The legislation avoids the defects and dangers which were present in our earlier attempts during the war to establish fair-employment practices. It is not a rabble-rousing measure; it does not set color against color, or class against class; it is an attempt to bring all citizens together in allegiance to our common ideals. It has the backing of many employers and business leaders, as well as of unions and Government officials all over the country. We cannot abolish discrimination in employment overnight. It will be a long and difficult task, but this legislation is a most important first step. It makes provision for the creation of local, State, or regional advisory councils to foster an understanding of the law and its objectives through community effort. Such groups as the Washington State Council for a Permanent FEPC have a tremendously important role to play, not only in urging passage of the legislation but in making it effective after it is passed. MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE: As national chairman of the Socialist Workers Party, I wish to express our support for effective fairemployment-practices legislation. Resistance to such FEPC legislation is not confined to its open enemies-the Dixiecrats, southern Democrats, and other reactionary elements in the two major parties. These people take their stand in the open and oppose any interference, governmental or otherwise, with the sacred institution of job discrimi nation, that props up the capitalist-nurtured Jim Crow system itself. Such ele ments are easy to spot for the enemies they are to all civil liberties and they can be overcome. There are, however, other enemies of effective FEPC legislation. These people see the way the wind is blowing and know that outright resistance to the demand of the mass of the people is neither feasible nor expedient. Such individuals are more subtle and cunning and consequently even more dangerous than outright reactionaries. Their conduct follows two main patterns. 1. They acknowledge the evil of job discrimination, deplore it noisily, and demand steps to curb it. FEPC is needed, they say, and they even take the initiative in sponsoring such measures in local, State, and Federal legislative bodies. But, they insist, the true answer to ending discrimination lies not in "compulsion," but in "education." As they see it, the function of the FEPC is to investigate, arbitrate, and mediate and try to convince the miscreant Jim Crowers of the errors of their ways, but never, never under any circumstances, to "force" anyone to cease and desist from discrimination. The effect of legislation promoted by such people is to divert the fight against job discrimination into channels that are completely ineffectual-harmless for the Jim Crow elements and demoralizing for the masses. This kind of legislation is already on the books in some States. And some among the Dixiecrats have expressed a readiness to accept such compromises whenever they find themselves unable to stymie FEPC legislation in any other way. This attempt to distinguish between education and compulsion is false to the core and must be exposed. Not a lack of education motivates Jim Crow discrim ination, but rather the economic and political advantages that accrue to the ruling class by keeping the Negro people and the white workers separate and divided. The Jim Crow system is maintained by compulsion (as every Negro in the South knows) and it will be ended only by the use of stronger compulsion. Laws that do not compel the Jim Crow elements to desist from their violations of democratic rights are just so much window dressing. And what is more, compulsion, too, is a form of education. Strict enforcement of adequate antidiscrimination legislation will educate the Jim Crow elements a thousand times faster and more thoroughly than the best "educational" tracts, or pleas or advice. 2. But, when they are smoked out on this position the liberal opponents of effective FEPC legislation fall back on their last and most strongly fortified line. Yes, they admit, an FEPC with teeth is necessary and they are ready to support and adopt it, as has been done in New York State, for example. And they imme diately proceed to render such a law utterly worthless, despite its teeth. This they accomplish by the type of personnel they place at the head of the FEPC and by the compromising policies they pursue in the operation of the FEPC. Your committee has heard much praise for the New York FEPC, which bears the name of the State Commission Against Discrimination. You have also received many recommendations that the proposed national FEPC should be modeled after the SCAD. To do so, however, would be in effect to betray the fight against discrimination. Because the truth is that the SCAD has done virtually nothing beneficial in this field, despite ample authority and funds at its disposal. In fact, the SCAD operations have succeeded to date only in discrediting the very idea of FEPC action. Let me illustrate by calling to your attention a recent protest by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People against the SCAD's inaction and delay in the enforcement of