democracy is an insecure democracy. Despite all the progress we have made, American democracy remains alarmingly incomplete because millions of our fellow citizens are still denied their legitimate democratic rights and full equality of treatment on account of their race, color, creed, or national origin.

In no area is this denial of democratic rights more serious or destructive than in the field of employment-the denial of work or promotion to qualified applicants because of racial or religious considerations.

This committee is now considering a bill (H. R. 4453) to correct that evil. It is not the first of such bills, nor is this the first congressional hearing on the subject. FEPC bills were introduced in the Seventy-eighth, Seventy-ninth, and Eightieth Congresses.

In 1944 the House Committee on Labor held public hearings on H. R. 3986, H. R. 4004, and H. R. 4005, three identical FEPC bills, while in the same year a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor held public hearings on S. 2048. All the witnesses who appeared at these hearings supported the pending legislation, and both committees reported the bills favorably (H. Rept. No. 2016, Dec. 4, 1944; S. Rept. No. 1109, Sept. 20, 1944). During the Seventy-ninth Congress public hearings were held by a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor on S. 101 and S. 459. The committee reported favorably S. 101 (Rept. No. 290, May 24, 1945). Again all the witnesses testifying before the committee supported the legislation. The House Committee on Labor of the Seventy-ninth Congress, without holding public hearings, reported favorably H. R. 2232 (Rept. No. 187, Feb. 20, 1945). The Eightieth Congress again considered FEPC legislation. A subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare held extensive hearings on S. 984. An overwhelming majority of the witnesses testifying before the committee supported the legislation, the only opposition witnesses being two public officials in the State of Mississippi and a representative of an organization of southern businessmen. The Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare reported favorably S. 984 (Rept. No. 951, Mar. 2, 1948).

In fact, the issue before this committee is not whether discrimination is bad. That is recognized by all but the open advocates of Hitler's racism. The only debatable issues are whether discrimination can be reduced by legislation and whether such legislation should be enacted by State governments, the Federal Government, or both.

The lesson that government action can be effective to curb discrimination is taught by our experience with the wartime FEPC, by the antidiscrimination laws which were on the books of four States at the beginning of this year, by the addition of at least four more State laws during this year, and by the failure in past years of purely educational techniques. It is driven home by the fact that the President's Committee on Civil Rights, the President's Commission on Higher Education, and the other official bodies which have studied discrimination have uniformly concluded that legislation is appropriate and necessary.

The wartime FEPC did not have full enforcement powers. Nevertheless, it had certain limited sanctions. Its success was due to those sanctions, and the limited nature of its success was due to the fact that its powers were limited.

The favorable experience with State laws was summarized by Mr. Henry Turner, then chairman of the New York State Commission Against Discrimination, in his testimony at the Senate hearings on the Ives-Fulton bill in 1947. He said (p. 329):

"The importance of the sanctions or of the powers of enforcement, to my mind, are quite analogous to the truancy laws which are effective in our educational system. It has compelled people to pay attention to the fact of the existence of the law and the philosophy which it expresses; and, unquestionably, in my opinion, has rendered the processes of conference and conciliation, which have been rather effectively used in the State of New York-it has made them possible." After Mr. Turner delivered his statement, the following colloquy took place (hearings, p. 338):

"Senator SMITH. I value your judgment, Mr. Turner, very highly because you must know from your experience to what extent it is necessary to have legal sanctions behind you in what you are trying to do.

"Mr. TURNER. In our opinion, the conciliation affords the method for getting management and labor groups into conference for the purpose of instituting these conciliation processes and has been greatly aided.

"Senator SMITH. You still have the subpena power?

"Mr. TURNER. We still have the subpena power, but you have no impulse to accept the conciliation efforts unless there was in the background somewhere

the possibility that, if you will not sit down and debate this issue thoroughly, sanctions may be imposed, or the authority of the courts may be called upon to aid in the establishment of your order.

"Senator SMITH. Is that based on your experience: that if sanctions had not been there you would not have received that cooperation?

"Mr. TURNER. I think we have had enough experience to realize that if there was that consciousness always in the mind of the employer or respondent in the case, there was always the possibility of that alternative. I do not mean to say the conference necessarily proceeded under duress. I do not mean to imply that, but there was always the possibility of that alternative which rendered him more willing to sit down and realize he had to make certain concessions."

Certainly it is clear that none of the dire predictions made about the State laws before they were passed have been fulfilled.

