Helen Monchow

By Maura Fennelly

 In the preface to her book titled The Use of Deed Restrictions in Subdivision Development, economist Helen Monchow writes: “From the standpoint of controlling development the pattern of our modern cities is determined largely by the activities of two groups, the realtors and the city planners” (p. iii). While these two actors undoubtedly had significant power in constructing and controlling urban landscapes, Monchow left out another key group within the network of real estate to which she herself belonged: researchers.

Dr. Helen C. Monchow

As a White female economist, Helen Monchow was an exception to the otherwise White male-dominated network of people shaping real estate and land use in the early 20th century. Her research career was short due to her death at 52, but in three decades she contributed to racist segregation policies that protected White owners’ property values and destroyed minority neighborhoods through urban renewal. 

Thanks to Monchow’s alma mater, Mount Holyoke College, there are detailed accounts of her academic and professional career roles. Born in 1898, she spent her early years in Ohio before moving to Massachusetts to attend the all-women’s college. She remained heavily involved with her alumni network until her passing, with her friends still calling her by her college nickname “Monox” long after graduation. She served as a Holyoke trustee with Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins by the late 1930s and was part of numerous women’s organizations like the Women’s College Board of Chicago and the American Advancement of University Women. She also contributed to a fund in her name that would pay for several students’ cost of attendance.

Monchow’s Responses to Mount Holyoke’s “Biographical Data for the College Press Bureau”, 1939

For two years (1920 to 1922) she worked as a record clerk in Cleveland, probably in an office similar to the one where we do our Chicago Covenants research sessions. She also had a stint at the Women’s City Club in Cleveland, an organization focused on promoting women’s engagement in civic affairs. She then moved to Chicago, where she worked as Richard Ely’s personal secretary. before enrolling in economics classes and eventually joining his Institute for Research in Land Economics. Ely is known as the “father of land economics'' and advanced racist ideas of land valuation that laid the groundwork for practices like redlining.

Note for Alumnae Record at Mount Holyoke College describing Monchow taking a secretary position with Richard Ely

Despite finding much success in academic research, Monchow expressed frustration over a lack of advancement due to her gender.  All the while,  she wrote one of the most influential pieces on land valuation before earning her PhD in 1937. In 1928, she published The Use of Deed Restrictions. In the book, Monchow analyzed the use of restrictions in subdivisions across the U.S. and argued that deed restrictions had advantages over zoning because of the granular property-by-property detail that could go into their restrictions. 

In the book, Monchow examined 84 deeds and 40 of them contained race restrictions. The majority of the deeds with restrictions were newer, which suggests the growing popularity of covenants after the Corrigan v Buckley Supreme Court Case in 1926 that deemed racial covenants to be constitutional. Monchow was aware of the ambiguity of covenants’ legal standing, even with the Corrigan ruling. She knew government-issued racial restrictions were no longer permissible after the Buchanan v. Warley Supreme Court Case in 1917 that deemed a Louisville, KY segregation ordinance was an overreach of police powers. However, residents and developers still had power to use private contracts to restrict people on the basis of racial classification.

Real estate researchers and practitioners commended Monchows’ findings. JC Nichols, the first subdivider to use deed restrictions and who popularized the practice, wrote such an extensive positive review of Monchow’s book that it was turned into a stand-alone article in The Journal of Land & Public Utility Economics. He wrote:  “Few people realize the terrific economic waste, estimated at more than one billion dollars a year, of rapid changes in the character of residential neighborhoods in American cities. Stability, permanence, or, if you will, orderly progress, conceived and aided by city planning officials and by developers using deed restrictions, combat this waste.” Monchow’s study served as a manual for real estate developers to discriminate, under the cover of efficient land development.

Monchow continued to be a leading influence in academic and policy discussions surrounding real estate. She served as managing editor for the top land economics journal, The Journal of Land and Public Utility Economics of Chicago from 1931 and 1942. Richard Ely’s son-in-law and economist Edward Morehouse noted that during Monchow’s tenure as editor, “During the next 11 years, a period of uncertainty and real "Sturm und Drang" for the journal, Miss Monchow carried virtually single-handedly the responsibilities of editing the journal and securing the generous assistance of Northwestern University in continued publication.” 

In addition to demanding journal management responsibilities, Monchow published a second book, Seventy Years of Real Estate Subdividing in the Region of Chicago, in 1939. The book identified peak subdivision cycles between 1891 and 1926, which coincided with population growth in the Chicago area. Homer Hoyt, the former Chief Land Economist of the Federal Housing Authority responsible for establishing racist FHA underwriting guidelines, was a fan of Monchow’s study. In a review of the book, he lauded her for its detail on development trends and noted that an excess of subdivision development contributed to blight on the fringe of cities. Hoyt argued: “the need for control of future subdividing is evident, and Miss Monchow's authoritative study is indispensable for legislators contemplating methods of regulation.” Such regulation includes restrictive zoning measures that are now commonly debated today due to their role in limiting the supply of housing.

Homer Hoyt is traditionally known for his work “pioneering work in land use planning, zoning, and real estate economics”. However, we now know Homer was also responsible for writing and establishing racist FHA guidelines.

Once earning her PhD, Monchow remained as a faculty member at Northwestern for a brief period and taught courses. She moved more directly into the policy field when she became a city planner with the Chicago Plan Commission in 1941. As she succeeded professionally, Monchow wrote about wanting to contribute to the war effort. She moved to Washington, D.C. to become the Editor of Publications for the National Housing Agency (NHA). There she was able to work on wartime and postwar policies for veteran housing and also volunteer with the Red Cross by preparing surgical dressings. 

While supporting state-funded projects to support returning veterans, Monchow continued to contribute to racist housing policies. An obituary for Monchow discusses her role with the Housing and Home Finance Agency (HHFA), which preceded the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Monchow participated in writing Title 1 of the Housing Act of 1949, which has been described as funding slum clearance and urban renewal across the U.S. as cities then had the  power to use eminent domain to deal with “blighted” areas. Her final role at HHFA was with the “Division of Slum Clearance and Urban Redevelopment”. Despite resident resistance, urban renewal projects led to the destruction of entire neighborhoods. Similar to racial covenants’ impacts, these projects most negatively impacted non-White residents who lived in undervalued and underinvested spaces. 

In 1950, Monchow died unexpectedly after an operation due to complications from lung cancer. Yet in such a short period she became a key actor in a growing network of real estate stakeholders and institutions. Monchow was a pioneering woman in economics and especially land economics – her contributions to research on land economics and subdivision deed restrictions cannot be understated, where her work remains heavily cited by historians [and economists] to this day. Monchow’s commitment to supporting women in education served as a foil to the implications of her research.

Tovey v. Levy: Ending State Enforcement and Beginning Key Research

By Gabriel Bassin

On November 18, 1948, the Supreme Court of Illinois issued an important decision on enforcing racially restrictive covenants in Chicago. Just months beforehand, the U.S. Supreme Court radically reduced the power of restrictive covenants in Shelley v. Kraemer, determining that courts could not enforce these agreements. In some respects, Tovey v. Levy simply followed in the footsteps of the Shelley v. Kraemer decision, ruling in line with the higher court. But before the decision, this case did threaten the enforcement of restrictive covenants before the court reaffirmed the state’s inability to do so.

The most significant element of Tovey v. Levy may lie beyond the outcome of the case. Tovey v. Levy incorporated a unique research study that detailed the scope and impact of racially restrictive covenants in Chicago as evidence in its trial. In a way, it set a precedent for the future studies such as the Chicago Covenants Project in addition to serving as the basis for evidence used in later U.S. Supreme Court rulings. Thus, the story of Tovey v. Levy demonstrates both a historically critical restriction of states enforcing racially restrictive covenants and the necessary framework for future court rulings and research projects.

Highlighted area is 417 - 421 W. 60th St. in Englewood.

The case began with a restrictive covenant that included 417-421 W. 60th Street in Englewood. [1] Hyman L. Levy and Chritene J. Levy, the previous owners of the building, signed a racially restrictive covenant with their neighbors in 1928. [2] In 1944, the Levys executed a deed with the Cadillac Hotel Corporation, who immediately leased the property to Joseph J. Allen, a Black man. [3] Allen proceeded to lease/sublease different units on the property to a number of Black residents. [4] In response, the plaintiff, one of the neighbors party to the covenant, filed for an injunction on the grounds that this constituted a violation of the previously signed covenant. [5] Upon reaching trial, the defendants' lawyers, who worked for the NAACP, argued the covenant was invalid, taking issue with its constitutionality, its definition of Black people, various spelling errors, smudges, and deviations in the owners’ names. [6] In spite of their efforts, the trial court ultimately deemed the covenant valid and ruled for an eviction, which the Chief Justice of the Superior Court enforced shortly afterward by decree. [7] With this decision, an Illinois court threatened by decree to evict Black residents under the provisions of a covenant. The Supreme Court was on the cusp of breaking a major barrier, allowing Black people to move into previously restricted neighborhoods where owners were willing to lease their properties, without threat of eviction. Yet just ahead of this key decision, an Illinois trial court judge had reaffirmed the enforcement of restrictive covenants through state action.

