It all started in a pretty much calm and neutral manner: “Officials of the United Nations are seeking revision of their year-old arrangement to take over 912 apartments in two housing developments now built by the Metropolitan and the New York Life Insurance companies… And Byron Price, Assistant Secretary General, in charge of housing for United Nations personnel, said that he intended to withdraw the international organization from any official rental relationship with the two companies.”(1947)

Why would he do so? Well, because “…he had been advised by real estate experts that on a practicable, long-term basis it would be better to have leases drawn ‘directly between the insurance companies and the individual tenants,’ that is, the United Nations employes themselves.”
But still, the question stays the same, even more, there comes one more: Why would UN employees deal directly with landlords? Maybe, it happened because: “Constantin Stavropoulos, head of the United Nations employes’ staff committee, had formally asked United Nations officials for clarification of what he said might be interpreted as ‘discriminatory clauses’ contained in the agreements”.

Very interesting…But “discriminatory clauses” are not that specific, therefore, it needs some more details. And there they come: “…agreements with the Metropolitan and New York Life contained ‘a customary clause’ under which the landlord reserved the right to reject tenants who were not found ‘suitable’, the ‘secretariat does not assume that this clause implies racial discrimination”.
And perhaps, precisely because of it, “The United Nations and the two insurance companies are now discussing new agreements under which the United Nations will select the most eligible of its employes on the basis of the present point system. The insurance companies would then choose from among those applicants” (1947)

Now, a whole picture becomes a little bit clearer. Obviously, the United Nations employes are from many different countries and races and while nobody assumes that there is a “racial suitability” implied in a lease agreement, it is still wise to hook up potential tenants with landlords directly and thus avoid all possible and “awkward” problems. It is like give them a clue and let them decide whether they want it or not. And that is just a beginning of a story.

The few months later, the Citizens Housing Council of New York Inc., hailed the United Nations for canceling rental agreement. “This action is significant not only because it implements U.N. policy. It also adds emphasis to appeals recently made to Metropolitan in connection with its announced intention to bar Negroes from Stuyvesant Town which is receiving public aid by way of partial tax exemption, and other advantages.”(1947, Jun.6)
In the same line of thinking, Shad Polier, vice president of the American Jewish Congress, urged the City to apologize to the United Nations for the “serious disservice which has been rendered to personnel and its principles by two insurance companies”.(1947, Jun.6)

And even though, officially U.N. had nothing to do with the Insurance companies, its unofficial policy of “let our employees figure it out themselves” caused a wave of protests among people working for the U.N. On July 17, 1947, they (200 stuff members) signed a petition, vigorously protesting a revised or informal agreement arguing that it actually invites United Nations employees to support discriminatory practices. The submitted petition charged that “…staff members of the United Nations are being invited to conclude leases with these companies on an individual basis when it is clear that by doing so they would acquiesce in the racial discrimination practiced by these companies against their colleagues.” (July 17, 1947),/p>

At the time, the insurance companies defended their policies by arguing that “…Emphasizing that he was taking the ‘human angle’ Mr. Eyriey ( from a department of public information) said that it was important to bear in mind that racial discrimination as practiced in this country by landlords was mainly for financial reasons. It was a well-known fact, he continued, that Negro tenants lowered the value of property considerably. In defiance to cries of ‘shame’ coming from some of his colleagues Mr. Eyriey insisted that the practical side must not be ignored.” (July 18, 1947)

On July 24, 1947, more than thousand of U.N. employees demanded a cancellation of any type agreement between U.N. and insurance companies. Paul Eisler of Czechoslovakia, an employee in the Economic Affairs section argued that records of the New York Supreme Court indicated that the Metropolitan insurance company would bar his ‘colored colleagues’ from an apartment at Peter Cooper Village, in violation of charter principles calling for equality of all races.”(July 25, 1947) Shad Polier went farther by saying: “Americans have long been aware that ‘private governments’ like Metropolitan Life are sometimes more powerful than are public governments and our Constitution. But the world will learn with amazement that such American private governments can also be more powerful than all the governments organized in the United Nations.” (1947, July 26)

But hear this one, on November 27 1948: “Confirming last month’s estimate that 62 percent of tenants of Stuyvesant Town and Peter Cooper Village favor admittance to the housing project of qualified Negros, a tenant vote showed 240 for admittance and 126 against….”(1948)
However, on December 3, 1948 “The Appellate Division reserved decision yesterday on two appeals from a decision of Supreme Court Justice Felix C.Benvenga who dismissed actions brought against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and its subsidiary, Stuyvesant Town, East Side housing project, for alleged discrimination in selecting tenants. …The arguments were ended yesterday when Assistant Corporation Counsel William Lebwold asserted that the City had no ‘right or power to interfere with the management’ of the housing development. “(Dec 3, 1948)

Reference

Investments Net Insurance Profit. (1947, Feb 15), The New York Times, p.21
George Barrett (1947, Apr.22), U.N. Seeks revision of housing leases. The New York Times, p.22
Groups acclaim U.N. for voiding rentals (1947, June 6), The New York Times, p.5
U.N. mass protest on housing today. (1947, July 17, 1947), The New York Times, p.3
U.N. staff pushes rental curb fight. (1947, July 18, 1947), The New York Times, P.5
U.N. employes ask end of rent pacts. (1947, July 25), The New York Times, p.19
The UNO capitulates (1947, July 26) The Chicago Defender, p. 14
N.Y. Tenants Again Vote No Race Bar (1948, Nov27) The Chicago Defender, P.2
Decision is reserved in housing bias suit (1948, Dec 3) The New York Times, P.17

This entry was posted on Saturday, February 25th, 2006 at 3:30 pm and is filed under History. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.