the law. This protest was lodged because of SCAD's 3-year delay in settling the case of a Negro seaman who was refused employment as a radio operator on the S. S. Lehigh Victory on April 25, 1946, because the officers of the ship would not sail with a Negro. A complaint filed with SCAD on April 30, 1946, and amended on July 7, 1947, has not yet been satisfactorily settled despite the fact that SCAD found probable cause for the complaint almost a year ago. (NAACP press release, May 5, 1949.) From the beginning the SCAD had legislative authority to act on this case and to take it before the courts at the very least. It failed to do so because it is still trying-after 3 long years-to educate the guilty parties into mending their evil ways. At all events, the SCAD has never taken a single case into court. And not because it is so overworked, either. (The SCAD has the powers to initiate cases but refuses to do so, waiting instead for someone else to lodge a complaint.) But after a few experiences of this sort, how many workers are going to bother or waste time lodging complaints? Instead many of them are bound to conclude in discouragement that the whole FEPC proposition is a fizzle and not worth fighting for. The Socialist Workers Party has supported the struggle for FEPC legislation from the beginning and has given and will continue to give critical support to legislation along this line. For the above-stated reasons, however, and in the light of experience, we stress our repeated proposal to the effect that not only shall Congress pass an FEPC bill, and not only shall such a law have the necessary teeth, but also that specific provisions shall be included in such legislation to prevent circumvention of its aims through practices such as have been condoned in New York State. Concretely, what I and my party propose is that the administration of the FEPC not be left in the hands of people who are either chosen for patronage consideration or inclined to stress education to the detriment of legal enforcement. Administration of the FEPC must be controlled by the masses themselves through representatives responsible to their needs and wishes. These must be chosen by the labor movement and by Negro, Jewish, and other minority organizations. There is no other way for legislation to achieve favorable results in the struggle against discrimination. In conclusion, allow me to point out that the FEPC movement did not arise out of the activities of capitalist politicians, who pose as humanitarian protectors of minority rights only in order to protect the capitalist roots of racial and religious discrimination. They seek to misuse the FEPC issue for their own partisan ends. Actually the FEPC movement stems from the revolutionary changes in the thinking of the masses that are occurring because of the social ferment. During the thirties, these new mass moods received their clearest expression thus far in the upsurge of the CIO that has brought large numbers of white and Negro workers together in a common organization for the first time. The fight for the FEPC itself got its initial impetus in the course of the brief life of the Negro march on Washington movement. If the Eighty-first Congress through its major capitalist parties fails to pass effective legislation along the lines I have indicated, then the mass of white and Negro people will be heard from again. And, you may be sure, they will persist until not alone job discrimination but all of its defenders are swept out of their way. Sincerely yours, FARRELL DOBBS, National Secretary. STATEMENT BY WILLIAM L. BATT, PRESIDENT OF SKF INDUSTRIES, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL CITIZENS' COUNCIL ON CIVIL RIGHTS GENTLEMEN: I appreciate the opportunity to make known to the committee my views in favor of the Federal Fair Employment Practice Act, H. R. 4453. Together with many other American businessmen, I believe that discrimination in employment not only compromises the fundamental American principle of equal opportunity, but impedes the development of business and industry as well. Early in 1948, when this question was being considered by the United States Senate, I joined with several other businessmen in sending a message to Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg, President pro tempore of the Senate, urging adoption of a fair employment practice law. Our message, in part, said: "The great majority of employers in the United States, together with their fellow Americans, believe in the principle of nondiscrimination in employment. They know that such discrimination is uneconomic, in that it results in an unsound use of manpower and retards the development of purchasing power. They know it is undemocratic and un-American, being contrary to the prin ciples upon which our Government was founded and upon which it endures. They know, finally, that it weakens the position of the United States in the eyes of the world and in the war of ideas between freedom and totalitarianism." In addition to myself, those who signed this message were: Allen W. Dulles, of Sullivan & Cromwell Paul G. Hoffman, president of the Studebaker Corp. Eric Johnson, president of