Senator CLARK. Did you hear Mr. Wilkin's answer to the question? Mr. FARMER. I heard his answer. Senator CLARK. Is that in accord with your own thinking? Mr. FARMER. That is largely in accord with my thinking. I would extend it just a bit. I think that the employer has a responsibility to try to find qualified Negroes, qualified members of minorities, and if they are not qualified for the jobs that he has then he has a responsibility to help to make them qualified through his inservice training or through his apprenticeship training. I think in addition that with regard to management jobs in industries Negroes are disadvantaged quite frequently because they have been kept in the low category of jobs in the industry and many of these industries select their managers, their administrative persons from the ranks. You move up through the ranks, and if a Negro has been excluded from the ranks or limited to the low category jobs in the ranks, then he would in many cases have to wait 10 years or more before he could get up to the top and this, I think, is too long for him to wait. I think in many cases we would ask for special treatment in that regard. Senator CLARK. What you are saying, in effect, is that there should be an advantage in hiring and promotion in order to overcome the historical disadvantage under which the Negro has suffered? Mr. FARMER. That is correct, sir. Senator CLARKE. Senator Javits' second question is: Can a distinction be made between job training opportunities and job opportunities so that the former should be made available in an accelerated way to Negroes but the latter be dependent upon merit and fitness for the job alone? Mr. FARMER. I would not put it that way, because I think that there must be an acceleration both in the training and in the employment. This is what I meant by stating a moment ago that we should aggressively seek qualified Negroes and seek to help train them so that I think that the acceleration should be both on the training level and on the employment level. Senator CLARK. But you agree, do you not, with Mr. Wilkins, that you do not want an inferior trained or capable Negro to get a job ahead of a better trained white man? Mr. FARMER. We certainly do not. We do not want an unqualified person to get a job because of his color. Senator CLARK. Senator Javits' third question is: Apart from governmental programs do you believe that there are resources available in business itself to organize vocational educational job development programs for Negroes? Mr. FARMER. I think that there are such resources and as has been pointed out, some of the businesses are using those resources and training. I do think, however, that it should not be left to the voluntary action on the part of the individual businesses, but should be seen as a part of the responsibility of the Federal Government and, indeed, of State governments. Senator CLARK. Now I do not think you developed much the problem of discrimination in labor unions. I wonder whether your views in that regard are about the same as Mr. Wilkins'? Mr. FARMER. Our views are about the same and we are demonstrating in New York now, as you know, on just that issue. Senator CLARK. Have you been over in Philadelphia yet? Mr. FARMER. Yes. We were there several months ago. Senator CLARK. Senator Burdick? Senator BURDICK. No questions. Senator CLARK. Kilroy was there, too. [Laughter.] We are in recess until 10 a.m., Monday, July 29, 1963. (Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Monday, July 29, 1963.) EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY MONDAY, JULY 29, 1963 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND MANPOWER OF THE Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4232, New Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph Clark (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Clark, Randolph, Pell, Burdick, and Javits. Committee staff members present: Stewart E. McClure, chief clerk; Edward D. Friedman, counsel; Dr. Garth L. Mangum, professional staff member; Michael Bernstein, minority counsel; Raymond D. Hurley, associate minority counsel; and John Stringer and Robert Locke, associate minority counsels. Senator CLARK. The subcommittee will be in session. Our witnesses this morning will appear as a panel. They are Edward Howden, chief of the California State Fair Employment Practice Commission; Henry Spitz, general counsel of the New York State Commission for Human Rights; James McDonald, executive director, State commission against discrimination, St. Paul, Minn.; Raymond Male, commissioner of labor, Trenton, N.J.; Milton Litvak, acting chairman, Missouri Commission on Human Rights. Gentlemen, will you come forward and take seats at the witness table, and I think we will have to get you another chair. Gentleman, we have prepared statements from four of you, each of which will be placed in the record in full at this point. (The prepared statements referred to follow :) PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDWARD HOWDEN, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICE COMMISSION, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Edward Howden. I am a resident of San Francisco. Since September 1959, by appointment of Gov. Edmund G. Brown, I have been executive officer of the California Fair Employment Practice Commission and chief of the division of fair employment practices. The division is part of the State department of industrial relations, of which Mr. Ernest B. Webb is director. For 1 year prior to entering my present position I was executive director of the Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity of the City and County of San Francisco, the agency charged with administration of that city's enforcible fair employment ordinance, enacted in 1957. For more than a dozen years preceding the latter position I followed closely matters relating to fair employment and equal opportunity in housing in my capacity as executive director of the Council for Civic Unity of San Francisco, a representative, nonpartisan community organization. The California FEPC, now almost 4 years old, adnimisters the State law for nondiscrimination and equal opportunity in employment, enacted in 1959, and beginning September 20 of this year will administer the recently enacted State law for nondiscrimination and equal opportunity in housing. Both laws received high priority in the legislative program of Governor Brown, who has vigorously supported the work of the fair employment practice commission. Some time ago Governor Brown told the Special Subcommittee on Labor of the House Committee on Education and Labor, when it was considering fair employment practice legislation now before you, that it was his personal conviction that Federal fair employment practice legislation will help meet an urgent nationwide need. He said that discrimination in employment on the basis of race, religion, or national origin is not only morally wrong and incompatible with the human values upon which a democratic society rests. but it is today an intolerable burden upon our economy and a dangerous source of weakness with respect to the Nation's complex, shifting manpower needs. The Governor has asked me to emphasize to you that, just as the California fair employment law was long overdue in 1959, a Federal fair employment law is today long overdue. In urging early enactment of this legislation, he would have you know that California's experience, like that of 21 other States, has been that fair employment legislation truly works, that the oftenexpressed fears and anxieties of its opponents prove to be groundless, and and that the results, in terms of lowering racial and ethnic barriers to equal opportunity, are well worth the effort. The combination of Federal Government services with those of 22 States and a number of cities which