# Sam Ervin *Democratic United States senator from North Carolina, named in the* Congressional Record *of February 22, 1972, in the Senate's school-busing dispute.* Sam J. Ervin Jr., a Democratic senator from North Carolina, enters this record through the *Congressional Record* of February 22, 1972, the day the Senate's morning business turned to school busing.[^1] A news article printed in the Record that day names him as the leader of Southern senators pressing an amendment to bar busing.[^1] The same pages carry his floor statement that he would use every procedure the Senate rules allow to force a direct vote on the issue.[^2] The record holds no biography of Ervin, no Minnesota office, and no Minnesota instrument he sponsored, voted on or signed. It does not document his position on the [[Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972]]. That Act was enacted on March 24, 1972, a month after his statement. It inserted "governments, governmental agencies, political subdivisions," into section 701 of the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]], bringing public employers within [[Title VII]].[^3] Those amended definitions underlie the one active federal matter in the Minnesota record. On January 14, 2026, the United States filed *United States of America v. State of Minnesota* (D. Minn., No. 0:26-cv-00273). The complaint alleges that the State's affirmative action statutes and rules for its civil service amount to a pattern or practice of discrimination under Title VII. It pleads that [[Minnesota]] is a "person" and an "employer" as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a)–(b).[^4] The record carries the complaint as filed and no later ruling.[^4] ## Who The Record identifies him as "Sen. Sam J. Ervin Jr. (D-N.C.)".[^1] The other senators in the February 22 exchange were these: * Senate Republican leader Hugh Scott and Democratic leader Mike Mansfield, who had drafted a joint, bipartisan amendment on busing.[^5] * Sen. James B. Allen of Alabama, who spoke against that amendment.[^6] Allen had opened the day's session in the chair on the written designation of President pro tempore [[Allen J. Ellender]].[^7] The busing provisions the Senate amendment would displace came from two House members. Rep. John M. Ashbrook, Republican of Ohio, sponsored a ban on federal funds for busing to achieve racial desegregation. Rep. Edith Green, Democrat of Oregon, sponsored a stricter provision aimed at all federal agencies.[^5] ## What According to the article printed in the Record, Ervin led Southern senators who planned "to press for a vote on their amendment to the higher education bill to bar school districts from busing to alter racial composition."[^1] The same article reported that antibusing moderates of both parties might try to substitute a less binding proposal for the Ervin amendment.[^1] A *[[New York Times]]* article by John W. Finney, also printed in the Record, described the Scott–Mansfield amendment as "designed to offset the growing pressure for a constitutional amendment" against busing for racial balance.[^5] Under it, busing would remain permitted as one way to overcome officially imposed segregation. Courts and federal agencies would face policy limits on busing aimed purely at racial balance. Federal busing funds would be barred unless a school district carrying out a court-ordered or voluntary desegregation plan asked for them.[^5] Allen told the Senate the proposal was not a compromise but "a probusing amendment."[^6] ## When The Senate met at 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday, February 22, 1972. It recessed at 10:48 a.m. and reassembled at 11:01 a.m., with Sen. Thomas Eagleton presiding. Allen's busing remarks and Ervin's statement followed in morning business.[^7] Allen dated the articles he placed in the Record: the *New York Times* of Tuesday, February 22, and the *[[Washington Post]]* of Monday, February 21, 1972.[^6] The Times article reported that the Scott–Mansfield amendment would be offered when the Senate took up the education bill, "probably later this week."[^5] ## Where The exchange took place on the floor of the United States Senate.[^7] Ervin described the schoolchildren of his own state and of many other states as subject at that moment to bureaucratic and judicial tyranny.[^2] The same day's Record also shows a Minnesota senator at work on an unrelated bill: Sen. Hubert Humphrey, introduced as the junior Senator from Minnesota, cosponsored S. 3205. The bill would provide Oxon Hill Manor as the official residence of the Vice President.[^7] ## Why Ervin stated his own reasons on the floor. He said he considered "restoring the freedom of little children and their parents is the most important issue" before the American people.[^2] He said children were being bused "not for the purpose of enlightening their minds, but merely for the purpose of integrating their bodies."[^2] The Times article gave the Scott–Mansfield drafters' stated purpose. They wanted to "impress upon the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and the courts" that Congress accepted busing as "a remedy of last resort" against officially imposed segregation, but disfavored its broader use for racial balance.[^5] The record shows these stated reasons. It does not establish any senator's purposes beyond them. ## How Ervin named the method he would use. He invoked the rule that "the rules of the Senate permit us to offer substitutes for every Senate bill." Such a substitute strikes everything after the enacting clause and so forces a direct vote on busing.[^2] He said, "I will adopt every means the rules permit," and that he would "never again agree to any unanimous consent request to place time limitations on any piece of legislation in which I have a substantial interest."[^2] He pledged to press for "a direct vote on this issue" through the end of the session. He added that "if the Good Lord spares me, I will take up the fight again at the beginning of the next session."[^2] ## How much The Times article described the education bill on which the amendments were to be offered. It would provide $700 million a year in federal aid to colleges and universities and $1.5 billion in emergency aid to schools that were desegregating.[^5] The record carries no dollar figure attributable to Ervin himself.[^1] ## In the Minnesota record The record ties none of the following to Ervin. It is set out because the 1972 Act and the 2026 complaint against the State form the Minnesota material in this record.[^3][^4] ### What The 1972 Act was titled "An Act to further promote equal employment opportunities for American workers."[^3] It made several changes to Title VII: * It defined an "employer" as a person with fifteen or more employees.[^3] * Where conciliation with a government, governmental agency or political subdivision failed, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was to refer the case to the Attorney General, who could sue in federal district court.[^8] * It authorized courts that find intentional violations to "order such affirmative action as may be appropriate".[^8] * A new section 718 required a hearing before a federal contract could be withheld from an employer whose affirmative action plan the Government had accepted within the preceding twelve months.[^8] In *United Steelworkers of America v. Weber*, decided June 27, 1979, the Supreme Court held that Title VII's prohibition "does not condemn all private, voluntary, race-conscious affirmative action plans." Because that plan involved no state action, the Court noted that the case presented no claim under the [[Equal Protection Clause]].[^9] The 2026 complaint describes the later course of the law in three steps. It says the Court extended *Weber* to public employers and sex-based plans in *Johnson* (1987). It says the Court then directed in *[[Bostock v. Clayton County]]* (2020) that "[o]nly the written word is the law".[^10] Finally, it says Minnesota's laws were "enacted around the time" of *Weber* and *Johnson*.[^10] The complaint sets the State's stated purposes beside its mechanisms under the heading *Minnesota's Statutory and Regulatory Affirmative Action Regime*.[^11] According to the complaint: * **Stated purpose.** [[Minn. Stat. § 43A.19]] gives the statewide program the purpose of "assur[ing] that positions in the executive branch of the civil service are equally accessible to all qualified persons".[^11] * **Rule.** Minn. R. 3905.0100 requires "consideration of affirmative action goals on all staffing and personnel decisions".[^11] * **Protected groups.** Minn. Stat. § 43A.02, subd. 33, defines them as "females, persons with disabilities, and members of the following minorities: Black, Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander, and American Indian or Alaskan native."[^11] * **Numerical goals.** Agency heads set numerical goals and timetables wherever a unit underutilizes a protected group.[^11] [[Minnesota Management and Budget]] instructs agencies to calculate a "Final Availability" figure, also called "What We Should Look Like."[^11] * **Justification.** Under [[Minn. Stat. § 43A.191]], subd. 3(c), managers must "justify its nonaffirmative action hires" on a pre-hire form.[^11] * **Audit.** The Commissioner audits agencies annually and reports to the [[governor]] any agency that misses its requirements two years running.[^11] The [[Minnesota Department of Human Services]] policy attached to the complaint as Exhibit B is Policy No. 4100.250. It states its purpose as "to ensure DHS meets affirmative action responsibilities to comply with state statutes and must increase the diversity of its workforce to reflect and effectively serve its client base."[^12] Its operative rule reads: "Hiring supervisors must provide a hiring justification when seeking to hire a non-underrepresented candidate when hiring for a vacancy in a job category with underrepresentation."[^12] No offer may be made to such a candidate before the department's Equal Opportunity and Access Division approves the justification. Supervisors must interview at least three underrepresented candidates when the pool contains three or more.[^12] ### Who The complaint was signed for the United States by Daniel N. Rosen, United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota, and by Harmeet K. Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General, with attorneys of the Civil Rights Division of the [[United States Department of Justice]].[^13] The civil cover sheet lists [[Keith Ellison]], Attorney General of Minnesota, and Assistant Attorney General Nick Pladson for the State, and gives Ramsey County as the defendant's county of residence.[^13] The DHS policy was signed by Andrew Petroski, Director of the department's Equal Opportunity and Access Division.[^12] The record does not state when, or under which legislative majorities and governors, §§ 43A.19 and 43A.191 were enacted or last amended.[^11] ### When The 1972 Act is dated March 24, 1972.[^3] The complaint traces the Attorney General's authority to sue under section 707 to Executive Order No. 12068 of June 30, 1978.[^10] The DHS policy carries an initial date of June 17, 2025, an issue date of July 1, 2025, and an effective date of August 12, 2025. It superseded DHS policy 4100.005, effective May 6, 2014.[^12] The complaint was filed on January 14, 2026.[^4] ### How The complaint pleads two counts: * **Count 1:** a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of section 703(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).[^14] * **Count 2:** limiting, segregating and classifying employees in violation of section 703(a)(2).