INTRODUCTORY

While I occupy a representative capacity as president of the Synagogue Council of America, as indicated above, I come here as an American citizen, interested in the welfare of all Americans and especially in preserving those institutions that are vital to our democracy. It is from this larger point of view that I support the objectives of S. 981, known as the Ives-Chavez bill. I believe that failure to enact some such bill will make many Americans lose heart and faith in our democracy and plant thoughts of dictatorship in their minds.

It is natural that religious groups should come strongly to the support of any measure which puts into practice the fundamental principle that we have "one Father and that one God made us all," and, moreover, that "the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof." However, it is not merely from a theological point of view that we feel strong effort must be made against discrimination, but from the more practical aspect of preserving the rights of our citizens and especially of furthering the aims of our form of government.

Following are some of the reasons why I believe the Ives-Chavez bill against discrimination should be enacted:

(1) It is in keeping with the fundamental American concept as contained in the Declaration of Independence and as further implemented in our Constitution, that every American is entitled to equal opportunity, without regard to race, creed, or color, or whatever his situation socially, economically, religiously, or with regard to geographical origin. One of the fundamental rights of an individual is to earn a livelihood, and it places a citizen in a condition of servitude to be the victim of practices which deprive him of that opportunity.

(2) We have made a great deal of progress in this country in breaking down class barriers. There are some parts of the Nation which are more liberal than others, but there still persist in industry, as well as in education, particularly in many areas of employment, practices which make it impossible for people of certain religious and racial groups to receive fair and equal consideration when applying for jobs. Many employers and even labor unions are guilty of discriminatory policies. It is desirable_that such un-American methods be eliminated, and since this is the aim of the Ives-Chavez bill, we feel it our duty as religious people to endorse it.

(3) Efforts made in the State of New York and New Jersey, and perhaps other places show that proper methods of intervention on the part of a duly established legal authority frequently results in having discriminatory practices stopped. A national law on the subject is bound to be helpful to local bodies working along these lines and will also reach those organizations which are not municipal or State in character, but country-wide in their operation.

(4) Discrimination is against all religious principle; it is immoral and is destructive of the welfare of democracy because it tends to set group against group and to sharpen a sense of conflict between classes. While the churches and synagogues and many public-spirited groups conduct campaigns of education against all forms of hatred and bigotry which result in discrimination, this is not enough. The text of the Ives-Chavez bill will provide not only for additional educational effort and certain techniques of arbitration and conference, but will give to aggrieved persons a chance to have their wrongs rectified. It will make it costly for employers and others to practice discrimination, as well as to give the entire subject the additional safeguard of being not merely immoral and irreligious, but unlawful.

It has become trite to assert that we won the war because we put our prejudices and our discriminations aside in the all-out effort on the battlefield as well as behind the lines to defeat our enemies. However, this is a historic fact. We shall lose the fruits of our victory if we do not learn to be as united in peace as we were in war and as desirous of eliminating unwarranted discrimination in our peaceful pursuits as we were in the grim and stern business of bringing death and destruction to the dictators.

The Synagogue Council of America has gone on record on other occasions in favor of an economic pattern in which there would be no place for discriminatory practice. In a telegram to Senators Mead and Bridges on July 5, 1945, it said, "The religious forces of the United States have overwhelmingly endorsed the principles of economic justice incorporated in the idea of the Fair Employment Practices Committee. Repeatedly, statements of every faith have declared the rights of all men to work at jobs at which they are qualified without discrimination because of race, color, creed, or national origin." In a part of an eight-point statement on economic justice, on October 16, 1946, they said, "It is the duty of

the organizations of workers, farmers, employers, and professional people to govern themselves and to assume their full responsibility for the ethical conduct of their own industry or profession and of the economic unity of the community and all its parts. It is also their moral duty to admit to their membership all qualified persons without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin."

It is our measured opinion and my own conviction that the enactment of S. 984 will be a step forward in making our American democracy more enduring and more capable of withstanding the strains of peace as well as the strains of war. The Synagogue Council of America finds that the aims of the bill as expressed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 2 are not merely legislative but really spiritual in language and character. These are sentiments we can support.

AFTERNOON SESSION

(The committee reconvened at 2 p. m. pursuant to recess.) Senator DONNELL. The committee will be in order, please.

Senator IVES. Mr. Chairman, this morning I requested that I be permitted to insert in the record certain portions of the report of the New York State Temporary Commission Against Discrimination which may seem applicable to the bill now under discussion. Upon further consideration of this matter, I have reached the conclusion that so much of this report is of value and may be of use to the members of this committee that I should like to present each of the members with a copy of it and not have any of it included in the transcribed minutes of the hearing, if that is agreeable to the chairman and members of the committee.

Senator DONNELL. That is agreeable, is it not, Senator?

Senator ELLENDER. Yes.

Senator DONNELL. I suggest, Senator, if you will be so kind, that you file one additional copy with the clerk of the committee.

Senator IVES. All right.

Senator DONNELL. The next witness is Dr. Beverley M. Boyd, secretary of the department of Christian social relations of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, New York, N. Y.

STATEMENT OF DR. BEVERLEY M. BOYD, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CHRISTIAN SOCIAL RELATIONS, FEDERAL COUNCIL OF THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN AMERICA, ASSISTED BY DR. J. OSCAR LEE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF RACE RELATIONS OF THE FEDERAL COUNCIL OF THE CHURCHES OF CHRIST IN AMERICA, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Senator DONNELL. Dr. Boyd, will you please state your name and address, your profession, and something of your background?

Dr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, my name is Beverley M. Boyd. I am executive secretary of the department of Christian social relations of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, 297 Fourth Avenue, New York 10. I am an Episcopal clergyman who went into the work of the Federal Council about 21/2 years ago. I have been active in the field of social work. Before coming to the Federal Council, I was president of the Council of Social Agencies in Richmond, Va.; president of the community fund in Austin, Tex., prior to that; and have had some experience in the field of social relations and particularly in the field of social service.

Senator ELLENDER. Where were you born?

Dr. BOYD. I was born in Roanoke, Va., and am a southerner by birth. I went to Washington and Lee University, Lexington, Va., and the University of Virginia, and the Virginia Theological Seminary, Alexandria, Va.

I appear here to express the views of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America as stated in official action by its executive committee and at its biennial meetings.

Senator DONNELL. Has this executive committee, to which you refer, or the Federal Council itself at a biennial meeting passed specifically on this bill?

Dr. BOYD. It has, sir; and that is incorporated in the report.
Senator DONNELL. Very well.

Dr. BOYD. May I interpolate this sentence which is not in the written report which I gave you? In accordance with its usual custom through its executive committee, the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America has not specifically endorsed Senate bill 984. It is on record as endorsing in principle the provisions embodied in this proposed bill.

Senator DONNELL. That is, you construe the principles for which the organization has expressed itself affirmatively to be the principles which are in S. 984. Is that right?

Dr. BOYD. That is right, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. Doctor, what is your denomination?

Dr. BOYD. I happen to be an Episcopalian.

Senator ELLENDER. I notice here that you state you are secretary of the department of Christian social relations of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America. Is that association composed of other denominations than Episcopalians?

Dr. BOYD. Yes; 25, sir, as I am going to read here. It is a cooperative group of 25 Protestant denominations.

Senator ELLENDER. Twenty-five Protestant denominations?

Dr. BOYD. Yes, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. How do you support yourself?

Dr. BOYD. By voluntary contributions from the constituency from each one of the denominations.

Senator ELLENDER. What is your main function?

Dr. BOYD. I think I could express it very briefly that the main function of the Federal Council of Churches, certainly one of its main functions, is to express through cooperation and to prove that through cooperation there are certain areas, certain fields of work, in which we have learned and, we trust, we are learning each day to work together better than separately than in our individual denominations.

Senator ELLENDER. What part does the religious views of each denomination play in it, if any?

Dr. BOYD. The Federal Council of Churches cannot make any theological statement that is binding on any one of its constituency. It is cooperative work. We will hold to our theological differences so that we can work together cooperatively in the field of social relations, labor relations, race relations, or in research in education, and so forth. Senator ELLENDER. Does your council have as any of its members all churches, whether whites or colored?

Dr. BOYD. Yes; we have colored church denominations in the Federal Council as members of the council. As a matter of fact, our

immediate past vice president was a member of a Negro church, Dr. Benjamin May, of Georgia."

Senator ELLENDER. And there is no distinction made at all, is there? Dr. BOYD. None whatsoever, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. Now has this council made any studies?

Dr. BOYD. Through our race relations department we are constantly making studies in the field of race relations, if that is what you mean,

sir.

Senator ELLENDER. Yes; that is what I am talking about. What about the religious aspect? Is it your view that we should legislate as to that also in respect to employment?

Dr. BOYD. I wonder if you will grant me the courtesy of saying that I am here to read this official statement, and I will be glad to answer any questions personally.

Senator ELLENDER. Very well.

Dr. BoYD. I am representing a corporate group. I don't want to dodge that because I think it is in our statement here. I am answering partly your question.

Senator ELLENDER. Proceed in your way, sir.

