I have yet to see any figures that show that there are differences in large groups who live under the same circumstances.

Senator PELL. May I interrupt here? You just said you have yet to see any figures to show that there are any differences between large groups. Do you have any figures to show that they are the same one way or the other? Are there any studies in the direction of the thrust of this question? The last one I recall was by Zachariah McCaulay, the great abolitionist in Britain many years ago, who took some African children when they were weaned and educated them with other children. They grew up to have equal ability with the children they were educated with. Since that time I have not come across any statistics.

Mr. MILLER. I vaguely recall Otto Klineberg's studies of race differences in the United States where he found that Negroes in the North had higher IQ's than whites in the South, but lower IQ's than northern whites.

Senator CLARK. It is a very explosive question which I think most everybody wants to duck.

Mr. MILLER. But I think we in the United States have always answered this question in the very pragmatic way. I say let us remove all of the bars, let us remove discrimination and see what differences remain after, say, 30 or 40 years. If the Negro is given a chance and he does not produce after a reasonable period, there will still be time to search for reasons. Until the Negro is given a chance, we can never answer the question that has been raised.

Senator CLARK. There is no disagreement with that.

Senator PELL. Is there any study-I keep probing this questionor any information along this line that proves this point, one way or the other?

Senator CLARK. You said a minute ago it was just your faith in democracy.

Mr. MILLER. I am a statistician not an anthropologist. I might say I have gotten way beyond my depth.

Senator PELL. I am asking you as the man in charge of the Census Bureau which is concerned with this problem. Are there any figures that can bear out what you say besides your faith in democracy, which the Senator from Pennsylvania and I share?

Mr. MILLER. I don't know of any figures. I doubt very much that there are carefully controlled figures that would meet scientific scrutiny, because there are too many variables involved.

Senator PELL. Should there not be a study of this sort performed? Would not a great service be rendered if it were?

Mr. MILLER. As a statistician, I would say that such a study could not be made with all of the necessary controls that would be required. Figures on IQ might shed more heat than light on this question. It is the old question of heredity versus environment and that has never been resolved.

Senator CLARK. If I could interject a comment. I don't think you would get any Government agency to make it. You might get a private organization.

At this point in the record I will order that the press release pertaining to Mr. Miller's statement be placed.

(The press release is as follows:)

PRESS RELEASE FOR STATEMENT BY HERMAN P. MILLER, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS

It should not come as a surprise to anyone that the Negro still ranks among the poorest of the poor in the United States and that his economic status relative to whites has not improved for nearly 20 years. Many of the figures collected in the census attest to these facts. The lowly position of the Negro has been documented so many times and in so many ways that presenting the evidence seems like proving the obvious. Yet, what is obvious to some may not be apparent to others. Facts form the only sound basis for discussion and action which may help redress the grievances about which the Negro has complained bitterly and suffered patiently for many years.

1. The relative position of the Negro has not improved

There is a general impression that the relative economic position of the Negro-particularly with respect to employment opportunities-has improved in recent years. There has been improvement, but it has been largely due to the movement of the Negro from the rural South to the urban industrial areas rather than to any major change in job opportunities. The occupational skills of both whites and Negroes have been upgraded as the American economy has moved away from agriculture and become more complex and industrialized. As a result, Negroes who were once highly concentrated in sharecropping and farm labor have now moved up to unskilled and semiskilled factory jobs; some have even moved into white-collar employment. But, there has been a parallel upgrading of jobs held by whites. The real question is whether the relative upward movement has been faster for nonwhites than for whites. Statistical tests that have been applied to the data collected in the past three censuses show that this is not the case. Although the occupational status of nonwhites relative to whites has improved for the country as a whole, in most States the nonwhite male now has about the same occupational distribution relative to the whites that he had in 1940 and 1950.

During World War II the income gap between whites and nonwhites did narrow. In the past decade, however, there has been no change in income differentials between the two groups. In view of the stability of the earnings gap during the postwar period, the reduction during the war years cannot be viewed as part of a continuing process, but rather as a phenomenon closely related to war-induced shortages of unskilled labor and Government regulations such as those of the War Labor Board designed generally to raise the incomes of lower paid workers.

2. Nonwhites concentrated in low-paid jobs

Even when nonwhite men are educated and are employed in a trade or profession, their earnings are far below those of whites with the same number of years of schooling and doing the same kinds of work. This is one cause of the low economic status of nonwhites. A more important cause is their concentration in low-paid occupations.

A nonwhite man who has not gone beyond the eighth grade has very little chance of being anything more than a laborer, a porter, or a factory hand. Nearly 8 out of every 10 nonwhite men with only 8 grades of schooling worked as laborers, service workers, or operatives at the time of the last census. Among whites with the same amount of education only 5 out of 10 worked at these low-paid jobs.

The nonwhite high school graduate stands a somewhat better chance of getting a well-paid job; but even his chances are not very good. About 6 out of every 10 nonwhite high school graduates were laborers, service workers, or operatives as compared with only 3 out of 10 whites with the same amount of schooling.

Nonwhite college graduates seem to be able to find professional employment in relatively large numbers. About three out of every four were professiona. or managerial workers-nearly the same proportion as white college graduates But, there is one big difference. Nonwhites were concentrated in the lowe paid professions. One-third were schoolteachers as compared with only one sixth of the whites. Moreover, earnings of nonwhites in the low-paid pr fessions were considerably below those of whites. Relatively few nonwhites are in the higher paid professions. About 20 percent of the white male college

graduates in professional employment were engineers as compared with only 8 percent of the nonwhites; 14 percent of the whites were lawyers or accountants, but only 6 percent of the nonwhites. There were proportionately as many nonwhite doctors as whites, but the average earnings of the nonwhites were only half that received by the whites.

