Senator PELL. As a graduate of Columbia, too, I welcome him. Mr. GINZBERG. I thought just for the sake of the record I would call attention to the fact that a good part of my research over the last years has been concerned with problems of Negro manpower specifically.

I published "The Negro Potential" in 1956. I am currently completing a volume called "The Nation and the Negro," which is a reappraisal of the way the Negro has not been permitted to fit into American society. I am completing a study for the U.S. Civil Rights Commission on "The Negro Serviceman" which has some relevance to my later testimony as to what is going on in the armed services. My colleague. Dr. Hiestand, has just completed a book called, "Economic Expansion and Employment Opportunity for Minority Manpower," and I have been involved in a study carried on by Princeton University by Drs. Norgren and Hill, which is focused on the administrative machinery, both Federal and State in the area of fair employment.

With these as background, I want to raise just a few basic questions. The first one is, what is the relative importance of moving on fair employment practices in relationship to the other efforts of Congress at this moment with respect to public accommodations, voting, housing, and education.

I think if you look at the history of the United States, the thing that is impressive is we have progressed by giving people opportunities to move up in the job market. Only, if people have jobs, can they improve their income. It is no use to talk about access to housing, and other matters unless the people involved have jobs and income.

I think it can be argued that our type of open society is characterized by openness with respect to jobs. This is the crucial matter.

Now, there has been no argument that serious discrimination exists. in the job arena. I recently saw some figures which indicated that of the 200,000 people employed in selling jobs by a group of major employers, there were 200 Negroes. This indicates something of the magnitude of the discrimination which prevails on the job front.

I have a feeling that the preamble justifying these bills could be strengthened by emphasizing national security to a greater extent. I think that equal job opportunity bears both on the national security and the general welfare and I would like to stress national security.

Out of my background in the Pentagon, both in World War II and since, I learned that the failure of Negroes to participate fully in the economic life of the country is a major danger to the Nation in times of national emergency. I have not seen this point stressed in either the Clark or Humphrey bills.

On the question of State and local fair employment acts, there are now 25 States that have fair employment acts, 20 of which have also some kind of implementing authority. Somebody can go to court and do something about a violation. There are also about 40 localities that have such acts. The question might reasonably be asked, Why should the Federal Government get involved?

I think the answer is very simple. No. 1, most Negroes still live in the South and none of the Southern States have such acts. Sixty percent of the Negro population still lives where they have no protection from law.

Secondly, from the Norgren-Hill study, which will shortly be published, I learned that even in the best of the States-and Senator Javits and I come from one of the best-there are many continuing deficiencies in coverage and administration.

New York State has tried to do the best job, and has put the most money into the affair, but it is still a very limited act in my opinion, because it primarily operates on a complaint basis. I would like to stress that in my opinion none of the State legislation is as yet adequate.

One of the reasons I would like to see the Federal Government act in this area is to establish a standard or criterion which would encourage the States to strengthen their acts. Then, at some later time, the Federal Government might consider some ceding.

I am not interested in having the Federal Government cede much. to the States at this time because I do not think they are in a position to pick it up.

I think also that in dealing with interstate commerce there are limitations on the effectiveness of States acting, let alone municipalities.

The President has asked for statutory authority for his Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity. I want to say a few things about this Committee in relationship to these bills.

I would say that even if the Congress agreed to grant the Equal Employment Opportunity Committee statutory authority, it still would have limited coverage. It would still be able to deal only with. Government contractors. While a broad area, it is still too delimited.. Moreover, I am bothered by any committee approach, even one with statutory power. I think the Humphrey proposals are sounder than the alternative proposals. Fair employment administration should be embodied in and closely alined with, and gain support and nourishment from, the on-going administrative structure of a major department such as the Department of Labor. Because I do not like a committee approach to this problem, and because I favor integrating the administration of the act into a department, I do not think that giving statutory authority to the President's Equal Employment Opportunity Committee will do the job that needs doing.

There are a few miscellaneous points related to this Fair Employment Act that I would like to call attention to.

Our studies at Columbia indicate that the nonprofit area of American enterprise is very considerable. I do not know how the law can be written to cover this area, or most of it, but I see no reason why this sizable sector of the economy should be excluded. I do not quite know what can be done in drafting appropriate legislation, but I feel that the issue is important and should be considered.

Even if the legislation provides that the administration of the act be placed in the Department of Labor, I think it is important to require an annual report of progress and problems.

Fair employment is in part an educational problem; it is important both for Congress and the public to have the education that an annual report could help to provide.

In writing the legislation there should be some provision for twotypes of research-by the agency administering the act and through. contract research.

Fair employment presents many difficult problems. We ought to learn more about them. I do not consider my emphasis on research an ad hoc argument of a professor.

I don't like the word conciliation in the bills. I do not mind the word education, but I don't like "conciliation." I don't think you "conciliate" somebody's rights.

I think it is poor language that has been carried over from 20 years ago. I would like to see the word abandoned.

So, in conclusion, I would make these four points:

First, in the absence of equal opportunity for employment the basic commitment of American democracy is not being fulfilled for a sizable. minority.

Second, any new legislation dealing with fair employment is simply one further if very important instrumentality; but it can never be an end-all.

Senator CLARK (presiding). What? I did not catch that.

Mr. GINZBERG. I said it is only one aspect of a total program to assure equal opportunity. The great error in this field, is to look for simple answers. What is needed is a farflung approach that moves over the whole front.

The third point is I prefer to deal with fair employment within the ongoing structure of labor administration in the sense of unfair and illegal practices.

I don't want to single it out administratively. Finally, I want to identify myself with Mr. McDonald who stated that the sine qua non for true equality of opportunities for Negroes will require full employment for the Nation. In the absence thereof, the delivery potential of an equal employment opportunity bill will be very limited.

If there are not enough jobs to go around, there are going to be serious employment problems and Negroes will remain severely disadvantaged.

Senator CLARK. Is that not another way of saying we are in trouble because there are not enough jobs to go around?

Mr. GINZBERG. I will be more explisit than that. I think from our current studies, Senator Clark, the problem of Negro employment is particularly serious.

The Negro made his breakthrough in the 1940's and 1950's in the semiskilled manufacturing jobs, including jobs covered by Mr. McDonald's union.

Senator CLARK. How much did the war have to do with that?

Mr. GINZBERG. If one reads Dr. Myrdal's famous book, "An American Dilemma," it is startling how wrong he could be; he took the 1930's as his base. The war transformed the employment outlookfor the Negro.

The current trouble is that automation is advancing particularly in industries in which Negroes have made their biggest gains-steel, auto, rubber-so that the problem of broadening employment opportunities for Negroes is most urgent. The Negro may go backward in the absence of a further stimulation of the economy.

Senator CLARK. Thank you, sir.

Senator Javits?

Senator JAVITs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think that I have made my observations about Professor Ginzberg's testimony.

Professor Ginzberg, you are a professor of economics and I will not trouble you to give us the whole kit of measures that you think might stimulate the economy. After all, this is not the Joint Congressional Committee on the Economy. But I did want to ask you what you thought particularly about the acceleration of training for Negroes to better equip them to claim these jobs in automation if what we do in other aspects of our national life can stimulate the economy adequately to open them up?

Mr. GINZBERG. Well, I have testified as recently, I think, as last week or 2 weeks ago before the Holland subcommittee in the House on the expansion of the Manpower Training and Development Act.

I think the President's proposal to increase the level of spending by about $100 million for adult literacy training and also for the training of youth would be two measures that would help the Negro greatly because a very large number of Negroes in the North as well as the South have been badly educated and therefore their chances for reemployment, if they lose their jobs, are very poor.

Secondly, a large number of the Negro youth have not completed high school so that anything that can be done through a broadened retraining bill to help them would be highly desirable. I think the amendments to the Manpower Development and Training Act as proposed by the administration deserves very high priority.

That is on the training side. I though it might help the subcommittee if I mention in passing the really striking developments that the Army and the Air Force can point to in expanding equal opportunity to the Negro after 10 years of desegregation.

I am just completing a study for the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, and I am very impressed with the review of the evidence which shows how far the services have come and how well they have done. The fact that the authority of law was used in the desegregation of the Armed Forces made it possible for the Army and the Air Force to do such a good job.

This military experience shows the advantage of using the law to bring about desirable changes in the area of equal employment. Senator JAVITS. Thank you.