Senator DONNELL. Doctor, may I interrupt you a moment, please? Has this specific statement you are about to read been presented to the executive committee of the Federal Council of Churches?

Dr. BOYD. That specific statement has not, sir.

Senator DONNELL. Well, notwithstanding your good faith, of which I have no question, in construing the principles for which your or ganization has expressed itself favorably as being principles which are incorporated in S. 984, I would like to have not merely your own conclusions as to that, but I would like to have in this record just what specific action the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America at any of its biennial meetings has taken which, in your judgment, establishes that it is favorable to the principles of S. 984.

Dr. BOYD. On page 3 of this report, Mr. Chairman, I refer to that. I don't have it in the file which I have with me, but I will be glad to send to you an official statement in full of the action of the Federal Council at a special meeting held in Columbus, Ohio, in March 1946, and also the full statement which I have not quoted in here in full that was adopted at the biennial meeting in Seattle last December. Senator DONNELL. You do not have either of those statements, March 1946 or the December 1946 statement?

Dr. BOYD. No. I do not have them in full. I will refer to them, sir.

Senator DONNELL. Will you be kind enough to send to the clerk of this committee a copy of each of these statements in full?

Dr. BOYD. I will be glad to, sir.

Senator DONNELL. That will be received for the record and incorporated in the record.

Dr. BOYD. Yes, sir.

(The statement referring to the Ohio meeting subsequently was submitted and is as follows:)

THE CHURCH AND RACE RELATIONS

(An official statement approved by the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America at a special meeting, Columbus, Ohio, March 5-7, 1946

Many Christians in America are deeply conscious of the heavy obligation that inheres in their purpose to establish Christian fellowship. In the light of the increase in racial tensions in many communities across America the term "Christian fellowship" means more than cooperation in a common task. In the early church there was a mysterious power in the unity of Christ's disciples. They were so moulded by internal bonds of brotherhood, so "fitly framed together" that the Apostle Paul could refer to them as "one body in Christ." This was the community in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit and made bold by the consciousness of an essential unity that "turned the world upside down."

We believe the church today must seek to rediscover the transforming power that inhered in the undivided early Christian community and then apply that power to the massive problem presented by race tensions in community life.

THE SEGREGATION PATTERN ANALYZED

Segregation is the pattern of our American race relations. Segregation in America is the externally imposed separation or division of individual citizens, or groups of citizens, based on race, color, creed, or national origin. It is accepted, with some differences of emphasis, in all sections of the country. It is sometimes established and supported by law. In other instances, segregation is almost as rigidly enforced by social custom.

Segregation in America has always meant inferior services to the minority segregated. This pattern has never been able to secure equal separate services to the minority segregated. Segregation is always discriminatory.

Segregation is an expression of the inferiority-superiority pattern of opinions about race held tenaciously by the vast numbers of Americans. Segregation is not only the expression of an attitude; it is also the means by which that attitude is transmitted from one generation to another. Children of our society, observing minorities as we segregate them, cannot easily escape the conclusion that such minorities are inferior.

Segregation as practiced in America probably has more effect on the racial opinions of the young than formal teachings of the schools about democracy or of the church about Christian brotherhood.

Segregation as applied to our economic system denies to millions of our citizens free access to the means of making a living and sets for them insurmountable obstacles in their efforts to achieve freedom from want.

In the greatest crisis in our history segregation made it impossible to utilize fully large sections of our manpower in the armed services and war production. It also seriously limits the contributions of minority groups to the ongoing life of our people in the fields of art, education, science, industry, etc.

Segregation subjects sections of our population to constant humiliation and forces upon them spiritual and psychological handicaps in every relation of life. This creates a yawning and ofttimes unabridged chasm in the quality of human fellowship and stands in contradiction to the higher American dream. Still more devastating is the moral and spiritual effect upon the majority.

Segregation handicaps the Nation in international relationships. It was a source of great embarrassment to our leaders that we found it difficult to locate an American community where racial practices were acceptable for establishing the headquarters of the United Nations Organization. This is a discouraging factor within our life as a Nation as we begin to play our part in the new world unity upon which our future existence depends.

Political segregation has disfranchised large numbers of our citizens, tending to create unnecessary confusion in dealing with important national issues, creating unreal political divisions and giving rise to a type of political demagoguery that threatens the very existence of democratic institutions.

Segregation increases and accentuates racial tensions. It is worth noting that race riots in this country have seldom occurred in neighborhoods with a racially mixed population. Our worst riots have broken out along the borders of tightly segregated areas.

The pattern of racial segregation in America is given moral sanction by the fact that churches and church institutions, as a result of social pressure, have so largely accepted the pattern of racial segragations in their own life and practice.

65936-47-5