Imágenes de páginas

this picture, we may be building a Frankenstein for future generations to deal with ?

Mr. ALLEX. I would say it is a package. We need to do both. We need to help people to prepare. We need to make sure that the doors are open to preparation for gainful employment.

I would not want to suggest or approve anything which would make the acquisition of training appear to be less important or even to be hazardous.

As a matter of fact, that very frustration which a person experiences when he cannot use his training can be channeled constructively to build support for subsequent action, the executive, administrative, or legislative, or whatever, to open doors which may remain closed. Perhaps I can make that a little clearer.

In the National Urban League, we carry on a great deal of work with young people, vocational guidance, career conferences, youth incentives, and motivation. We say to young people not that everything is rosy and perfect and that all will be well when they acquire their training; we say, get training, prepare for the future; not that things are now perfect, but that one of the most powerful instruments for opening doors now closed is the matter of full preparation. So we never suggest directly or indirectly that training is not important even though we know there may be some frustrations up the road.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I would agree with that and I would not want to belittle any part of the package, but if a package has a hole in it some place the whole package can well be destroyed.

Mr. ALLEN. The answer is to get the entire package.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Right. Mr. Allen, I want to again, on behalf of the committee, express our appreciation to you for your contribution. We look forward to your support as our efforts go into the next stage. Thank you very much.

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. ROOSEVELT. Without objection, the committee will accept for the record a statement by the Council for Equal Job Opportunity from Philadelphi, Pa., and the statement of the American Jewish Committee.

(The two documents referred to were accepted for the record without oral testimony.)


Since its organization in 1943, the Council for Equal Job Opportunity has been working to bring about an awareness in the Philadelphia area of the need for meeting the democratic obligation of providing fair and equal job opportunities for all persons. The council shall continue in the development and execution of programs that would help in the realization of this objective.

During the years since its organization CEJO has seen the enactment of a Philadelphia city ordinance prohibiting discrimination in employment. We participated in the drafting of this ordinance and worked to secure its passage in 1948. The council was greatly responsible for having secured the first fair employment practices bill to the General Assembly of Pennsylvania in 1947.

During the intervening years, we mobilized the organizations in the Philadelphia area in the support of a State FEPC until it was enacted in 1953. It is evident, therefore, that we are vitally concerned about the enactment of legislation that will eliminate discrimination in job opportunities based on race, religion, or national origin. The Federal Government has expressed concern about this problem over the past 20 years, dating back to 1941. With the issuing of Executive Order No. 8802, we have witnessed the concern of Government as expressed through its Chief Executives for the problem of discrimination in employment. Each succeeding President has issued such orders and they have been increasingly strengthened.

However, in spite of our city ordinance, State fair employment practice law and the intervention of Government through the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, we still have areas of employment discrimination that need to be eliminated. Many of the problems that presently exist cannot be tackled on a local or State level. They can only be solved through the administration of an effective Federal law that will be equally applicable to the entire Nation.

The Council for Equal Job Opportunity, therefore, strongly believes that the time has come for the Congress to enact legislation that will establish a permanent Fair Employment Practices Commission, with effective enforcement powers. We call upon the President and the leadership of both the Republican and Democratice Parties to endorse and support the enactment of legislation that will be effective and set forth the Federal Government's intention to provide equality of opportunity in employment for all of its citizens. Respectfully submitted.



Association of Philadelphia Settlements.
Fellowship House.
Greater Philadelphia Council of Churches, Community Services Department.
Human Rights Committee, AFL-CIO.
Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Philadelphia.
Junior chamber of commerce.
Presbyterian Board of Christian Education.
North Philadelphia Youth Employment Service.
Young Women's Christian Association.
Catholic Interracial Council.
Friends Commitee on Race Relations.
Jewish Labor Committee.
Lutheran Social Action Fellowship.
Union League of Philadelphia.
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom.

STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE The American Jewish Committee, a national educational organization with chapters and units in over 50 cities and members in over 600 communities in the United States, was organized in 1906 and incorporated by special act of the Legislature of the State of New York in 1911.

For more than 50 years, it has been a fundamental tenet of the American Jewish Committee that the welfare and security of Jews are inseparably linked to the welfare of all Americans, whatever their racial, religious, or ethnic background may be. We believe that an invasion of the civil rights of any group threatens the safety and well-being of all groups in our land. On the other hand, we also believe that the extension of legal controls to safeguard and expand equality of opportunity benefits the total society as well as those whose opportunities are specifically and directly protected. Hence, we are, and over the past 54 years as an agency we have been, concerned with the preservation and expansion of constitutional and legal safeguards for all.

This is not to imply that the American Jewish Committee believes that law, as a rule of conduct enforced by State sanction, is the sole and ultimate solution to all of society's evils. Law can, and we believe has, functioned effectively to reduce and discourage discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, and ancestry. “Discrimination” refers to conduct which differentiates among people in situations where racial, religious, and ethnic factors should be irrelevant-such as access to housing, education, employment, public accommodations, and health and welfare services. Clearly, law is a tried and tested means of removing artificial barriers to equality of opportunity. Thus, for example, 28 States now prohibit by law discrimination on the basis of race, color, or religion in places of public accommodation ;1 discrimination in the sale or rental of private housing is now prohibited by law in 9 States ; ? 20 States now have laws which prohibits discrimination in employment and establish administrative and judicial machinery to enforce such prohibitions ; : the Federal Government requires all its contracts for materials or services to contain a clause committing the contractor and his subcontractors to provide equality of employment opportunity in connection with work performed in fulfillment of such obligations.

These various laws against discrimination are enforced through the use of several different types of sanctions. Some States statutes impose civil penalties; others make nonconforming conduct criminal and subject violators to fines or imprisonment; while still others have established administrative agencies to deal with problems of discrimination. The administrative agency technique is relatively recent but it holds the most promise for success. Such agencies are generally directed to conduct educational programs in addition to performing their compliance or enforcement functions. Also, many cases of actual discrimination are settled by conciliation and conference to the satisfaction of all parties, including the Commission. In fact, most cases of probable cause are settled in this fashion and very few indeed require public hearings or ceaseand-desist orders. Finally, the Federal Government has the power to terminate its contracts or to refuse to deal in the future with any contractor who breaches the provision not to discriminate in employment on Government contracts.

As we have said, law has been used effectively to remove artificially erected barriers to equality of opportunity. It is doubtful whether law can be used directly to combat or reduce prejudice, as distinct from discrimination. In this sense, "prejudice” means a state of mind which predisposes the reaching of conclusions concerning the abilities, character, or qualities of an individual on the basis of unsubstantiated notions about the racial, religious, or ethnic group to which the individual is thought to belong. While the province of law is conduct or behavior rather than mental attitudes, social scientists are now generally agreed that in reducing or eliminating discrimination, law inevitably causes a reduction of prejudice-external behavior influences convictions and emotions of normal men and women. Most people prefer to conform to the generally accepted code of behavior rather than to flout the community rule of conduct. Thus, legal conduct tends to become proper behavior while illegal conduct tends to become improper behavior—and human beings have a unique propensity to rationalize their behavior. Furthermore, the areas deemed external, and hence subject to direct legal controls, tend to change from time to time. Thus, for example, Massachusetts in 1865 was the first State to legislate a prohibition against discrimination in places of public accommodation. No legislator, at that time, would have suggested a law to prohibit discrimination in private employment. Yet today there are 20 such State laws. Had anyone suggested in 1945 when New York enacted the first fair employment practice law, that housing discrimination was an appropriate subject for statutory control, very few lawyers, judges, or legislators would have been willing to go along. In 1962, however, we have clearly reached another milestone, since nine States have enacted statutes to ban discrimination in private housing. And the courts have generally sustained such legislation.

It is now more than 20 years since President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802 creating the first governmental agency to implement a national policy of nondiscrimination in employment. Every study undertaken since World War II has found that discrimination in employment is widespread. In 1947 President Truman's Committee on Civil Rights found the existence of discrimination and urged enactment of a Federal fair employment practice act. “To Secure These Rights,” page 167. All congressional hearings on proposed FEP bills since 1945 have elicited expert and detailed testimony on the existence of the evil and the need for Federal legislation to deal effectively with it. As recently as October 13, 1961, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission published the results of its study of discrimination in employment and found that despite the sharp rise in the occupational levels attained by Negroes during the past 20 years, "Negro workers are still disproportionately concentrated in the ranks of the unskilled and the semiskilled in both private and public employment. They are also disproportionately represented among the unemployed because of their concentration in unskilled and semiskilled jobs—those most severely affected by both cyclical and structural unemployment-and because Negro workers often have relatively low seniority.” “Employment,” 1961 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Report, No. 3, p. 157.

1. Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana Nebraska, New Hampshire New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

2 Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Pennsylvania.

3 Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin.

4 Berger, Monroe, “Equality by Statute,” Columbia University Press, New York, 1952, p. 172.

5 Levitt & Sons, Inc. v. Division Against Discrimination, 31 N.J. 514 (1960), appeal dismissed, 363 U.S. 418 (1960); New York State Commission v. Pelham Hall Apartments, 170 N.Y.S. 2d 750 (1958) ; Swanson v. Commission on Civil Rights of Connecticut, No. 94802, Superior Court, New Haven County, July 11, 1961; Martin ý. New York, 201 N.Y.S. 2d 111 (1960).

Since 1945, when the American Jewish Committee testified before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, holding hearings on S. 101 and S. 439 (79th Cong., 1st sess.), we have accepted every opportunity offered by congressional committee hearings to assert our support for Federal fair employment practice legislation. We do that now.

Next year we will commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation. While slavery as an economic institution came to an end 100 years ago, many of the incidents and badges of slavery are still to be wiped from our national life. One of such “incidents” is discrimination in employment based on race or color. As requested by President Kennedy in his recent state of the Union message, let the actions of the Congress, as well as those of the executive and judicial branches of the Government, “portray that righteousness that exalteth a nation.” Respectfully submitted.

ELY A. AARON, Chairman, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Committee. JANUARY 17, 1962.

Mr. ROOSEVELT. The committee will stand adjourned until 9:30 tomorrow morning, at which time the committee will meet in room 1304 of the New House Office Building.

The first witness before the committee tomorrow will be Hon. Joseph Clark, U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania; who will be followed by Hon. John B. Swainson, Governor of the State of Michigan; Dr. Joachim Prinz, rabbi, from Newark, N.J.; and Father John F. Cronin, assistant director of the Department of Social Action of the National Catholic Welfare Conference.

The committee will stand adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 12 noon, the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., Friday, January 19, 1962.)

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »