EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 1962 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LABOR OF THE The subcommittee met at 10:25 a.m., pursuant to adjournment, in room 429, Old House Office Building, Hon. James Roosevelt (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Representatives Roosevelt, Dent, Smith, Ayres, and Hiestand. Also present: Representatives Vanik and Keith. Don Lowe, subcommittee director; Adrienne Fields, subcommittee clerk; Richard Burress, minority clerk, Committee on Education and Labor; Leon Abramson, assistant counsel, Investigative Task Force, Committee on Education and Labor; and Tamara Wall, assistant counsel, Committee on Education and Labor. Mr. ROOSEVELT. The committee will come to order, please. The committee this morning has the pleasure of welcoming as a very distinguished guest, Mr. Franz Olah, the president of the Austrian Trade Union Federation. Mr. Olah, I want to welcome you to our hearing and to tell you that inasmuch as you have been in the position of deputy chairman of the Austrian Socialist Party and Vice President of the Austrian Parliament, a member of the coalition committee, perhaps much of what goes on here will already be familiar to you. I would say just in passing, for the benefit of my Republican colleague on this side, that Mr. Olah resigned his parliamentarian position due to a dispute over the Federal budget. I am not suggesting that my colleague on this side do that but I want to point out it was done out of a matter of principle. We are happy to have him here because we, too, are studying a matter of principle. Our first witness this morning is Mr. Lewis H. Weinstein, the chairman of the National Community Relations Advisory Council. I want to welcome you here, Mr. Weinstein, as an old friend from Massachusetts days and to tell you we are very happy to have you with us, sir. We apologize for the delay in getting started. I apologize to my Republican colleagues, also. The President invited a number of us to have coffee with him this morning and I am sure they will forgive me if I say we took advantage of it. Mr. Weinstein, why don't you proceed, sir? Make yourself comfortable. 905 STATEMENT OF LEWIS H. WEINSTEIN, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL COMMUNITY RELATIONS ADVISORY COUNCIL Mr. WEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. The chairman was good enough to refer to my hometown, home State of Massachusetts. The National Community Relations Advisory Council which I have the honor to serve as chairman, which I will call NCRAC, is a policy-forming and coordinating agency for six major national Jewish organizations and 60 State, county, and local Jewish councils in all parts of the United States. Among the constituent national organizations of the National Community Relations Advisory Council are congregational bodies representing the three wings of religious Judaism-the Union of American Hebrew Congregations (reform), the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, and the United Synagogue of America (conservative)-and organizations reflecting various civic interests-the American Jewish Congress, the Jewish Labor Committee, and the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America. All the constituent organizations of the National Community Relations Advisory Council, national and local, seek to promote good Jewish community relations. That is to say, they seek to create conditions in which individual Jews may enjoy equality of rights and opportunities with all other individual members of society and in which the Jewish group, as a group, may foster its distinctive group values while participating fully with other groups in the general life of our Nation. We are convinced that equal opportunity for Jews and a distinctive Jewish group life are best assured in a society which accords equality and justice to all, and in which individual freedoms and religious liberties are secure. Accordingly, we seek to foster equality of opportunity for all without regard to race, color, religion, or origin; to promote religious freedom and separation of church and state; to advance freedom of speech, press, and assembly; and to encourage amicable relationships among groups with respect for difference. Discrimination in employment is an old story insofar as Jews are concerned. In our country, happily, Jews confront no legal bars to equal economic opportunity, nor are they subjected to the indignities of legally enforced segregation suffered by Negroes and other Americans of color. Discrimination, however, as we all know, takes many forms other than legally imposed restrictions; and the occupational structure of Jews in the United States derives in no small measure from the discriminatory barriers that have been imposed against Jewish jobseekers. The final report of the President's Committee on Government Contracts, covering 7 years of operation through 1960, shows that of all complaints filed with the Committee, 23.4 percent charged discrimination on the basis of religion and that, of these, almost all involved discrimination against Jews. Similarly, a review of reports of State fair employment practice agencies reveals that the second most numerous category of complaints alleged discrimination against Jews. Yet complaints do not constitute an adequate index of discrimination. Contrary to the common assumption that minorities tend to be overly sensitive and to complain of discrimination where it does not in fact exist, we know that many of those who do encounter discrimination are unwilling to file complaints, either because they are reluctant to become further involved in unpleasant experiences, for fear that they may endanger opportunities for future employment; because the aggrieved individuals are unfamiliar with the remedies and channels for redress available, or because they feel that followup will prove futile. While discrimination against Jews may be more pronounced in certain industries than others, what is more striking is the extent to which such discrimination