It often takes history a long time to catch up with its good intentions, and one area where that’s particularly so is in civil rights. More than a half century after Brown versus Board of Education, the federal government is still wrangling with how to enforce the intent of that Supreme Court ruling finding discrimination based on race illegal.

In the media business it’s been especially slow going. 

It was just weeks ago that the Federal Communication Commission set about to give teeth to a ban on media buys that discriminate against black- and Hispanic-targeted radio and TV stations.

Years ago, no-urban or no-Hispanic clauses were common in media buys. The America of the 1950s and '60s, was much more racially divided, and that only began to change after the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 banning racial discrimination.

“Prior to Civil Rights Act, many [advertisers] didn’t want to be seen as encouraging minorities to come to their stores,” says David Honig, co-founder of the Minority Media & Telecom Council, which tracks discrimination issues.

While such discrimination has diminished greatly, it still exists, and Honig estimates it costs minority-owned stations upwards of $200 million in annual revenue. “There are research studies that document the hit minority broadcasters take is between 5 percent and 10 percent of their annual income.”

Which sorts of advertisers still impose no-urban or no-Hispanic clauses?

It runs the gamut from car dealerships to cruise lines, to jewelry stores and amusement parks, according to Honig, though they typically are smaller local business rather than nation brands.

No-urban or no-Hispanic clauses were officially prohibited by the FCC in its 2007 Diversity Order, but the order laid out no terms of enforcement. In its most recent action, the agency informed broadcasters that it planned to begin enforcing that order when the new cycle of broadcast license renewals kicks off in June.

Broadcasters will have to sign a form confirming their advertising sales efforts, and those of anyone selling on the station’s behalf, such as a rep firm, will not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.

They will also have to add a nondiscrimination clause to their advertising contracts.

In effect, the FCC will attempt to discourage discrimination on the part of advertisers working through stations, holding stations accountable—and punishable—for illegal behavior on the part of people who do business with them.

That’s certainly asking a lot of stations. In theory, a white-owned station receiving business from a local advertiser would be responsible for knowing that the advertiser had not excluded minority-owned stations from the buy.

It’s also not clear yet what sort of punishment a station might receive; the FCC has yet to announce any guidelines or penalties.

Just what it all means for media buyers is also not clear.

At the least, it puts them in a position of advising clients against the use of no-urban or no-Hispanic clauses. “They may not know,” says Honig. “You can also explain that the broadcasters can wind up in trouble for accepting the advertising.”

But in the end, Honig sees great benefit from the FCC’s toughening stand on discrimination, however late in coming. It gives everyone in the media business that much more reason to be sensitive to discrimination, and it gives groups like the Minority Media & Telecom Council greater powers to monitor and report cases where minority stations are shut out of certain buys.

“This is a way to end racism in commerce and a chance for broadcasters to serve the entire public and show how eager they are to be."