Nonwhite men earn less than whites with the same number of years of schooling because they are employed in lower paid jobs, and they are paid less even when they do the same kind of work. The combined impact of these two factors is shown in the table below which presents figures on the lifetime earnings of white and nonwhite men by years of school completed. This table shows that the relative earnings gap between whites and nonwhites increases with educational attainment. The lifetime earnings of nonwhite elementary school graduates is about 64 percent of the white total. Among college graduates nonwhites have only 47 percent of the white total. The fact of the matter is that the average nonwhite with 4 years of college can expect to earn less over a lifetime than the white who did not go beyond the eighth grade.

3. Education pays—but the returns are far less for nonwhites (a) It pays to go to school—even for a bricklayer.-Much of the money that will be spent under the new manpower program will be devoted to the training of mechanics, toolmakers, clerical workers, service workers, and other occupations that do not require college-level courses. Does schooling pay off if a man is going to be a bricklayer, a carpenter, or a busdriver? The census data provide clear and unambiguous answers. In every occupation for which data are shown high school graduates earn more than men who quit school after the eighth grade. In most occupations the difference is between $500 and $1,000 a year. Over a lifetime, these differences amount to about $25,000 to $30,000 in most occupations.

Why the difference? There are many reasons. High school graduates have higher IQ's. This is due partly to their greater education. It may also reflect greater native intelligence and aptitude to learn. But, there are other reasons. Employers give preference to high school graduates. With a diploma a man can drive a bus for a transcontinental busline; without it, he is lucky to get a job with a local transit company which pays much lower wages. The carpenter who is a high school graduate gets a regular job with a big construction firm. He works regularly, good weather and bad, because there is plenty of work to do. The uneducated carpenter works by the day. He gets a job, finishes it, and goes down to the union hall to get another. Whenever work is slack he is the first to go.

Unions also prefer high school graduates. Very often the diploma is required to qualify for apprentice training.

The reasons are varied, but the facts are clear. Education pays off. (b) Gains are much less for nonwhites.-The figures cited above are for whites and nonwhites combined. An examination of the figures separately for

the two racial groups shows that education pays off for each, but the returns are far greater for whites. In most occupations for which figures are available, nonwhite men earned about three-fourths as much as whites with the same amount

of schooling. In nearly every occupation nonwhite high school graduates earned less than whites who never went beyond the eighth grade. The reasons for these differences undoubtedly vary according to the occupation.

4. Evidence of discrimination

The available evidence supports the belief that much of the gap between the earnings of whites and nonwhites is due to factors other than differences in training or ability. But the figures are far from conclusive in this respect. The meaning of a year of school completed can be quite different for whites and nonwhites. Many nonwhite children receive schooling of poorer quality. As a result, nonwhites who have completed the same number of years of school as whites will not be as well educated, on the average. Other factors-cultural, social, and economic conditions—also affect the real education a student absorbs, even in a good school. And finally, performance on the job may have little to do with training or ability. Work habits and motivation may be just as closely related to earnings as education and training.

Statistics that take all of these factors into account have yet to be devised. But figures from the 1960 census permit a closer examination of the problem than has heretofore been possible. Census data are available showing the expected lifetime earnings of white and nonwhite men with less than 8 years of elementary school for three occupations-carpenters, truckdrivers, and semiskilled factory workers. Since all of these men have very little schooling, it cannot be said that the whites are better educated than the nonwhites. Indeed, the low level of education for the entire group makes it likely that the great majority of these men, white and nonwhite alike, are below average in their ability to absorb formal education. These figures show that despite the similarity of the occupations and schooling, sharp differences persist between the earnings of whites and nonwhites. In each of the three occupations, the earnings of nonwhites in the South averaged only about two-thirds that of the whites. In the North and West the differences were somewhat narrower; but even here nonwhite carpenters and truckdrivers averaged only about three-fourths of the white total.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller. It has been a pleasure to have you with us; it has been a stimulating hour.

The subcommitee will stand in recess until 9:15 on Friday morning. (Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter was recessed, to reconvene at 9:15 a.m., Friday, August 2, 1963.)

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

FRIDAY, AUGUST 2, 1963

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND MANPOWER OF THE

COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 9:15 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4232, New Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph Clark (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Clark (presiding), Burdick, and Javits.

Committee staff members present: Stewart E. McClure, chief clerk; Edward D. Friedman, counsel, and Dr. Garth L. Mangum, research director of the subcommittee; Michael Bernstein, minority counsel; Raymond D. Hurley, John Stringer, and Robert Locke, associate minority counsels.

Senator CLARK. The subcommittee will be in session.

We are happy to have the Hon. W. Willard Wirtz back before the subcommittee. I think, Mr. Wirtz, largely in your capacity as Vice Chairman of the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, is that the correct title?

Mr. WIRTZ. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CLARK. We should note for the record that the Vice President is the Chairman of the Committee, I know of no instance where the Vice President of the United States has appeared before a congressional committee and we are very happy, indeed, to have the Vice Chairman who happens also to be the Secretary of Labor before us today.

Mr. Wirtz, will you please proceed in your own way.

STATEMENT OF HON. W. WILLARD WIRTZ, SECRETARY OF LABOR, VICE CHAIRMAN, PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY; ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES DONAHUE, SOLICITOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; N. THOMPSON POWERS, DEPUTY SOLICITOR; AND ROBERT NAGLE, ASSISTANT TO THE VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON EQUAL

OPPORTUNITY

Mr. WIRTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee. There are with me today Mr. Charles Donahue, Solicitor of the Department of Labor; N. Thompson Powers, who is the Deputy Solicitor; and Robert Nagle who is assistant to the Executive Vice Chairman of the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity.