local affairs on such a large scale, the individual gets lost," he observes. "That kind of community is too big to belong to; you have got to belong to something smaller than that, and therefore, I have an idea that we will be creating substructures, sub-communities. People want to feel that management of community affairs is within their grasp. Therefore, cities the size of Washington, or Philadelphia, will become eventually broken down into community units, maybe 40-50,000, but something less than hundreds of thousands."

'Minority groups, Schermer foresees, will have to undergo a period of adjustment to the concept and evolu tion of metropolitan-wide systems of government. "It is very important for minority groups to have some sense of controlling their own destiny. It takes a few decades. of experience to get to the point where simply exercising your authority as a particular ethnic group is no longer so important as having a good life. Two decades from now a number of communities that have been self-consciously very Negro in handling their affairs will find that the good life is not found in the framework of separatism. They will find that there are so many problems that have to be resolved on a scale which involves all people at the metropolitan level and at the national level."

A case in point is the picture of Atlanta provided by Julian Bond, Democratic member of the Georgia State House of Representatives, who is in the thick of a political power struggle between black and white Atlantans over the proposed establishment of a countywide government. The young Congressman who led the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee in its early days, declares: "Always, metropolitanism contributes to the diminution of black political power. I see this from what I know of Nashville, Jacksonville, and Miami (where forms of metro-government have developed). Some people in Atlanta want metropolitan government. I think it's evident that a great many city fathers are less worried of the decreased tax base than about the prospect of a black dominated government."

The issue of metropolitanism in Atlanta will take shape in the elections this summer when candidates for mayor will be asked to take a stand on the subject, Bond forecasts. Some city leaders would like to annex the many white bedroom communities around the city while others propose the dissolution of city govenment into a county-wide government, Bond reports. There are already public service links with outlying commu

nities, such as police and fire department assistance, he adds.

Black office holders have been fighting annexation = attempts for the last two years in the Atlanta-Fulton County environs, but it has not been solely a black rir effort, Bond points out. The black community is not a monolith in philosophy or action; many different = groups compete against each other. In this regard, and on this issue only, have black legislators coalesced with certain white lawmakers whose suburban constituencies fear metro-government for one reason or another. Form Coalitions That Count

to c

So that blacks can fend off metropolitanization, Bond cites a State requirement that works to the advantage of Atlanta's black community: governmental revisions must eventually be subject to a vote of the se senators or representatives of the political districts to be affected. Fulton County consists of 26 representatives and senators. Nine are black, but a two-thirds majority is required to approve governmental realignment. "We don't have the power to pass much legisla betion, but in this case, we can certainly block it,” the Georgia legislator states.

Of the basic concept of broadened political controls, Bond speaks favorably-with some ifs. "If there were no racial consideration, metropolitanism would be dea. sirable, but black people have to fight it until they can get certain guarantees of equitable representation. We couldn't allow any county-wide elections now. Atlanta is 48 percent black, but if government were extended to the county area, our representation would drop to about 27 percent." By guarantees, Bond means elections by wards rather than at large for city offices or school board. The Atlanta Board of Education now consists of three black and 14 white members, while only one black man sits on the Board of Aldermen. Bond has recently introduced a bill in the Georgia legislature that would require elections for the Board of Aldermen be held on a ward basis. If passed, Bond estimates the new law could increase to seven or eight the number of Negro Aldermen in Atlanta.

The "semicities" in Georgia, Bond feels sure, would like to establish a metropolitan form of government for reasons similar to the ones in Atlanta. Bond recommends to Negro groups throughout the State, and by inference to minorities generally, to engage in coalitions where they do not have majorities and depending on the specific issues, shift coalitions as he and his colleagues have done to benefit the minority community. Civil disobedience is likely in those cities. where the minority populace cannot otherwise defend

itself against possibly harmful governmental change, and "in some cases, it is an acceptable means," says Bond. Atlanta, however, is not at this time a likely place for such actions because of the legal leverage black legislators command. Black Atlantans, Bond indicates, are generally aware of the pros and cons of metropolitanism, the accessibility to blacks of rapid transit facilities and the functions and makeup of the rapid transit authority was a controversial issue in the elections only two years ago.

By and large, most of the respondents indicated that minority groups are not aware and could be kept in the dark about metropolitanism as it might affect their region. Dr. Ernesto Galarza, an economist living in San Jose, California, suggests that the very complexity and seeming abstractness of the issue are critical barriers for the Mexican American and other minority peoples.

Western Trend Toward Regionalism

"The ability of communities, especially Mexican American ones, with which I'm particularly concerned, to identify as communities is being attacked. We have a growing tendency in the West toward the creation of sub-regional governments. In the San Francisco-Oakland Bay area, there is a very strong movement to establish a sub-regional government of nine counties taking over certain functions, pollution control, transportation, and so forth. If this happens, the ability of the Mexican American neighborhood to make itself felt politically will be tremendously watered down. If metropolitanism continues, it will increase rather than decrease their problems in civil rights. Dilution of the Mexican American vote is the practical result," concludes Dr. Galarza.

Long a resident of San Jose, Dr. Galarza has also seen the metropolitan forces at work as recently as last spring. Alviso, a small town near San Jose, virtually disappeared when it was annexed by its big neighbor. The Mexican American population which comprised a majority of the eligible voters nevertheless was unable to muster enough votes to defeat annexation. "They were well on their way to becoming a power in that community, a power for change. Before the election, city hall was no more than a few blocks from any residence. Now most Mexican Americans have to travel 13 miles to make themselves heard on any issue which relates to Alviso. These are people who don't have enough money for gas.

"The minority person does not know how to deal with governmental agencies as it is," Dr. Galarza continues, so metro-government would be adding another