At the time, lawyers with the NAACP had been strategizing to dismantle racially restrictive covenants, actively involved in previous covenant cases. In 1940, the United States Supreme Court decided Hansberry v. Lee, building hope that they could successfully challenge covenants and win. In 1942, Charles Hamilton Houston, an NAACP lawyer, then successfully argued Hundley v. Gorewitz. However, in 1945, when Mays v. Burgess was denied certiorari by the United States Supreme Court, NAACP lawyers gathered in Chicago to institute a new strategic approach. [8] During the trial, NAACP lawyers who were involved in the defense of Tovey v. Levy presented the case as a potential opportunity to reach and win in the Supreme Court. Loring Moore, one of the lawyers, presented their approach of employing sociological and economic expert testimony in conjunction with a research study in this case. [9] While Shelley v. Kraemer ended up being the case to reach the Supreme Court, Tovey v. Levy helped develop the key approach of introducing empirical research, thereby engaging sociological and economic evidence in the courtroom.

Loren Miller was an influential American journalist, civil rights activist, attorney, and judge. As chief counsel in 1948 he helped outlaw racial restrictive covenants in Shelley v. Kraemer.

Tovey v. Levy eventually reached the Illinois Supreme Court which reversed the decree, ruling that state enforcement of restrictive covenants was unconstitutional, but not before affirming the existence of racially restrictive covenants. In its decision, the Illinois Supreme Court directly cited the recent U.S. Supreme Court’s decision from Shelley v. Kramer, explaining how state enforcement of these covenants was unconstitutional per the Fourteenth Amendment. [10] While unquestionably important that the Illinois Supreme Court prevented state enforcement, the decision also validated the practice of private parties signing these covenants. “The fourteenth amendment erects no shield against merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful.” [11] So long as the state did not enforce the terms of a covenant, private parties were continually entitled to contractually form these racially discriminatory agreements. In a sense, Tovey v. Levy ensured that Shelley v. Kraemer remained only applicable to the unenforceability of covenants, but nothing more expansive, nothing outlawing their existence.

While this ruling did reverse the previous decree for eviction, the decree had already forced Black residents from the building. [12]  In fact, the plaintiffs petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court to drop the case, claiming it to be irrelevant because the tenants had already been evicted. [13] Not to be misunderstood, it is historically critical that the Illinois Supreme Court took this case, upholding an important higher court ruling, overturning the decree, and enabling Black residents to move into neighborhoods without fear of state eviction due to covenants. There was an agreement in Illinois to wait until after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Shelley v. Kramer before ruling on thirty-some similar cases. [14] At the same time, one must also acknowledge that Black residents still faced eviction while waiting for this case to be overturned.

Aside from the court’s decision, Tovey v. Levy offers a landmark moment in the history of researching the impact of these covenants from its trial. In the court case, the defense focused on a study undertaken to demonstrate the “de facto situation of unconstitutional racial zoning” resulting from restrictive covenants in Chicago. [15] The study uncovered nearly 700 covenants covering two-thirds of Chicago, and it presented this information by mapping three different areas: areas covered by the covenants, areas concentrated with Black residents, and non-residential areas. [16] Ultimately, the researchers presented their findings: out of 155 square miles of Chicago, 40 square miles were restricted by covenants, 70 square miles were nonresidential, 10 square miles featured a high concentration of Black people, and the final 40 square miles presented uncertainty as to whether obstacles to Black residency existed. [17] The map they generated then appeared in the Chicago Defender. [18] This research presented previously unparalleled findings on the breadth and depth of covenant restrictions in Chicago.

Consequently, the study conducted for Tovey v. Levy broke ground on important research, prompting future court rulings and further research. The research conducted entered “sociological and economic evidence into testimony — something that would be repeated in the U.S. Supreme Court restrictive covenant cases” such as Shelley v. Kraemer. [19] By refocusing the covenants on the resulting community impact, court cases could visualize the gravity of these agreements. Tovey v. Levy offered a window into the extensive segregation generated by a high volume of covenants. Not long after Tovey v. Levy, the U.S. Supreme Court received similar evidence as testimony, providing a new route to continue dismantling this system of segregation.

The study performed for Tovey v. Levy remains just a beginning. Historian Wendy Plotkin found that “a new study of covenants is needed to obtain a complete and accurate inventory of their existence and terms throughout the Cook County area.” [20] In response, the Chicago Covenants Project is currently working to uncover every racially restrictive covenant in Chicago’s history. Similarly to Tovey v. Levy, this data is then mapped to visualize the extent and impact of these agreements. 

Thus in many ways, Tovey v. Levy’s study provides a genesis to critical research undertaken today on Chicago’s history with covenants. Tovey v. Levy initiated the important step toward fully comprehending how these covenants shaped Chicago, enabling courts to critically reflect on the discriminatory impact. And while Tovey v. Levy affirmed the end to state enforcement of covenants in Illinois, the influence of restrictive covenants remains pertinent today. Today, the Chicago Covenants Project continues to build upon Tovey v. Levy’s legacy, understanding how racially restrictive covenants shaped local communities.

Notes

[1] Wendy Plotkin, “Deeds of Mistrust: Race, Housing, and Restrictive Covenants in Chicago, 1900-1953,” PhD diss., (University of Illinois at Chicago, 1999), 237, https://search.library.northwestern.edu/permalink/01NWU_INST/p285fv/cdi_proquest_journals_304572637. 

[2] Tovey v. Levy, 401 Ill. 393, 82 N.E.2d 441 (Ill. 1948).

[3] Tovey v. Levy, 401 Ill. 393, 82 N.E.2d 441 (Ill. 1948).

[4] Tovey v. Levy, 401 Ill. 393, 82 N.E.2d 441 (Ill. 1948).

[5] Tovey v. Levy, 401 Ill. 393, 82 N.E.2d 441 (Ill. 1948).

[6] Wendy Plotkin, “Deeds of Mistrust,” 237.

[7] Wendy Plotkin, “Deeds of Mistrust,” 237.

[8] Clement E. Vose, “NAACP Strategy in the Covenant Cases”, 6 W. Res. L. Rev. 101 (1955), 120, https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol6/iss2/4.

[9] Clement E. Vose, “NAACP Strategy in the Covenant Cases,”121 .

[10] Tovey v. Levy, 401 Ill. 393, 82 N.E.2d 441 (Ill. 1948).

[11] Tovey v. Levy, 401 Ill. 393, 82 N.E.2d 441 (Ill. 1948).

[12] Wendy Plotkin, “Deeds of Mistrust,” 258.

[13] Wendy Plotkin, “Deeds of Mistrust,” 251.

[14] Wendy Plotkin, “Deeds of Mistrust,” 305.

[15] Wendy Plotkin, “Deeds of Mistrust,” 21.

[16] Wendy Plotkin, “Deeds of Mistrust,” 21.

[17] Wendy Plotkin, “Deeds of Mistrust,” 26.

[18] Wendy Plotkin, “Deeds of Mistrust,” 21.

[19] Wendy Plotkin, “Deeds of Mistrust,” 305.

[20] Wendy Plotkin, “Deeds of Mistrust,” 40.

Bibliography

Plotkin, Wendy. “Deeds of Mistrust: Race, Housing, and Restrictive Covenants in Chicago,

1900-1953.” PhD diss., (University of Illinois at Chicago, 1999). https://search.library.northwestern.edu/permalink/01NWU_INST/p285fv/cdi_proquest_journals_304572637.

 Tovey v. Levy, 401 Ill. 393, 82 N.E.2d 441 (Ill. 1948) https://casetext.com/case/tovey-v-levy. 

​​Vose, Clement E., NAACP Strategy in the Covenant Cases, 6 W. Res. L. Rev. 101 (1955)

Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol6/iss2/4.

James Joseph Burke: the Story of Anger, Greed, and Revenge

By Connor Tooman

It was March of 1937, and James Joseph Burke – one-time president and executive secretary of the Woodlawn Property Owners Association (WPOA) – was submitting his resignation letter. Legal suits tearing down the web of racial covenants segregating neighborhoods in Chicago and throughout the United States were in the making, and Burke had plans to help make them. “Improvement” associations like the WPOA served as one of the primary coalitions created by property owners to support private covenants in the early 20th century. Just three years earlier, in Burke v. Kleiman (1934), James Burke and the WPOA had successfully defended their right to enforce a racial covenant against Isaac Kleiman, a white property owner seeking to lease his property to a black physician, James Hall. [1] Yet, in 1937, Burke severed ties with the WPOA and in 1940 would testify against them in court. [2] What caused James Burke’s radical change of heart? The story of Burke v. Kleiman, the WPOA, and James Burke’s double-crossing involves fraud, university money, and nothing less than plain-old revenge.

The story of James Joseph Burke begins in New Jersey in 1875, where he was born to an Irish immigrant father and a Scottish or Irish immigrant mother. [3] Accounts of Burke’s early life are scarce, but U.S. Census data suggests he had moved to Tulsa, Oklahoma by 1920. [4] Burke seems to have found employment in multiple fields during his time in Tulsa, with records listing him as both an architect and the president of the Citizens Paving Company. [5] While in Tulsa, he lived in a rented home with his wife, Olive Burke, until at least 1923 and experienced the birth of his two children, James Burke and Mary Burke in 1921 and 1923, respectively. [6] Sometime before 1930, the Burke family left Tulsa and moved to Chicago, where they lived at 6039 Vernon Avenue in the northwest corner of Chicago’s Woodlawn neighborhood. [7] It was here that Burke would come to lead, and then double-cross, the Woodlawn Property Owners Association.

By the time James Burke rose to lead the WPOA as its president, it had grown to become a powerful and influential organization within the Chicago community. The WPOA was established in the mid-1920s; by July of 1933 under Burke’s presidency, the WPOA counted as many as 3,000 members as part of its association. [8] Throughout the 1930s, the WPOA was involved in more than five separate cases seeking to enforce violations of racial covenants in the Washington Park subdivision of Chicago. [9]. The cost of fighting these legal battles was no small expense. Critical to the WPOA’s ability to fund them was the financial support of the University of Chicago. 

Administrative leaders at the University of Chicago were dedicated to preserving a whites-only district in the Washington Park neighborhood in which the school resided. Accordingly, organizations dedicated to creating and enacting racially restrictive covenants – like the WPOA – received significant financial support from the university as they fought to enforce these private agreements in courts. [10] Truman K. Gibson Jr., an alumnus of the University of Chicago Law School and member of Hansberry’s legal team, recalls meeting with the university’s president, Robert Maynard Hutchins, along with fellow black alumni of the law school. Hutchins began by describing the university’s funding of the WPOA as, “a matter of economics,” – of “protecting” the university’s “huge investment in the South Side.” When pressed, however, Gibson Jr. describes Hutchins as eventually blurting out, “Why don’t you people stay where you belong!” [11] This attitude led the university to lend their full support to Olive and James Burke and the WPOA when, in 1932, they filed suit against Isaac Kleiman for seeking to lease his property to a black man.

Map of the University of Chicago Campus in Hyde Park, South Side of Chicago

In the case of Burke v. Kleiman, a number of factors were critical to the courts’ eventual decision to enforce James Hall’s eviction from Isaac Kleiman’s rented property in 1934. Critically, in 1928 Burke had helped to successfully manipulate a circuit court judge into declaring the WPOA’s racial covenant valid on the basis that more than 95% of the white property owners in the area covered by the covenant had signed the agreement. [12] In Burke v. Kleiman, both the superior court (in which the complaint was originally filed) and appeals court judges thus accepted the validity of the covenant as fact. [13] On this basis and the argument that Hall’s residency in Washington Park would help to “greatly depreciate values of real estate in said district… and [would] cause irreparable injury to” Burke and the covenant’s signees, both the superior court and appeals court ruled in favor of Hall’s eviction. [14] Burke, the WPOA, and the University of Chicago had succeeded – Washington Park would remain free from black residents. Yet, a storm loomed on the horizon; one that, three years later, would see Burke vow, “I will get even with the Woodlawn Property Owners Association by putting n------ in every block.” [15]

Burke’s support for the WPOA and friendly association with the University of Chicago ended for much the same reason it began: money. In November, 1936, the university withdrew its support for the WPOA, feeling it both ineffective in legally enforcing the racial covenant it was created to uphold and a source of bad publicity for existing primarily to do so. [16] An organization with more well-rounded goals, including supporting the development of community infrastructure, was created in its stead: the Woodlawn Property Owners’ League. A month after this restructuring, James Burke’s Washington Park home was foreclosed. [17] As an auto salesman in the midst of the Great Depression, Burke could not have been flush with sales. [18] Nevertheless, associates of Burke noted that he often complained of delayed salary payments from the WPOA before his eventual resignation from the organization in March, 1937 – an issue likely exacerbated when the University of Chicago withdrew its funding from the association. [19] In the course of this separation, Burke made his infamous threat, swearing to fight tooth-and-nail to tear down the racial covenant he had previously sought to protect.

Burke’s defection from the WPOA helped to publicly expose the final, and perhaps most crucial, component of the WPOA’s racial covenant – its fraudulence. Truman Gibson Jr. recounts discovering this fact for himself after spending a year and a half laboring in the office of the Cook County Recorder of Deeds to compare property deed signatures to those on the WPOA covenant. Whereas judges in the Burke v. Kleiman case had ruled according to the belief that 95% of the home owners covered by the covenant had signed it, Gibson Jr.’s research suggested the true number of signatories stood at just 54% of homeowners. [20] Meanwhile, a vengeance-minded Burke assisted Carl A. Hansberry, a prominent black real estate developer and NAACP official, in purchasing a three-family apartment building located in the dead center of the area covered by the WPOA’s racial covenant. [21] In the Hansberry v. Lee case that followed, Burke himself would testify that the WPOA covenant’s signatures – and the judicial ruling validating it – were the result of collusion and fraud. [22] Burke, it would seem, had found the revenge he was looking for. 

Whatever satisfaction Burke may have found upon taking the witness stand in Hansberry v. Lee, it almost certainly evaporated upon the release of the initial circuit court opinion in the case. The circuit court judge’s decision centered around the “unclean hands” of the “wrong-doer” and “evil-minded” James Burke and his fellow “conspirators,” accordingly ruling against them and in favor of evicting Hansberry on the principle of res judicata – the idea that, ironically, the issue at hand had already been tried and decided in Burke v. Kleiman. [23] It would take two more years, and the intervention of the U.S. Supreme Court, before the decision would be overruled. Another eight, and the era of court-enforced racial covenants would itself end. One has to wonder if James Burke recognized these growing winds of change when he assisted in Hansberry’s purchase of a home at Washington Park, or if, as the record suggests, his mind was fixated on other things – things like anger, greed, and revenge.

Notes

1. Wendy Plotkin, “Deeds of Mistrust: Race, Housing, and Restrictive Covenants in Chicago, 1900-1953,” PhD diss., (University of Illinois at Chicago, 1999), https://search.library.northwestern.edu/permalink/01NWU_INST/p285fv/cdi_proquest_journals_304572637.

2. Truman K. Gibson, Jr., Steve Huntley, Knocking Down Barriers: My Fight for Black America, (Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 2005), 44-45. 

3. “James J Burke in the 1930 United States Federal Census,” 1930 U.S. Census, Ancestry, https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/85158998:6224?tid=&pid=&queryId=9e35d7bf-46cc-4fae-a0d2-0adab42c49ec&_phsrc=BAV2&_phstart=successSource.

4. “James J Burke in the 1920 United States Federal Census,” 1920 U.S. Census, Ancestry, https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/105294763:6061?tid=&pid=&queryId=3392d9ac-b768-437f-8af0-2366c38fded9&_phsrc=BAV10&_phstart=successSource.

5. “James J Burke in the U.S., City Directories, 1822-1995,” Tulsa City Directory 1922, https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/919022348:2469.

6. “James J Burke in the 1930 United States Federal Census,” Ancestry.

7. “James J Burke in the 1930 United States Federal Census,” Ancestry.

8. Philip Kinsley, “More Letters Praise School Board’ Economy Program,” Chicago Tribune, July 22, 1933, https://www.newspapers.com/image/355162248/?terms=%22James%20Joseph%20Burke%22&match=1.

9. Wendy Plotkin, “Deeds of Mistrust,” 122-123. 

10. Wendy Plotkin, “Deeds of Mistrust,” 116-117.

11. Truman K. Gibson, Jr., Knocking Down Barriers, 46. 

12. Truman K. Gibson, Jr., Knocking Down Barriers, 45-46. 

13. Burke v. Kleiman, 277 Ill. App. 519 (Ill. App. Ct. 1934) https://casetext.com/case/burke-v-kleiman-1.

Bibliography

Burke v. Kleiman, 277 Ill. App. 519 (Ill. App. Ct. 1934) https://casetext.com/case/burke-v-kleiman-1.

Gibson, Truman K. Jr. and Huntley, Steve. Knocking Down Barriers: My Fight for Black America. (Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press, 2005).

“James J Burke in the U.S., City Directories, 1822-1995.” Tulsa City Directory 1922. https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/919022348:2469.

“James J Burke in the 1920 United States Federal Census.” 1920 U.S. Census. Ancestry. https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/105294763:6061?tid=&pid=&queryId=3392d9ac-b768-437f-8af0-2366c38fded9&_phsrc=BAV10&_phstart=successSource.

“James J Burke in the 1930 United States Federal Census.” 1930 U.S. Census. Ancestry. https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/85158998:6224?tid=&pid=&queryId=9e35d7bf-46cc-4fae-a0d2-0adab42c49ec&_phsrc=BAV2&_phstart=successSource.

Kinsley, Philip. “More Letters Praise School Board’ Economy Program.” Chicago Tribune, July 22, 1933. https://www.newspapers.com/image/355162248/?terms=%22James%20Joseph%20Burke%22&match=1.

Plotkin, Wendy. “Deeds of Mistrust: Race, Housing, and Restrictive Covenants in Chicago, 1900-1953.” PhD diss., (University of Illinois at Chicago, 1999). https://search.library.northwestern.edu/permalink/01NWU_INST/p285fv/cdi_proquest_journals_304572637.

Price, Anna. “Hansberry v. Lee: The Supreme Court Case that Influence the Play “A Raisin in the Sun.”” Library of Congress Blogs, January 24, 2023. https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2023/01/hansberry-v-lee-the-supreme-court-case-that-influenced-the-play-a-raisin-in-the-sun/.

Scruggs, Dylan. “Burke v. Kleiman & The Chicago Covenants.” Virginia Tech University. December 8, 2021. 
Waters, Enoc P. Jr. “Hansberry Decree Opens 500 New Homes to Race.” The Chicago Defender, November 23, 1940. http://turing.library.northwestern.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/historical-newspapers/hansberry-decree-opens-500-new-homes-race/docview/492644719/se-2?accountid=12861.

Harold I. Kahen, Civil Rights and Corporate Lawyer, Dies at 101

by Reagan Tobias

Harold Kahen, who played an instrumental role in creating the legal argument which ended racially restrictive covenants, passed away on March 30, 2020, in New York City from possible COVID-19 complications at the age of 101. Mr. Kahen’s groundbreaking legal argument, written when he was only 27, assisted NAACP lawyers in arguing that judicial enforcement of racially restrictive covenants was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, essentially ending the practice of restrictive covenants. In addition to his virtually unknown civil rights work, Mr. Kahen’s hard work and dedication to his legal craft led him to becoming a celebrated New York corporate lawyer.

Mr. Kahen was born in Chicago, Illinois on August 14, 1918. His father, Gabriel Kahen and mother, Jennie, emigrated from Russia in 1905. After Mr. Kahen’s birth his parents settled in the West Side of Chicago in the neighborhood of North Lawndale. Mr. Kahen and his sister, Florence Kahen grew up in an industrial neighborhood that was home to McCormick Reaper Works and Sears. By the time the Kahens had settled in the area, North Lawndale was home to a large population of Eastern European Jewish immigrants and by the time Mr. Kahen was twelve, half of North Lawndale’s residents were Russian Jews. The area was dotted with Synagogues and social and community services and was the center of Chicago’s Jewish community. Mr. Kahen grew up surrounded by neighbors that shared his faith and instilled in him the importance of bettering the community.

Mr. Kahen attended Harrison Technical High School in Chicago, Illinois. Throughout his time at Harrison, Mr. Kahen was very involved in his school’s community and was a member of many student organizations. Mr. Kahen was a part of the League of Nations, the Honor Society, Student Forum, and the Stamp Club. He also held leadership positions in his school. Mr. Kahen was a Chairman for his Harrison’s student executive body: The Student Leader’s Round Table, which was involved in bettering both the school and the community. Mr. Kahen was a part of Harrison High’s city-wide cleanup team and was the chairman for the ways and means committee in 1933. In addition to being a part of these community improvement groups, Mr. Kahen was the secretary of the Physical Science Club and Captain of the Hall Guards. Mr. Kahen’s commitment to leadership and his hardworking attitude can be seen throughout his life as he went on to hold other leadership positions later in his life, such as Vice President of The New York Metropolitan Region United Synagogue of America and as a member of the board of his synagogue.

