Denial of employment because of the color of a person's skin, his faith, or his ancestry is a wrong of manifold dimensions. On the personal plane, it is an affront to human dignity. On the legal plane, in many cases, it is a violation of the Constitution, of legislation, or of national policy. On the economic and social plane, discrimination may result in a waste of human resources and an unnecessary burden to the community.

1

The recent recession underlined two fundamental challenges to the the Nation's economy. One of these was unemployment-acute in a recession, but still a chronic national problem. Although economic recovery now appears to be under way, the President has declared that "the task of abating unemployment and achieving a full use of our resources remains a serious challenge." 1 The other problem, paradoxically intertwined with that of chronic unemployment, was a shortage of skilled workers. Even in a "depressed area" like Detroit, "jobs [were] going begging for lack of skilled workers to fill them." The same situation existed in many other cities. Technological changes and replacement of old industries by new ones have been largely responsible for increased unemployment. At the same time, they have increased the demand for skilled craftsmen and technical workers. This demand will continue to grow. It is estimated, for instance, that for every 100 skilled workers the Nation had in 1955, it will need 122 in 1965 and 145 in 1975.* Yet today our vocational education and apprenticeship training programs are not producing even enough skilled workers to replace those who retire."

3

These twin problems, serious as they are for the Nation as a whole, are magnified for minority groups that are subject to discrimination. The rate of unemployment for Negroes, for instance, was twice that of the white population during the recent recession. In some cities more than one-third of the Negro work force was unemployed.' The old adage that Negroes are the last hired and the first fired was all too clearly demonstrated. One of the reasons for this is that, despite a dramatic

increase in types of employment available to Negroes during the past 20 years, the mass of Negro workers are still confined largely to the less skilled jobs. This concentration in the ranks of the unskilled and semiskilled, the areas most severely affected not only by economic layoffs but by technological change, means that Negroes will be in a poor position to fill the future needs of our constantly changing economy.

The problem of cyclical and structural unemployment is in one sense no different for members of minority groups than for others the price to both society and the individual affected is the same. There is the human cost of slums, broken homes, illness, school dropouts, juvenile delinquency, and crime. There are the material costs of increased unemployment and welfare benefits and decreased purchasing power. The waste of human resources resulting from the lack of needed skills is a serious obstacle to full realization of the Nation's capabilities.

In another sense, however, these problems have a special dimension for the minority groups who bear more than their share of the economic, social, and human ills. For part of their burden is the result of discrimination. To the extent that it is, the country's interest in reducing the costs of unemployment and in developing our human resources to the full is reinforced by constitutional command and a declared national policy of equal opportunity for all.

Not all of the unemployment of minority groups can be blamed on employment discrimination. On some occasions when new opportunities are thrown open to Negroes, few, if any, appear who are interested or can qualify. The disproportionate layoffs that they suffer in an economic downturn are due in considerable part to lack of seniority and concentration in unskilled jobs. Yet all of these problems may themselves be the result of discrimination, such as a past pattern of outright refusal to hire Negroes or refusal to hire them for any but the most menial types of work.

Unfortunately, many members of minority groups do not equip themselves with the skills that are demanded by changing industrial techniques. This is certainly due in part to lack of motivation 10 which may itself result from a life ringed in by discrimination." It is, however, too often a result of discrimination in education and training. For example, the variety and type of vocational education courses offered at Negro schools are often quite different from those offered at white schools-Negro students being offered training only for those jobs in which they have traditionally been employed, such as semiskilled and service occupations, rather than for those more highly skilled jobs where openings exist and continue to increase.12 Indeed, as more fully discussed in other sections of this Report,13 the quality of the general education and training offered to Negroes in some sections of the country is inferior to that provided white students. Similarly, discrimination against them with respect to apprenticeship training pro

grams often results in absolute exclusion. Moreover, in those areas where restrictions are the most severe-in the building trades and machinists' crafts-employment opportunities are expected to increase most rapidly."