cuts across industrial lines. Herein lies one of the striking and distinguishing characteristics of discrimination against Jews. For the unique pattern of discrimination against Jews derives principally from the fact that it follows no set pattern. Discrimination against Jews varies industry by industry, firm by firm within each industry, department by department within each firm. Jews are found at every level of occupation and are similarly discriminated against at every occupational level. One industry will accept Jews in sales positions while another will accept Jews at every level except sales. Discrimination against Jews, unlike discrimination against Negroes, is rarely manifested in a policy of complete exclusion, or even in a conscious policy of token employment. Some Jewish workers, occasionally in high positions, will be found in most large firms. Attempts at investigation, therefore, almost invariably are countered by references to such employees, and questions about departmental or occupational breakdowns are easily turned aside with the statement that such figures are not available. But while the deletion of references to religion from application forms provides discriminatory employers with a readymade alibi, such data as surnames, residential neighborhood, and parents' nationality are clues by which Jewish jobseekers easily can be and frequently are singled out and discriminated against. The subtlety with which discrimination against Jews is practiced, the difficulty of obtaining statistical proof, the known success of individual Jews, the lack of widespread unemployment, the greater severity of discrimination against Negroes, all have tended to obscure the extent to which Jews are denied equality of job opportunity. As Jews, we are committed by immemorial tradition to a deep regard for the sanctity and inviolability of the individual person. From this tradition we derive a special concern for the preservation of human rights. This concern is to us an expression of faith, and of a venerable cultural heritage. Even if Jews enjoyed full equality, therefore, we would still be concerned about discrimination against any group on grounds of race, color, religion, or origin. Our support of Federal fair employment legislation is of long standing. Indeed, the very first meeting of the plenum of the NCRAČ in 1944 adopted a resolution in favor of such legislation. Subsequent meetings of the plenum, which is the delegated representative body of all the constituent organizations, both national and local, have adopted similar resolution. We have testified in favor of Federal fair employment legislation at every hearing on such legislation conducted under the auspices of Senate and House committees. Just as advocacy of such legislation is not new to us, so the con sideration of such legislation is not new to the Congress. Bills for the prohibition of employment discrimination have been introduced into every Congress since the 78th. Hundreds of witnesses, including religious leaders of all persuasions, constitutional authorities, sociologists, economists, labor leaders, and businessmen, have presented thousands of pages of testimony in support of such legislation. And every report that has issued from a House or Senate committee has recommended the enactment of fair employment legislation. In going through a number of these past reports last evening I looked at one of the 83d Congress which bore as a signatory Senator John F. Kennedy. As far back as 1944 the Republican Party platform pledged "The establishment by Federal legislation of a permanent fair employment practice commission." The Democratic Party platform as early as 1948 and as recently as 1960 contained equally explicit pledges. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Weinstein, the report which you referred to a minute ago signed by Mr. Kennedy, would you give us that just in case we have not had it presented to the committee for our records? Mr. WEINSTEIN. I will be delighted to. This is the one of the 83d Congress, 2d session. The heading is "Federal Equality of Opportunity in Employment Act." As I read the report of the committee there was only one disinterested member. All the rest signed it, headed by Senator Ives. Mr. ROOSEVELT. I will ask the staff director if he will make a report number available to the members of the subcommittee. Mr. WEINSTEIN. I was referring to the party platforms of the Democratic Party and Republican Party and referring last to the 1960 Democratic Party platform with the explicit pledge of the establishment by Federal legislation of the Fair Employment Practices Commission. In 1946 and again in 1950, a majority of the Senate expressed itself in favor of taking up such legislation. Yet, no fair employment practice bill has ever been brought to a vote in the Senate, because the filibuster has been employed to frustrate the purpose and the will of that body. In the House, despite favorable committee reports, the Rules Committee has never granted a rule to bring the question to the floor. Considering the foregoing history, the question before this committee would seem to be not why should such legislation be enacted by the present Congress, but, rather, what possible reasons can there be for not enacting such legislation. Can it be maintained that discrimination in employment has declined to such a point as to make the legislation unnecessary? Such a contention would be patently absurd. During the past several years, various aspects of the problem have been subjected to detailed study by both governmental and private agencies. Taken together, these studies constitute an unimpeachable body of objective evidence. Every such study, whether under public or private auspices, whether of a locality or of an industry, whether of hiring or upgrading, has led to the inescapable conclusion that discriminatory employment practices are widespread throughout the Nation. The substance of many of those studies has been reported to this committee by witnesses, including witness for some of the constituent |