have enforcible statutes on this subject will develop a highly significant partnership, Governor Brown believes, in behalf of one of the highest purposes of our Nation. In 1961 he testified that there was no more important measure on which Congress could act; today, surely, the urgency attaching to such action is tremendously heightened. The record of hearings before the House Special Subcommittee on Labor, in the 87th Congress, contains testimony by Mr. John Anson Ford, of Los Angeles, chairman of the California Fair Employment Practice Commission, concerning the first 2 years of the commission's experience. It may be helpful for me now to update and summarize what we have done in California during these 4 years before offering observations on the bills before this committee. In the words of Chairman Ford, we have seen that the good American principle of equal opportunity for all can become a living reality in the field of employment. Most employers, like other people, want to obey the law. With clear public policy, with an adequate FEP education program, and with firm enforcement, they will do what is right. To see this in its practical application, let us look at the statistics of our California FEPC's regulatory program to date. From September 18, 1959, through June 30, 1963, a total of 2,550 individual cases of job discrimination on account of race, religious creed, color, national origin, or ancestry were brought to FEPC at its San Francisco and Los Angeles offices. Each case originated with a verified complaint, stating a cause of action under the law, and each was investigated by professional staff under the supervision of an assigned member of the commission. If there was no evidence or insufficient evidence of discrimination, the case was dismissed. If evidence of discrimination was found, there followed an effort, through conference, conciliation, and persuasion, to obtain corrective action in behalf of the complainant and in accord with the letter and spirit of the nondiscrimination law. There was such corrective action, based on evidence of discrimination, in one-third of the completed cases. In only a handful of cases has it been necessary to move beyond conciliation and persuasion to the stage of formal public hearing. Conferences and negotiations are conducted in an atmosphere of confidence and good will, with full protection of the rights of all parties. Our aim is not punitive but constructive; we endeavor to bring employers, employment agencies, and unions into compliance with the fair employment law, and to promote their continuing practice of fair employment. The contact with FEPC almost always is educational, the result being better understanding of the law, the need for it, and how it may be implemented. Comments of many employers and others indicate that this educational contact does, in fact, carry significant impact. What I have just said about our contacts and conferences leading to the disposition of individual complaints applies with even wider effect to another category of California FEPC cases. Section 1421 of our law provides that the commission, on learning of possible violations, may initiate investigations and seek corrective action. During this period of nearly 4 years, 86 investigations of this type have been undertaken. Such investigations may cover, for example, the practices of both unions and employers in a certain industry in a metropolitan area; or the upgrading practices of a major firm in several plants and offices throughout the State; or the status of minority workers and applicants in a large public institution, department, or municipality. Not infrequently, although technically classified as invesigations, such undertakings take on more the character of cooperative study in which our commissioner and staff assist the firm or union or public agency in self-examination of its practices and in working out-if needed-ways of improving these practices. Many thousands of members of the work force may be affected, over a period of several years, by the outcome of one such FEPC case. As an extension of this approach, and in recognition of the urgent necessity of opening up wide areas of employment opportunity for qualified minority workers, the commission recently decided to undertake affirmative compliance activities in cooperation with employers, unions, and others. Initiating such an action does not imply that a violation of the law is alleged or suspected. It is based rather on the assumption that a positive program to stimulate recruiting, hiring, and promotion of the best qualified personnel, inclusive of all groups in the population, can be carried out through cooperative surveys, research, planning, and a series of progressive steps. FEPC becomes a catalyst and a source of information and advice; it is not a policing but a service agency, assisting those who provide employment and those previously denied equal access to jobs to find each other. You are aware that the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity has combined complaint handling with a far-reaching affirmative action approach of this kind in its effort to extend employment opportunities across the Nation. Most State and city FEPC's have similarly concluded that the individual, case-by-case method alone falls far short of solving the massive problem they face. Traditional barriers to equal opportunity will not come down until large employers and unions, and whole industries and occupations, have been reached by persuasive techniques in conference and negotiation. Conscious, positive steps must be taken by those responsible for personnel decisions. Members of racial, religious, and ethnic minorities must learn of the new opportunities through all available communications media. I am sure you will wish to consider making this broad, affirmative approach an integral or even primary method of the proposed Federal Commission. There is another main aspect of our work in California-a multiphased information-education program. I have indicated that a substantial educational impact is registered upon employers, workers, and others in the course of the investigation and conciliation of most cases. Although FEPC typically makes no public disclosure, it is probable that the word gets around the office, plant, or industry when employment policies are revised, and that the introduction of minority group workers is watched with much interest. When the new integration has moved to the point of obvious success-as it always does when management means business, makes this quite clear, and proceeds with normal competence officers of the firm will no doubt inform their counterparts in other companies. And so the message is spread. Education in equal opportunity, in more scientific personnel practice, thus flows freely as a major byproduct of FEPC's handling of a case. We believe, too, that a primary responsibility of the agency is to reach everyone concerned with clear information as to their rights and responsibilities under the fair employment law. To communicate adequately with 17 million Californians, or that portion most directly and powerfully affected by FEP. is a staggering task. Virtually every channel and medium is either being utilized for this purpose, or plans are being developed to this end. The FEPC poster, preemployment inquiry guide, and checklist for fair employment have been mailed to almost every employer, employment agency, and union in the State. Several booklets and folders have been published, and a bimonthly newsletter is being issued. The mass media have carried main elements of the FEP message to many millions of Californians-through press, periodicals, television, and radio. Commissioners and staff have also addressed hundreds of meetings and confer ences of a wide range of business, labor, professional, civic, and other organ |