In 1938, Mr. Kahen graduated from the University of Chicago with a Bachelor of Arts and from the University of Chicago Law School in 1940. After graduating with a law degree, he worked as a special assistant to Federal Circuit Court Judge, Evan A. Evans. However, with World War II looming, Mr. Kahen enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1942. By 1945 he was stationed at Camp Ellis, Illinois. While stationed there, the University of Chicago Law Review published his article, “Validity of Anti-Negro Restrictive Covenants: A Reconsideration of the Problem.” Mr. Kahen’s article helped to inform the legal argument of Shelley’s lawyers in the 1948 Supreme Court case, Shelley v. Kraemer, and of the associated cases Sipes v. McGhee, Hurd v. Hodge, and Hurd v. Urciolo. The rulings ended judicial enforcement of racially restrictive convents.

Racially restrictive covenants were private agreements entered into by white neighbors to prevent racial and ethnic minorities from purchasing homes in their neighborhoods. White neighbors signed a legal contract agreeing not to sell their homes to a person of color and to specify on their home’s deed that the home could only be bought by a white person. Judicial action had repeatedly upheld covenants because they were private agreements, principally in the case Corrigan v. Buckley, from 1926. However, Mr. Kahen’s article argued that the upholding of covenants by the judicial system was state sanctioned discrimination and therefore violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Mr. Kahen also argued that the social cost of covenants was severe and urged the courts to address the problem. His arguments offered both an innovative and original argument to be used by Shelley’s lawyers when the case reached the Supreme Court. The Shelleys had originally been prevented from purchasing a home in the Kraemers’ neighborhood after the judicial enforcement of a racial covenant. The Shelleys appealed the decision all the way to the Supreme Court, which was to hear the case in 1948.

Mr. Kahen’s work brought him the attention of the NAACP, which was assisting the Shelley family in their suit. In September of 1947, Mr. Kahen attended an NAACP conference in New York which had been convened by Thurgood Marshall and Charles Hamilton Houston to craft a strong legal argument challenging the constitutionality of racially restrictive covenants. Mr. Kahen was vocal at the conference and discussed his belief that covenants were damaging to the social well-being of African Americans. He advocated for sociological research that explored the social cost of covenants that could be published and utilized by lawyers fighting restrictive covenants. Mr. Kahen agreed to be a part of the 9-person committee whose task was to create a document that outlined the social and economic effects of covenants. The committee produced the largest amount of sociological data that had ever been used in a Civil Rights case. In addition to his committee work, Mr. Kahen filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Shelley family and worked pro-bono for the NAACP during this time. Kahen’s argument proved to be successful. The court ruled that private covenants could exist but courts could not enforce these documents without violating the Equal Protection Clause, which effectively ended the practice racially restrictive covenants. Mr. Kahen’s influence cannot be overstated. His legal work provided the NAACP with a groundbreaking legal argument that helped to end racially restrictive covenants.

While assisting the NAACP, Mr. Kahen was a newlywed. Kahen married Florence Gold on November 2, 1946. The two had three children, David Kahen, the late Daniel Kahen, and Deborah Kayman. Mr. Kahen’s son, David Kahen, recalls biking around their neighborhood with his father and exploring and helping his father with projects around the house. David remembers his father as having an “inquisitive mind” and was a “perfectionist” who expected the best from himself and those who worked with him. These qualities helped Mr. Kahen in his career and brought him recognition in the legal community. Mr. Kahen was a member of The Association of the Bar of the City of New York on the Committee on Law Reform from 1955-1958 and the Committee on Securities Regulation from 1962-1966 and on the New York State Committee on Corporations from 1976-1984.

In his adult life, Mr. Kahen was still deeply involved with his community and faith. Rabbi Jonathan Waxman, the son of a lifelong friend of Mr. Kahen, remembers Mr. Kahen at holiday meals and his refusal to let a snowstorm stop him from attending the Rabbi’s wedding. David Kahen, described his father as “a presence” and a person who people tended not to forget after meeting him. Mr. Kahen certaintly made a mark on every community he was a part of. During his long life, Mr. Kahen left his mark on the civil rights movement, his high school, his Jewish community, and on everyone who knew him. Mr. Kahen is buried in Montefiore Cemetery in Queens, New York.