the Motion Pictures Association of America Dwight R. G. Palmer, president of the General Cable Corp. Martin Quigley, president of the Quigley Publishing Corp. Anna M. Rosenberg Beardsley Ruml, chairman of the board of R. H. Macy & Co. Spyros P. Skouras, chairman of the Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. Our system of free enterprise, with the rewards it offers for initiative and talent, has spurred men on to great accomplishments. But freedom of endeavor cannot be reserved as the right of a chosen few. All Americans must be encouraged to contribute the best efforts of their hands and minds, and to rise as high as their individual abilities justify. When opportunity and incentive are denied to any group in our population, we are diminishing the potential wealth of the Nation. Think, for a moment, of George Washington Carver, whose contribution to the science of soil chemistry did so much to revitalize the economy of the entire South. Fortunately for all of us Dr. Carver was able to overcome many of the obstacles faced by Negroes in our economic system. But who can measure the loss suffered by this country and the entire world when the latent abilities of other members of his race are not given full opportunity to develop? American industry is today responding to the greatest challenge in modern times. It faces a four-fold task: to hasten the rebuilding of the war-shattered economies of Europe; to satisfy the military requirements of our national defense; to help make fruitful the great undeveloped areas of the world; and to meet the needs of our own ever rising standard of living. Diminishing supplies of natural resources, and the limited purchasing power of both domestic and foreign markets, require that production and distribution be accomplished with the utmost of efficiency. Waste of any sort cannot be tolerated. Our human resources must be utilized to their fullest extent. Every member of the working force must be permitted to attain his optimum value. Every employer must be free to hire the very best man for every job without limitations as to race, religion, or national origin. Today, any factor that retards business development must be eliminated including unfair employment practices. I am familiar with the arguments advanced in opposition to fair employment laws. I submit that every one of these objections is invalidated by the facts. It has been said that the average laboring man will not serve side by side with members of certain racial groups. That charge is an insult to the sense of fair play of the American worker. Furthermore, it is refuted by experience. The records of the wartime Federal Fair Employment Practice Committee and of the commissions which have been administering similar laws in the States of New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, prove the speciousness of this argument. Most firms operating under these laws have found that over-all efficiency rose when the best qualified workers were on the job. My own firm, SKF Industries, although not guided by any State law, has observed a nondiscriminatory employment policy for many years with excellent results. It has been argued that customers in retail establishments will object to being served by Negro employees. Here again, experience proves the contrary. Department stores employing colored clerks have found that their sales records compare favorably with those of white personnel. On this point I refer you to the testimony of representatives of the New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts commissions, given before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare of the Eightieth Congress. These gentlemen reported that there was not one instance of an employer filing a complaint that he had lost either customers or revenue because of compliance with the fair employment practice law. I have heard it mentioned that such a law dictates to the employer as to whom he must hire. But H. R. 4453 does nothing of the kind. It would merely require that a person who is acceptable in every other respect must not be rejected because of religion, color, or national ancestry. There is still another reason why passage of this law is important to business. When capable workers are denied opportunities to increase their earning capacity, the purchasing power of their families must remain static or contract. If discrimination goes unchecked, affecting numerous groups within the population, a sizable market is lost for the products of industry. Moreover, a repressed standard of living invariably gives rise to social evils—slums, ill health, delinquency, and intergroup tension. In neighborhoods thus afflicted, the need for welfare services increases, property values fall, taxes rise, and new business ventures are discouraged. I have confined my remarks thus far to certain practical considerations, which must occur to any businessman. But the Fair Employment Practice Act rests on moral grounds which are even more compelling. I am a member of the National Citizens' Council on Civil Rights, an organization composed of prominent American citizens representing different sections of this country and including