Senator CLARK. Senator Pell?

Senator PELL. I have no questions, thank you.

Senator CLARK. Senator Kennedy?

Senator KENNEDY. No questions.

Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, Dr. Ginzberg, for your helpful presentation.

Our next witness is Mr. Joseph Ross, president of Davidson Bros., Inc.

Mr. Ross, we appreciate your coming here to testify before us. I have read your testimony overnight, I will ask to have your statement put in the record at this point and I would appreciate it if you could summarize it rather than read it in full.

(The prepared statement of Joseph Ross, president, Davidson Bros., Inc., follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH ROSS, PRESIDENT, DAVIDSON BROS., INC.,

DETROIT, MICH.

My name is Joseph Ross of Detroit, Michigan, president of Davidson Bros., Inc. We are a corporation doing in the neighborhood of $120 million annually. We operate a chain of economy department stores throughout Michigan, Ohio, and New York.

In coming before you today, I must make it clear that I represent no one but myself. I do not represent the retail industry. I do not represent any segment of the retail industry. I have spent nearly 30 years of my life in many forms of retailing; large department stores, a high fashion specialty store, small city department stores, chainstores, discounting. In the course of my retail career, I have lived in New York City, N.Y.; Newark, N.J; Dallas, Tex.; Denver, Colo.; Atlanta, Ga.; and now in Detroit, Mich.

I have been asked to testify in connection with your consideration of the fair employment practice bills introduced by Senator Clark and Senator Humphrey. I am no lawyer and will not presume to pass upon the procedural content of these two bills and the significance of the differences between them. I would prefer to speak as an individual retailer on the problems with which both of these bills are concerned.

I think the retailer today is in the horns of a very tragic dilemma. He has been trained all of his life in the tradition of his craft to be a useful citizen in his community, but never to get involved in controversial issues. In thousands of communities throughout the United States, he will chair the local capital fund drive for the hospitals. He will spark the local community chest campaign. He will work in numerous ways for the benefit of his local community; but, because he has been trained since young manhood to understand that, like the Lord, what the public giveth, it can take away; he has learned to steer clear of any question on which the public is divided. Let others be the decisionmakers in this area. He will concentrate only on the kind of communal good on which his friends and neighbors are united. So it is that few economic classes of our society have exercised upon the local scene a more benign, constructive, and, indeed, inspirational influence than the American retailer.

All of a sudden, through forces entirely outside of his control, he is placed in a situation where, to his horror, he finds himself in an impossible stance for a retailer. He is the storm center of a controversial issue. Generations of his dead ancestors, whisper to him, "Do nothing! Let someone else decide this question." But, alas, today, if he does nothing, he has taken as unequivocal and positive a position as if he did something. History has thrust him into the one role which, above all others, he shrinks from playing; that of a decisionmaker in controversial community issues. But he is, in fact, a decision maker whether he makes a decision or not. In vain, he asks himself, "Where did I disobey the rules of my profession to get into this position? What have I done wrong?" He retreats behind a curtain of silence, secrecy, incommunicability to hide his confusion and to await the next blow of his unique ordeal. For his ordeal is unique in business. It is no trick for a defense industry to embrace fair employment practices, if it means a big defense contract. It is no sacrifice for manufacturers and producers of nonconsumer products and nonidentifiable consumer goods to take on the mantle of an equal opportunity employer. But a retailer who is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't who is in the front line of confrontation with the public; has no previous training, background or experience to equip him to know how to cope with this problem.

Mr. Chairman, I have come here today because I believe that a good law is a shield as well as a sword, and that, while many minority groups need the sword of the law to win them on equal job opportunity in America, so do many businesses need the shield of the law to protect them from agonizing crossfires of a fickle public opinion.

It is for this reason, among others, that I favor a Federal fair employment practice bill. I do not think that individual retail stores should be either the object of praise or the subject of criticism in relation to matters of human rights and human dignity. I do not think that individual stores should reap any rewards or suffer any penalties because of their stand on these matters. I do not think that this is a legitimate area of competition between stores. I think that this should be a matter of reasonable law with which every store must comply, rather than a matter of the individual predilection of the individual I think it should be like the "no smoking" signs which places the onus

store.

22-287-63-21