[^14] It asks for expedited proceedings before a three-judge court under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6(b). It seeks a declaratory judgment, a permanent injunction, equitable relief for affected employees and applicants, and costs.[^14] The complaint also records the State's stated position. Minnesota has expressed that its plans are required by §§ 43A.19 and 43A.191, are prospective and analysis-driven, and are designed to remedy manifest underutilization.[^12] The United States answers that "Minnesota identifies no prior or present discrimination to justify" these policies, and so alleges that they fail even under the *Weber*–*Johnson* framework.[^12] These are allegations. The record carries no adjudication of them.[^4] ## Notes [^1]: U.S. Congress, *Congressional Record*, Senate, vol. 118, pt. 4, p. 4832 (February 22, 1972) — news article on Sen. Hugh Scott's busing interview, printed at Sen. Allen's request; names Sen. Sam J. Ervin Jr. (D-N.C.) as leading Southern senators on an amendment to bar busing. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1972-pt4/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1972-pt4-6-1.pdf [^2]: U.S. Congress, *Congressional Record*, Senate, vol. 118, pt. 4, p. 4832 (February 22, 1972) — Sen. Ervin's floor statement on substitute amendments, unanimous-consent time limits and a direct vote on busing. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1972-pt4/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1972-pt4-6-1.pdf [^3]: U.S. Congress, *Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972*, Pub. L. 92-261, 86 Stat. 103, §§ 1–2 (March 24, 1972) — short title, date, and amendment of Civil Rights Act § 701 to cover governments and to define "employer" at fifteen or more employees. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-86/pdf/STATUTE-86-Pg103.pdf [^4]: United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, *United States of America v. State of Minnesota*, Complaint, No. 0:26-cv-00273, Doc. 1, pp. 1, 5 (filed January 14, 2026) — filing date, caption, docket, three-judge court request, and the State pleaded as "person" and "employer." https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1423361/dl [^5]: U.S. Congress, *Congressional Record*, Senate, vol. 118, pt. 4, pp. 4831–4832 (February 22, 1972) — *New York Times* article by John W. Finney printed in the Record, on the Scott–Mansfield amendment, the Ashbrook and Green House provisions, and the education bill's funding. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1972-pt4/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1972-pt4-6-1.pdf [^6]: U.S. Congress, *Congressional Record*, Senate, vol. 118, pt. 4, pp. 4830–4831 (February 22, 1972) — Sen. James B. Allen's remarks on the Scott–Mansfield proposal and his request to print the February 22 *New York Times* and February 21 *Washington Post* articles. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1972-pt4/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1972-pt4-6-1.pdf [^7]: U.S. Congress, *Congressional Record*, Senate, vol. 118, pt. 4, pp. 4829–4833 (February 22, 1972) — session times, Ellender's designation of Allen, recess and reassembly under Eagleton, and introduction of S. 3205 with Sen. Humphrey of Minnesota as cosponsor. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1972-pt4/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1972-pt4-6-1.pdf [^8]: U.S. Congress, *Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972*, Pub. L. 92-261, 86 Stat. 103, §§ 4, 13 (March 24, 1972) — Title VII § 706(f)(1) referral of government respondents to the Attorney General, § 706(g) affirmative-action remedy, and new § 718 on contracts and affirmative action plans. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-86/pdf/STATUTE-86-Pg103.pdf [^9]: Supreme Court of the United States, *United Steelworkers of America v. Weber*, 443 U.S. 193 (decided June 27, 1979) — holding on voluntary private affirmative action plans under Title VII; no state action presented. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/443/193 [^10]: United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, *United States of America v. State of Minnesota*, Complaint, No. 0:26-cv-00273, ¶¶ 3–14 (filed January 14, 2026) — the United States' account of *Weber*, *Johnson* and *Bostock*, the timing of Minnesota's laws, and Executive Order No. 12068. https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1423361/dl [^11]: United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, *United States of America v. State of Minnesota*, Complaint, No. 0:26-cv-00273, ¶¶ 11, 20–44 (filed January 14, 2026) — the complaint's quotations of Minn. Stat. §§ 43A.02, 43A.19, 43A.191 and Minn. R. ch. 3905 and of MMB guidance. https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1423361/dl [^12]: United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, *United States of America v. State of Minnesota*, Complaint ¶¶ 45–55 and Ex. B (DHS Policy No. 4100.250), No. 0:26-cv-00273 (filed January 14, 2026) — the DHS policy's purpose, rules, dates, signer and supersession; the State's stated position; the United States' allegations. https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1423361/dl [^13]: United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, *United States of America v. State of Minnesota*, Complaint signature page and Civil Cover Sheet, No. 0:26-cv-00273, Docs. 1, 1-3 (filed January 14, 2026) — counsel for the parties and the defendant's county. https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1423361/dl [^14]: United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, *United States of America v. State of Minnesota*, Complaint ¶¶ 17, 56–72 and Prayer for Relief, No. 0:26-cv-00273 (filed January 14, 2026) — Counts 1 and 2 and the relief sought. https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1423361/dl