critical military situation pressed our American democracy to rise above its narrow and traditional prejudices, if victory was to be won.

The prosperity and well-being of the people of the United States, in peace as in war, require that our American democracy continues to rise above its narrow and prejudicial practices in employment discrimination. Not only is this a matter of economic justice: that is, the equality of employment opportunity without which equality of citizenship is only an empty phrase, but the persistence of discriminatory practices in employment are a source of social tension and strife, a tremendous burden which stifles the economic life of the whole Nation through the inefficiencies and depressed wage levels which it fosters and maintains. No one questions the exercise of police powers in the protection of our basic civil rights. These police powers, however, have functioned most frequently as a guaranty of our political freedoms and liberties. What does it avail a man to be free to worship as he will, to enjoy freedom of speech and cultural distinction, to be free of racial penalties in the exercise of the suffrage, if in the very enjoyment of these guaranties of his individuality he is not equally free to secure and hold a job? If men of different persuasions, religions, nationalities, and races are to be truly free, in accordance with the tenets of our American democracy, then they must be free to seek a livelihood without prejudice, even as they are now assured that their differences must be respected, not treated as a disability, in their civil and political relations. The notion of civil rights is always partial and incomplete until it encompasses the right to equality of opportunity in the struggle for a livelihood. To guarantee the right of equal economic opportunity by law places no burdens upon our free enterprise system. Indeed, it reinforces it, for the findings of the biological and social sciences have firmly established that the color of a man's skin, the shape of his skull or shinbone, or his religious beliefs have nothing to do with occupational skills. These acquired skills are not dependent upon an individual's race, nationality, or religion. The unwarranted exercise of discriminatory employment policies denies the individual employer, as well as society at large, the benefits of efficient business practice. The American industrial system has flourished on the assumption that it is imperative in the maximizing of profits to employ the most efficient man on the job. There is no valid reason for prejudicing the public welfare merely because bigoted employers or union leaders lose sight of their real self-interests. The practices of discrimination in employment deny the bigoted employer a greater efficiency and profit in his business operations when he persists in the hiring of employees on the basis of their complexions or religious affiliations, rather than on the basis of their skills.

Notwithstanding the significant advances in minimizing discriminatory practices made during the war years, the situation remains critical and an alarming deterioration has set in. The striking contrast between the average incomes of Negro and white families in the cities of the North Central States, such as Chicago ($1,720 per year for white families and $1,095 for Negroes) is a direct result of the systematic confinement of Negroes to jobs of a less desirable and low-paying nature. In effect, there is a ceiling on the kind of job which most Negroes can aspire to enter. There are many jobs that are not open to Negroes. One needs only to visit the banking, commercial, and office building areas of a large metropolitan community such as Chicago in order to observe the limited number of Negroes who are employed at jobs other than such menial ones as janitor, bus boy, porter, cleaning woman, or common laborer. More specifically, banks, insurance companies, real-estate firms, and other financial institutions outside the Negro area do not employ Negroes at clerical or administrative levels. Few, if any, of the major department stores knowingly employ Negro sales

persons.

Discrimination against Negroes has kept their job ceiling and their earnings low. They are nearly universally excluded from white collar and professional jobs. Whole categories of the skilled trades and semiskilled services have long excluded Negroes and only a few have been recently opened to a few Negro candidates. The extent of exclusion of Negroes from white-collar opportunities is indicated in the fact that only 1 out of 15 Negro workers, exclusive of farmers, has succeeded in obtaining white-collar employment. However, nearly threefifths of all urban white workers, 6 out of 15, have white-collar jobs.

The effect of such systematic exclusion from the better classes of work is to confine the Negro to jobs of a less desirable nature, the menial, the lower-paid jobs or no jobs at all. This pattern is pronounced throughout the city of the United States. Negroes and the foreign-born perform a disproportionately large

amount of the manual labor and the servant work of American urban communities. For example, although Negroes make up less than 10 percent of the population of Chicago, they hold roughly about 2 percent of the "clean" jobs and perform 34 percent of the servant work. As many as 60 percent of all white male workers are classified as skilled, business and professional, or clerical. However, only 25 percent of all Negro male workers have such jobs.

The situation is somewhat more covert and subtle in the case of discrimination against members of the Jewish and Catholic faiths, but it is, nonetheless, true. A survey of employment discrimination against Jewish workers in the Chicago area revealed that 32 of the 33 employment agencies included in the study required that applicants state their religion and lineage. Twenty-seven of the agencies stated that it was more difficult to place Jews than non-Jews. In as many as 16 percent of all job orders, religious specifications were frankly stated and 60 percent of the agencies ask employers to state their religious preferences.

Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that the Negro, the Jew, the Catholic, the so-called minority groups, are striving constantly to break through the job ceiling and secure entré into the skilled and white-collar jobs. These efforts by substantial numbers of individuals give rise to considerable resentment and hostility. They are the mainsprings of much of the tension which underlies racial and religioius disturbances.

A study by the United States Employment Service in 1942 revealed that over 51 percent of the large industrial firms possessing war contracts would not hire Negroes under any circumstances, and only one-half of the others stated that they would hire them without reservations. Negroes are not only discriminated against in skilled jobs, but it can be seen that they are often even denied access to the unskilled jobs.

The salutary influences of the now defunct President's Committee on Fair Employment Practice of the war years are rapidly escaping us in those communities where local legislation has not been prepared to store up the dam and continue the educative influence of the war experience.

Complaints of discrimination are again on the increase. It can be expected that the trend will continue unless earnest measures are taken to reemphasize and reinforce the democratic creed. The offices of the Illinois State Employment Service report notable increases in discriminatory order. In March of 1946 the United States Employment Service, at the request of the President's Committee, made a study of their discriminatory orders in five midwestern communities. The survey revealed that in Chicago over 35 percent of the job orders discriminated against Negro workers. This figure did not include a large percentage of orders to which, by tacit agreement, no Negro worker was referred. Recently, the Illinois State Employment Service, successor to the USES, reported that discriminatory orders had increased to well over 50 percent.

upon us.

These developments should give occasion for sober reflection. Under expanding business conditions, groups with minority status are the last to be hired, but under recession conditions they are the first to be laid off. This pattern is already The effect upon Negroes of fluctuating economic conditions can offset all their wartime gains. This is pointedly illustrated by the experience of the Illinois counties of Du Page and Cook which are the core of the Chicago industrial area. Between 1940 and 1945 these counties experienced a net increased of over 250,000 employed persons. Of this increase, 45 percent was due to the increased employment of Negroes. In March 1940, one out of every 5 Negroes was employed in manufacturing, whereas by January 1945, the proportion of Negroes so employed had increased to the point that one out of every two Negroes was employed in manufacturing.

The total employment figures since 1945 have held up better among whites than among Negroes. Unless discriminatory practices are declared illegal as a matter of law, this trend will certainly continue. The feelings which are generated under these highly competitive cut-back conditions make for much resentment, particularly since many Negroes have, for the first time, enjoyed jobs of higher status and greater income than ever before. Such gains are never gracefully relinquished. The tensions in the postwar employment situation will be directly in proportion to the amount of discriminatory action in cut-backs and shifting employment as well as in relation to the amount of over-all unemployment. In the competition for jobs and income, much of the friction between the various racial, religious, and nationality groups is generated. When the labor market is glutted; that is, employment is low, minority groups invariably become the subjects of discrimination, particularly if workers generally are insecure in their

jobs.

Desperate individuals often seek to insure the security of their jobs by ruling out Negroes or other minorities as possible competitors.

Denial of economic opportunity that is, equal access to jobs inevitably affects our whole standard of living. It has produced inferior housing, inadequate education, and lower standards of health, not only for those discriminated against but in the entire community. Booker T. Washington put the problem squarely when he said, "You can't keep a man down in a ditch without getting down there with him."

The proposed Federal law against discrimination in employment is our surest protection against the aforementioned evils. Wherever such legislation has been enacted, the effects have been salutary. The New York experience is a challenge to the Nation. Not one of the objections raised during the legislative debates has materialized. Far from establishing a record of force and coercion, it has proved to be an instrument of public education and enlightenment. To those who insist that discrimination, rooted in ignorance and prejudice, is responsive only to long-time educational measures, the answer is clear. The most effective educational weapon in combating discrimination in employment is the passage of the legislation providing for the establishment of a Permanent Fair Employment Practice Committee such as is provided in Senate bill 984.

NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR A PERMANENT FEPC, WASHINGTON, D. C.

The Most Reverend Francis J. Haas, bishop, of Grand Rapids, and a member of the board of directors of the National Council for a Permanent FEPC, has sent the following letter in support of S. 984, a bill to abolish discrimination in employment, to Robert A. Taft, chairman of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, Bishop Haas has advised A. Philip Randolph, cochairman of the National Council for a Permanent FEPC.

Hon. ROBERT A. TAFT,

DIOCESE OF GRAND RAPIDS,

Grand Rapids 2, Mich., June 10, 1947.

Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Permit me to address the present statement to your committee in support of Senate bill 984, which probibits discrimination in employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry. I earnestly hope that this bill will become law.

I offer no lengthy comment on the underlying principle of the bill; that is, that all American citizens are equal, and that all are entitled to have their right to equal opportunity protected by law. To me both as an American citizen and as a Catholic bishop this principle needs no supporting argument. Equality is among our most treasured American possessions, as it is a central doctrine of Christian faith, which proclaims that all men are equal before God, made equal before Him through His divine Son Jesus Christ.

In my judgment, the concept of equality together with the obligation of government to protect it requires no reasoned proof. In fact, I doubt whether it can be so proved. To try to do so would be almost like trying to prove that the sun is necessary for human existence. In my view, the friends of the bill should not even bother trying to prove that this principle is sound. They should rather put the burden of proof on the opponents of the bill to show-which of course they cannot and, may I add, dare not do that the principle is not sound. But this feature of the whole matter may be only incidental. In any event, I accept without qualification the basic principle from which S. 984 starts, and I am convinced that every true American and every believing Christian does the same. Having said the foregoing, I ask leave to comment briefly on what I regard as the heart and lifeblood of bill S. 984, namely, its provisions for enforcement by the courts. I sincerely hope that your committee in its recommendation to the Congress will retain this vital section of the bill and that the Congress in its action will do likewise.

The bill as drafted provides for conciliation of complaints provided that such conciliation effectuates the terms of the act. Such conciliation efforts are in my judgment, which is based on my experience as Chairman of the President's Committee on Fair Employment Practice in 1943, highly desirable and they may be regarded as work of tremendous educational value. They should by all odds be continued.

But education of such character, valuable as it is, is not enough. Much more is required. Legal enforcement by the courts is essential, and I earnestly hope that the Congress will hold firmly to this basic provision of the bill without in any way compromising on it.

Frankly, I become a bit impatient with persons who insist that the whole matter of securing fair employment opportunity for all the people without discrimination, is solely the business of education. In too many instances their position amounts to holding that a just social order is to be built brick by brick, but that only one brick is to be laid every hundred years. We may not resign ourselves to such a policy of defeatism and of doing nothing.

Education and more education, indeed, we need. But it may well be doubted whether in the field of fair employment opportunity we can educate unless we also legislate. And legislation in the present case means not only providing for opportunity for conciliation but also for the use of government to effectuate the declared purposes of the proposed act whenever conciliation efforts are found to be inadequate.

I earnestly hope that your committee will recommend S. 984 as it stands and that the Congress will without delay enact it into law.

Respectfully yours,

Most Reverend FRANCIS J. HAAS,

Bishop of Grand Rapids.

Senator DONNELL. Is Mr. Joseph Bustard present?
Mr. BUSTARD. Yes, Senator.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Bustard, it has arrived at the hour of 9 minutes past 1 this afternoon.

Our committee finds itself in this situation: At 2 o'clock this afternoon there is a Subcommittee on Labor of which Senator Ellender, Senator Murray, and myself, members of this committee, are also members, which will hold an executive meeting on a very important matter. The Senate also is to vote at 4 o'clock, as per unanimous-consent agreement, upon another very important matter.

I think in view of the fact all of us, both the members of the committee and the witnesses, would like to get a little lunch in the meantime, it will be necessary to recess, and I am wondering if 3 o'clock this afternoon would meet the convenience of Mr. Bustard and members of the committee to resume.

We will necessarily adjourn or recess a few minutes before 4 o'clock. Will that meet your convenience, Mr. Bustard?

Mr. BUSTARD. I was planning to get the 3: 45 train.

Senator DONNELL. How long would your testimony require? Mr. BUSTARD. I planned only to take 15 minutes, but as most of the witnesses have consumed much more time I would perhaps be longer.

Senator SMITH. Mr. Bustard comes from my State of New Jersey. I am very much interested in hearing from him.

Mr. BUSTARD. Will the hearing start promptly at 3 o'clock?

Senator DONNELL. On reconsideration, I think we will adjourn until 2:45. This room will not be open either to witnesses or the public until the conclusion of the executive meeting at 2 o'clock, and if agreeable with Mr. Bustard, and other witnesses, and to the committee, we will resume at 2: 45.

I had entirely overlooked the fact that Mr. Roderick Stephens is on the list of witnesses.

Is Mr. Stephens here?

Mr. STEPHENS. Yes, Senator.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Stephens, what is your convenience? Do you want to get back to New York this afternoon?

Mr. STEPHENS. I had hoped to leave this evening.

Senator DONNELL. We will meet at 2:45 and we will see how it goes. I have explained the circumstances. If it appears impossible we may have to ask you to come back tomorrow morning.

Mr. STEPHENS. We will if necessary.

Senator DONNELL. Thank you. That is a very fine spirit.

The committee is in recess until 2: 45.

(Thereupon, at 1:15 p. m., the subcommittee recessed until 2:45 p.m. this day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

(The hearing was resumed at 3: 10 p. m., pursuant to recess.) Senator DONNELL. Mr. Bustard, will you take the stand?

Senator SMITH. Just for the record, I want to say that I am very happy to see you here from the State of New Jersey. I am familiar with the splendid contribution you have made to this difficult subject as part of our department of education project.

Senator DONNELL. Gentlemen, in view of the fact that Mr. Bustard comes from Senator Smith's State, I would suggest the Senator.conduct the examination of Mr. Bustard.

Senator SMITH. I just want to state a preliminary question. When this matter came up in New Jersey there were reasons for putting the commission under the department of education.

Now, I would like Mr. Bustard, if you would, to give us briefly your background and the relation of this work to the department of education in New Jersey.

Mr. BUSTARD. Yes, sir.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH L. BUSTARD, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Mr. BUSTARD. I was born in New Jersey, Paterson, N. J.

I went to teachers' college in New Jersey, and from there to Rutgers University, and I received a master's degree in education from Columbia University.

I was a teacher, a high-school coach, in elementary and high schools, and a principal and superintendent of schools in New Jersey. Senator SMITH. You were?

Mr. BUSTARD. I was.

The law was passed in New Jersey in April 1945, and became operative in July 1945, at the same time the New York law became operative.

Senator SMITH. Will you state for the record why this was placed in the department of education?

Mr. BUSTARD. Yes; I was going to mention that, Senator.

There are two reasons.

One reason why that was done is this: While this law was being enacted in New Jersey the Governor at the same time was streamlining the State.

Senator SMITH. Governor Edge?

Mr. BUSTARD. Yes, sir; and while he was in favor of the law he did not want to create a new branch of State government. He wanted to fit it into an existing branch of State government.