The memorable words of the President's Committee on Civil Rights bear frequent repetition (Report: To Secure These Rights, p. 135):

"All of our governments, Federal, State, and local, must be uncompromising enemies of discrimination, which is prejudice come to life."

On the same subject the President's Commission on Higher Education said (Higher Education for American Democracy, vol. II, p. 27):

"Where assurance of good conduct in other fields of public concern has not been forthcoming from citizen groups, the passage of laws to enforce good conduct has been the corrective method of a democratic society."

The American Jewish Congress firmly believes that discrimination in employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry must be made illegal. We therefore support H. R. 4453. We have little patience or sympathy with the view which argues that such legislation is doomed to ineffectiveness until there has been a change in the minds and hearts of men and the prejudices which many people entertain are dissolved by education or exhortation. Experience has unanswerably revealed that all the talk about brotherhood and equality and tolerance has had virtually no impact on the practice of discrimination and that this antidemocratic pattern has been modified only where we have enlisted the aid of law and public regulation.

Children are not born with prejudices. Protestant, Catholic, and Jew, Negro and white, live and play and go to school together without self-consciousness until they are corrupted by the facts of the society in which they live. No education for brotherhood or equality can be successful where the principles which education sets forth are constantly contradicted by the stark facts of segregation, discrimination, and inequality. Education against prejudice can make progress only where there has been prior action against discrimination. Existing patterns of discriminatory practice strengthen and reinforce racial prejudice and this prejudice in turn fosters and encourages still further discrimination. If we are to shatter the barriers of prejudice by which our country is still divided, we must destroy those discriminatory practices on which prejudice feeds. The country is challenged by the urgent need of breaking the vicious circle of discrimination and prejudice. It can be broken only by attacking racism at those points where it expresses itself in overt social and public practices rather than in the minds and hearts of men. That I consider to be the aim and purpose of H. R. 4453.

The bill before this committee is not directed against a state of mind. It does not bid anyone to change his views or to abandon his prejudices. But it does assert that, when these prejudices find expression in discriminatory conduct, the Nation and public have a right to demand that the conduct come to an end. Conduct is not a mater merely of privae conviction; it is a subject of vital public concern. By outlawing discrimination, we shall not only be eliminating one of the most flagrant violations of democratic practice. We shall be taking a major step in the dissolution of prejudice.

These observations are fully supported by even our limited experience. In the Detroit race riot in June 1943, for example, those factories in which the segrega tion of Negroes and whites had been eliminated were islands of stability in a sea of terror. Again and again during the war, strikes against the proposed elimination of discrimination were threatened by white workers trained in the habits of prejudice. Yet, where a firm policy was pursued and the discriminatory policy abandoned, the strike threats vanished and realistic and effective education in racial and religious equality followed. Where ethnic groups associate on the basis of genuine equality, racial tension does not exist. It prevails only where groups are ranged on opposing sides of an artificial economic barrier.

democracy is an insecure democracy. Despite all the progress we have made, American democracy remains alarmingly incomplete because millions of our fellow citizens are still denied their legitimate democratic rights and full equality of treatment on account of their race, color, creed, or national origin.

In no area is this denial of democratic rights more serious or destructive than in the field of employment—the denial of work or promotion to qualified applicants because of racial or religious considerations.

This committee is now considering a bill (H. R. 4453) to correct that evil. It is not the first of such bills, nor is this the first congressional hearing on the subject. FEPC bills were introduced in the Seventy-eighth, Seventy-ninth, and Eightieth Congresses.

In 1944 the House Committee on Labor held public hearings on H. R. 3986, H. R. 4004, and H. R. 4005, three identical FEPC bills, while in the same year a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor held public hearings on S. 2048. All the witnesses who appeared at these hearings supported the pending legislation, and both committees reported the bills favorably (H. Rept. No. 2016, Dec. 4, 1944; S. Rept. No. 1109, Sept. 20, 1944). During the Seventy-ninth Congress public hearings were held by a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Education and Labor on S. 101 and S. 459. The committee reported favorably S. 101 (Rept. No. 290, May 24, 1945). Again all the witnesses testifying before the committee supported the legislation. The House Committee on Labor of the Seventy-ninth Congress, without holding public hearings, reported favorably H. R. 2232 (Rept. No. 187, Feb. 20, 1945). The Eightieth Congress again considered FEPC legislation. A subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare held extensive hearings on S. 984. An overwhelming majority of the witnesses testifying before the committee supported the legislation, the only opposition witnesses being two public officials in the State of Mississippi and a representative of an organization of southern businessmen. The Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare reported favorably S. 984 (Rept. No. 951, Mar. 2, 1948).

In fact, the issue before this committee is not whether discrimination is bad. That is recognized by all but the open advocates of Hitler's racism. The only debatable issues are whether discrimination can be reduced by legislation and whether such legislation should be enacted by State governments, the Federal Government, or both.

The lesson that government action can be effective to curb discrimination is taught by our experience with the wartime FEPC, by the antidiscrimination laws which were on the books of four States at the beginning of this year, by the addition of at least four more State laws during this year, and by the failure in past years of purely educational techniques. It is driven home by the fact that the President's Committee on Civil Rights, the President's Commission on Higher Education, and the other official bodies which have studied discrimination have uniformly concluded that legislation is appropriate and necessary.

The wartime FEPC did not have full enforcement powers. Nevertheless, it had certain limited sanctions. Its success was due to those sanctions, and the limited nature of its success was due to the fact that its powers were limited.

The favorable experience with State laws was summarized by Mr. Henry Turner, then chairman of the New York State Commission Against Discrimination, in his testimony at the Senate hearings on the Ives-Fulton bill in 1947. He said (p. 329):

"The importance of the sanctions or of the powers of enforcement, to my mind, are quite analogous to the truancy laws which are effective in our educational system. It has compelled people to pay attention to the fact of the existence of the law and the philosophy which it expresses; and, unquestionably, in my opinion, has rendered the processes of conference and conciliation, which have been rather effectively used in the State of New York-it has made them possible." After Mr. Turner delivered his statement, the following colloquy took place (hearings, p. 338):

"Senator SMITH. I value your judgment, Mr. Turner, very highly because you must know from your experience to what extent it is necessary to have legal sanctions behind you in what you are trying to do.

"Mr. TURNER. In our opinion, the conciliation affords the method for getting management and labor groups into conference for the purpose of instituting these conciliation processes and has been greatly aided.

"Senator SMITH. You still have the subpena power?

"Mr. TURNER. We still have the subpena power, but you have no impulse to accept the conciliation efforts unless there was in the background somewhere

the possibility that, if you will not sit down and debate this issue thoroughly, sanctions may be imposed, or the authority of the courts may be called upon to aid in the establishment of your order.

"Senator SMITH. Is that based on your experience: that if sanctions had not been there you would not have received that cooperation?

"Mr. TURNER. I think we have had enough experience to realize that if there was that consciousness always in the mind of the employer or respondent in the case, there was always the possibility of that alternative. I do not mean to say the conference necessarily proceeded under duress. I do not mean to imply that, but there was always the possibility of that alternative which rendered him more willing to sit down and realize he had to make certain concessions."

Certainly it is clear that none of the dire predictions made about the State laws before they were passed have been fulfilled.

The memorable words of the President's Committee on Civil Rights bear frequent repetition (Report: To Secure These Rights, p. 135):

"All of our governments, Federal, State, and local, must be uncompromising enemies of discrimination, which is prejudice come to life."

On the same subject the President's Commission on Higher Education said (Higher Education for American Democracy, vol. II, p. 27):

"Where assurance of good conduct in other fields of public concern has not been forthcoming from citizen groups, the passage of laws to enforce good conduct has been the corrective method of a democratic society."

The American Jewish Congress firmly believes that discrimination in employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, or ancestry must be made illegal. We therefore support H. R. 4453. We have little patience or sympathy with the view which argues that such legislation is doomed to ineffectiveness until there has been a change in the minds and hearts of men and the prejudices which many people entertain are dissolved by education or exhortation. Experience has unanswerably revealed that all the talk about brotherhood and equality and tolerance has had virtually no impact on the practice of discrimination and that this antidemocratic pattern has been modified only where we have enlisted the aid of law and public regulation.

Children are not born with prejudices. Protestant, Catholic, and Jew, Negro and white, live and play and go to school together without self-consciousness until they are corrupted by the facts of the society in which they live. No education for brotherhood or equality can be successful where the principles which education sets forth are constantly contradicted by the stark facts of segregation, discrimination, and inequality. Education against prejudice can make progress only where there has been prior action against discrimination.

Existing patterns of discriminatory practice strengthen and reinforce racial prejudice and this prejudice in turn fosters and encourages still further discrimination. If we are to shatter the barriers of prejudice by which our country is still divided, we must destroy those discriminatory practices on which prejudice feeds. The country is challenged by the urgent need of breaking the vicious circle of discrimination and prejudice. It can be broken only by attacking racism at those points where it expresses itself in overt social and public practices rather than in the minds and hearts of men. That I consider to be the aim and purpose of H. R. 4453.

It

The bill before this committee is not directed against a state of mind. does not bid anyone to change his views or to abandon his prejudices. But it does assert that, when these prejudices find expression in discriminatory conduct, the Nation and public have a right to demand that the conduct come to an end. Conduct is not a mater merely of privae conviction; it is a subject of vital public concern. By outlawing discrimination, we shall not only be eliminating one of the most flagrant violations of democratic practice. We shall be taking a major step in the dissolution of prejudice.

These observations are fully supported by even our limited experience. In the Detroit race riot in June 1943, for example, those factories in which the segrega. tion of Negroes and whites had been eliminated were islands of stability in a sea of terror. Again and again during the war, strikes against the proposed elimination of discrimination were threatened by white workers trained in the habits of prejudice. Yet, where a firm policy was pursued and the discriminatory policy abandoned, the strike threats vanished and realistic and effective education in racial and religious equality followed. Where ethnic groups associate on the basis of genuine equality, racial tension does not exist. It prevails only where groups are ranged on opposing sides of an artificial economic barrier.

If we are to educate for equality, we must therefore first eliminate and reduce the areas in which inequality prevails. Passage of H. R. 4453 may leave pockets of die-hard resistance. But it will greatly enlarge the area in which Jews and Christians, Negroes and whites, work side by side. This alone will provide millions of our citizens with the most effective education in democratic living.

There is still some doubt, however, as to whether we should look to the Federal rather than, or in addition to, the State governments for antidiscrimination legislation. Certainly this is a matter of concern to the entire Nation. Discrimination in employment severely affects not only the particular groups against which it is directed but the entire Nation. When members of these groups are denied jobs for which they are qualified, they are forced to accept less remunerative employment or none at all. The living standards of these groups are thus lowered, and their members discouraged from developing their skills and special abilities. The Nation loses an important source of skill and manpower, and lowering the living standards of any group in the country adversely affects the economy as a whole.

These lessons were brought home to us during the war only because the situation had reached the point of desperation. But it is no less urgent in the interests of American democracy and security that we apply the lesson in times of peace. Today, we must be no less concerned with the devastating social, psychological, and moral effects of discriminatory practices than we were during the war with their economic effects. We can hardly expect all those who are frustrated in their normal and legitimate ambitions to remain in all respects law-abiding and useful citizens. Individual delinquency and psychological abnormality are the least that can result from the knowledge that so many avenues of eployment and advancement are closed because of one's race or religion. Mass unrest, tension, and disturbances are equally inevitable consequences of our antidemocratic practices.

Though I shall refer to it but briefly; there is today another aspect to this problem of discrimination in our midst of great importance-its international implications. Our adherence to the charter of the United Nations bound this country to promote "universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion." Less than 6 months ago the United States voted in the General Assembly of the United Nations to proclaim the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 23 (1) of the declaration provides that "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment" and article 2 (1) provides that "Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration, without distinction of any kind,, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, or other status." Throughout the world, nations are looking to this country for democratic leadership. It is only natural that they should do so because we have led the world in developing the concepts and practice of liberty and freedom. But, as these nations look at us closely, they see many things which disfigure and tarnish our record. They see too great a gap between our professions and our practices. Despite our obligations under the United Nations Charter, we continue to deny, through discrimination and segregation, the democratic rights of many of our citizens because of their race and color. As a result, these nations inevitably question our good faith and sincerity. If we are securely to establish our claims to moral and democratic leadership throughout the world, we must take determined and imaginative action to bring our social and public practices into complete harmony with our professions of equality and democracy. The passage of H. R. 4453 would represent that kind of action.

State action alone will not solve this national problem. We cannot ignore the practical fact that the greater the degree of discrimination in any State, the smaller is the likelihood of effective legislation. If we leave this matter to the States alone, as will be applying the cure only where it is needed least. As President Truman said in the Executive order creating the Committee on Civil Rights, "The constitutional guaranties of individual liberties and of equal protection under the laws clearly places on the Federal Government the duty to act when State or local authorities abridge or fail to protect these constitutional rights." The importance of effective legislation is shown not only by generalized argument but also by the hard fact that racial and religious discrimination is and continues to be widespread.