Discrimination against African Americans in welfare programs
Fillette further explains the efforts of the Legal Aid Society of Mecklenburg County to ensure that the state would provide Medicaid and AFDC for unborn children. In describing the resistance they faced and the determination of the United States Supreme Court that the Social Security Act did not extend to the unborn, Fillette offers his belief that the state discriminated against African Americans, who were disproportionately welfare recipients. His comments are based on an investigation that he and fellow lawyer Rick Hart conducted around 1976.
Citing this Excerpt
Oral History Interview with Ted Fillette, April 11, 2006. Interview U-0186. Southern Oral History Program Collection (#4007) in the Southern Oral History Program Collection, Southern Historical Collection, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Full Text of the Excerpt
- SARAH THUESEN:
-
In working with welfare recipients, to what extent did you find race
played a role in the distribution of benefits? Or did you
find that both white and black clients, their rights were being
ignored?
- TED FILLETTE:
-
Well, I think that on an individual basis, we could not find in
Mecklenburg County any conscious decision to discriminate on the basis
of race. There was certainly a very great predominance of
African-American recipients in Charlotte. We very rarely saw white AFDC
recipients in Charlotte. Most of those folks that got help from Social
Services that were white lived outside of Charlotte in the mobile home
parks and the other parts of the county or in adjacent counties. So
there was no clear way for us to see discrimination on the ground.
However, in pursuing the Taylor v. Hill case, which
was the one about the failure of the state to cover unborn children in
their AFDC and Medicaid programs, initially we had won that. We had
gotten a decision from Judge McMillan that found that the Social
Security Act did cover unborn children for these programs and he ordered
the state to provide AFDC and Medicaid to the women with unborn
children. The state appealed that decision to the Fourth Circuit Court
of Appeals and while that was pending in front of the Fourth Circuit,
the same issue reached the United States Supreme Court from a case that
had started in Iowa. And despite the fact that every circuit court that
had decided this issue was in favor of covering the unborn children, the
Supreme Court of the United States decided that the Social Security Act
did not cover unborn children.
Then the fourth circuit vacated Judge McMillan's decision
based upon the decision of the Supreme Court on the same statutory
issue, which then left us back in the trial court level with our
constitutional claim. Our constitutional claim was actually based on the
Fourteenth Amendment and at that time, we decided
to explore whether or not there had been a racial purpose in not opting
to cover unborn children. This other lawyer named Rick Hart, who worked
in our office in Charlotte, and I decided to research the history of the
state welfare department records about the AFDC program. We went to
Raleigh and started reading the minutes of the board meetings to see
what considerations there had been regarding the state's
decisions to set the benefit levels where they set them and what options
to cover or not cover. Because the Congress had given enough money to
the federal agency, the health and education welfare department, to
reimburse states that did choose to provide money for unborn children,
and I think a majority of states did choose that option.
What was interesting to us is that most of the southern states did not.
In North Carolina at that time, we realized we had the second highest
infant mortality rate in the country. We had very poorly developed
medical delivery systems in the rural parts of the state. And if there
was anything that pregnant women needed to try to avoid premature births
or losing children, it was medical care, but they couldn't
get it without having this coverage that we were seeking through the
litigation. Well, as we started reading through these archives, we found
minutes that showed the board members of the state welfare department
saying that the biggest problem they thought the state had was Negro
births out of wedlock, is how they determined it. They did all kinds of
things to try to discourage people from having children. We also saw
references to how some counties in eastern North Carolina, and I
particularly remember Robeson County systematically cutting off AFDC
payments to qualified mothers during harvesting season to provide a
source of cheap labor for the farmers to force women to go harvest crops
in the field. That was known to the state welfare board and they
tolerated it, because they thought that was a good way to motivate
people to go work for cheap prices. It was put in the minutes of the
state. With that background, we decided we wanted
to interview some of the people in the department that had tried to
fashion policy and we found this guy that worked at the social work
school at Chapel Hill, who had been the deputy director of the
department. We interviewed him and found out that when he and the
director would go to the state legislature to try to get their budgets
passed that they were commonly asked about the racial statistics of the
participants in the program, and the AFDC program was very heavily black
and the program that covered disabled people was very predominately
white. The state legislature had authorized budgets to pay a much higher
per capita benefit to the disabled program than the family program. He
was convinced it was because the legislators didn't like the
predominately-black AFDC program and favored, just out of pure racial
politics, the disabled program.
So we decided with that knowledge, we thought that the decision of the
department to not cover unborn children was viewed by the department as
unpopular because it was predominately black families that needed that
help. That was the basis for our constitutional challenge to the
decision of the department not to cover unborn children at the
constitutional level.
- SARAH THUESEN:
-
Who was the person at Chapel Hill you spoke with, do you
remember?
- TED FILLETTE:
-
I don't remember his name.
- SARAH THUESEN:
-
This would have been mid-70s?
- TED FILLETTE:
-
This would have been about 1976, probably.