For nearly a century, the American Jewish Committee has been on the frontlines in the battle for civil rights, working for equality through legislation, advocacy and media campaigns. Civil rights for Jews and all Americans is one of the most important areas of concern for AJC, and has been since its founding in 1906. AJC seeks to protect the rights and freedoms of Jews the world over, combats bigotry and anti-Semitism, and promotes human rights for all. AJC also advocates public policy positions rooted in American democratic values and the perspectives of the Jewish heritage. Specifically, AJC is unalterably opposed to discrimination based on race, religion, ethnic group, gender, marital status, or sexual orientation, whether in employment, education, housing, or public accommodations. 

A Dream Worth Sharing chronicles the AJC's work in the struggle for civil rights, a struggle AJC has championed for nearly 100 years. Since its early days, AJC has used legal and media campaigns, advocacy, and activism to help people achieve equality in the United States. Click here to view the moving 9-minute documentary.

Click here to read AJC's statement marking the 40th anniversary of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech.

Highlights of recent civil rights activity include:

50 Years Later: The Legacy of Brown v. Board of Education.

As the nation recently marked the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision that called for an end to segregation in public schools, a decision that changed the social and political fabric of our country, AJC remembers the fight to achieve that landmark and its subsequent work to further its legacy.  An AJC-commissioned study by Dr. Kenneth Clark, "Effects of Prejudice and Discrimination on Personality Development," was cited by Chief Justice Earl Warren in the historic Brown decision.

Affirmative Action

AJC historically has supported a wide range of affirmative action measures designed to recruit, train and promote those who have been disadvantaged and discriminated against in the past. While AJC recognizes that specific problems in the implementation of affirmative action need to be rectified, affirmative action will remain necessary so long as discrimination continues to plague our society. 

AJC rejects rigid quotas, but, as a temporary measure, supports flexible goals and timetables, and, where there has been a demonstrated pattern of discrimination, moderate, selectively applied preferences. Affirmative action should not mean hiring, promoting, or admitting unqualified persons for or to anything. Thus, AJC opposes "race norming," the separate scoring of aptitude tests for racial minorities and whites based on percentile performance within each group.

Since our ideal remains a society free of racism and sexism, where every individual may realize his or her potential to the fullest based on merit, group rights must not prevail over individual rights. A thoughtful and well-balanced affirmative action policy is an important tool in achieving that idea.

In 2003, AJC took the lead in filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan cases, Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the Supreme Court upheld affirmative action programs. In the brief, AJC asserted that "diversity not only provides all students with a richer educational experience, but also prepares them for participation in our pluralistic democracy," and that "exposure in universities to those of diverse backgrounds and experiences will better equip those graduates who go on to become the leaders of our future."

Click here to read AJC's brief in Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger.

Same Sex Unions

AJC has adopted a position opposing the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would (1) restrict marriage to the union of a man and a woman, and (2) preclude the construction of the federal or any state constitution as requiring that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than a union of a man and a woman. The basis for this position is AJC's belief that such an amendment would enshrine discrimination into our social fabric.  In addition, without comment on state recognition of same sex marriage per se, AJC believes that same sex couples who choose to enter into domestic arrangements such as civil unions should be afforded the same legal rights, benefits, protections and obligations conferred upon heterosexual couples who enter into civil marriage.

Click here to read AJC's Resolution Regarding Same Sex Unions.

Click here to read AJC's Resolution on Constitutional Amendment Regarding Marriage.

Principles on Poverty in America

For decades, AJC has been a clear voice advocating for policies that close gaps existing between the diverse racial, ethnic and religious communities in the U.S., as well as address issues related to the problem of poverty. The agency has also recognized that the "burdens of poverty" have fallen most heavily on people of color in this country. In the aftermath of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, and the ensuing exposure, once again, of the racial and economic fissures in American society, AJC developed a policy statement on the issue so as play a constructive advocacy role in diminishing these divides and alleviating the suffering and instability that exist where race and poverty intersect in America.

Click here to read AJC's Statement of Principles on Poverty in America.

Capital Punishment

While Jewish Biblical tradition mandates the imposition of capital punishment under certain rare circumstances, rabbinical interpretation of that tradition has required such procedural assurances with respect to the application of the death penalty that rabbinical interpretation, in effect, virtually prohibits it. Thus, AJC opposes capital punishment in general as cruel, unjust and incompatible with the dignity and self-respect of man.

The agency's belief that capital punishment "degrades and brutalizes the society which practices it" resulted in its joining an amicus brief in Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988), in which the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibits the execution of those who commit capital crimes while under the age of 16.

AJC has also filed briefs more recently in two landmark Supreme Court cases involving capital punishment:  Atkins v. Virginia (2002), in which the Court held that the Eighth Amendment bars execution of persons with mental retardation, and Roper v. Simmons (2005), in which the Court ruled that executing individuals who were under the age of 18 at the time they committed a capital crime violates the Eighth Amendment.  In both cases, AJC filed briefs together with a diverse coalition of religious communities, urging the court to consider the voices of religious and religiously affiliated institutions when assessing "evolving standards of decency," the standard for reviewing Eighth Amendment claims. 

Click here to read AJC's brief in Roper v. Simmons (pdf).