businessmen, educators, clergymen, and labor leaders. It is the view of this group that the United States, which led the way in the formulation of the United Nations Charter and the universal declaration of human rights, is now called upon to narrow the gap between protestation and practice. If we fail to guarantee full equality of opportunity to all our citizens, we shall in effect be saying to the world, "Do as we say, not as we do." This would indeed be a blow to the cause of democracy. As the outstanding exponent of human rights in the council of nations, we must raise a standard to which the rest of the world can rally. We also have an obligation to conform with the basic tenets on which this Nation was founded. A Federal Fair Employment Practice Act will be a further means of implementing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Such implementation has been too long delayed. Congress now has the opportunity to fulfill our Nation's historic promise by bringing employment practices into line with our fundamental beliefs. I urge that this be done by passage of H. R. 4453. Mr. POWELL. Our next witness is Mr. James Lipsig, representing the Jewish Labor Committee. TESTIMONY OF JAMES LIPSIG, REPRESENTING THE JEWISH LABOR COMMITTEE Mr. LIPSIG. My name is James Lipsig. I appear on behalf of the Jewish Labor Committee. I also represent the ladies garment workers. The Jewish Labor Committee is a national organization of over 500,000 Jewish working men and women. The committee has been officially recognized by both the AFL and the CIO, and its affiliated organizations comprise every AFL and CIO 90748-49-35 union with a substantial Jewish membership. The committee carries on an active and extensive program of education for tolerance in the field of race relations, and an active and extensive program against discrimination, whether because of race, religion, color or national origin. The Jewish Labor Committee is therefore wholeheartedly in support of the purposes and principles underlying H. R. 4453. We have submitted to congressional committees in other years elaborate statements presenting the imperative reasons for the enactment of such legislation. From our own experience in the labor movement and in the general field of community relations, we know how valid is the data demonstrating the continuing existence of discrimination, which was submitted to you last week by Mr. Irving Kane, chairman of the National Community Relations Advisory Council, with which the Jewish Labor Committee is affiliated. We know that prejudice will not be eliminated wholly by legislation, but we also know that a law such as is now proposed, is in itself a powerful educating influence. If there is one subject on which a plethora of information has been submitted to congressional bodies, it is the subject of fair employment practices legislation. The testimony submitted in earlier years, and the testimony submitted this year, establish an irresistible body of unassailable facts, justifying, indeed compelling, this legislation. From this evidence it can be affirmed almost as axiomatic that discrimination in employment because of race, religion, color, or national origin, is immoral, irreligious, uneconomic, and politically unwise. It would here serve no purpose to burden the record with additional similar data. Since labor is our particular field, with the indulgence of the subcommittee, our statement will confine itself to two reasons of particular significance to labor, which have led the labor movement in this country to support fair employment practices legislation. We are particularly concerned with the role which discrimination and prejudice may play in the shops, the factories, and the mines of our country, and with the role which it may play in the battle now in progress for the allegiance of the peoples of the world. the Labor unions of this country have experienced for many years divisive aspects of race discrimination, utilized by employers and their henchmen. No weapon in the arsenal of the antiunion employer has been so effective as the tactic of "divide and conquer. "To cite but one recent example, it is common knowledge that southern employers have on many occasions, used or threatened to use cheap Negro labor as a weapon to beat down the demands of white employees, whether or not organized into unions. On the other hand, when unions sought to organize, these same employers have not hesitated to counterattack. with inflammatory statements to their employees that unionization meant that they would have to work alongside of Negro workers. The device is not peculiar to the South. Northern employers have used it, and employers of every race, religion, and color. Negroes are not alone in having suffered at the hands of this divisive technique. Jews have been its victims, Catholics, Mexicans, Chinese. There is no race or group which is immune. If employers may set off one race, or one religion, or one color group, against another, merely because there is a difference, then no person and no group may safely be considered immune. The examples might be multiplied, but they are fresh in our minds and need not be recalled. |