With such discrimination, insofar as it is forbidden by the Constitution or inconsistent with national policy, the following pages are concerned. The Commission's efforts in this area are based in part on the statutory mandate to “study and collect information concerning legal developments constituting a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution." 15 Discrimination on grounds of race, color, religion, or national origin by a State or local government is a denial of equal protection of the laws.16 The Federal Government is also prohibited by the Constitution from such discriminatory employment practices."

The principal basis of the Commission's jurisdiction in this field is its duty to "appraise the laws and policies of the Federal Government with respect to equal protection of the laws under the Constitution." 18 The Federal Government plays a major role in the total employment picture. In its civilian and military branches it is by far the largest employer in the country. Moreover, through the expenditure of billions of dollars a year on contracts and grants-in-aid, it creates innumerable other employment opportunities. It subsidizes a system of public employment offices and helps to finance vocational education and other training programs administered by State and local governments. Finally, the Federal Government regulates certain activities of labor unions, which may have an important influence on employment opportunities. In all these aspects of its pervasive involvement in employment, its laws and policies affect, or have the power to affect, equality of opportunity.

In view of its limited time and staff, the Commission decided to confine its study to these federally connected areas of discrimination in employment. The following chapter, therefore, gives an account of the uneven development of national policy with regard to equality of opportunity in each aspect of Federal involvement in employment. Then we turn to the Federal Government's own employment policies and practices; its actions in the role of a creator of employment through contracts and grants-in-aid; its relationship to training programs which it sponsors and placement services which it subsidizes; and its relationship to labor organizations and their practices respecting equal employment opportunities.

Not every Federal program could be covered, nor could all those chosen be treated in detail. A complete analysis even of employment in the Federal establishment in every part of the country would be a larger undertaking than the Commission's means permit. Information, however, was obtained-by hearing, field investigation, questionnaire, and inquiry to various Federal agencies-from widely scattered localities; and fairly extensive data were collected from the northern city of Detroit, the border State city of Baltimore, and the southern city of

Atlanta. While the Commission's interest extends to discrimination against all racial, religious, and ethnic minority groups, the information it has obtained has principally concerned Negroes, who constitute the largest minority and the one most generally subject to discriminatory

treatment.

Finally, it should be noted that reliable information in this field is difficult to obtain for statistical information on employment in terms of race is not generally available. To the extent that it is, it cannot be considered in a vacuum. The mere establishment of a racial pattern in employment of itself does not establish the existence or absence of discrimination. The degree of employment of minority group members must be considered in relation to many other factors, including the available source of manpower among minority group members, availability of training opportunities, and methods of recruitment, to name but a few. These factors, of course, may be related to more subtle forms of discrimination, or to discrimination in education and other areas besides employment. Moreover, the entire employment relationship is fraught with immeasurable, subjective factors, such as the personality of an employee or his ability to get along with his fellow workers. For these reasons, throughout this part of its report, the Commission has hesitated to draw conclusions as to the existence of discrimination except where the evidence has overwhelmingly supported such a conclusion. In most instances the Commission has merely stated the facts as it has found them.

2. Emergence of a Policy

I have dedicated my Administration to the cause of equal opportunity in employment by the Government or its contractors. The Vice President, the Secretary of Labor and the other members of this committee share my dedication. I have no doubt that the vigorous enforcement of this order will mean the end of such discrimination.

1

This statement was made by President Kennedy on March 6, 1961, when he announced the issuance of Executive Order 10925 1 "to ensure that Americans of all colors and beliefs will have equal access to employment within the government, and with those who do business with the government." The order provided for establishment of the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity with responsibility for eliminating discrimination in employment both by the Federal Government and by Government contractors, and for obtaining cooperation in the implementation of a nondiscriminatory employment policy from those labor organizations whose members are engaged in work on Government contracts. Thus, for the first time in 15 years responsibility with respect to employment by the Federal Government, employment by Government contractors, and the practices and policies of labor organizations has been centralized in a single committee, and this committee has been provided with machinery to enable it to effectuate a policy of equal employment opportunity. To this extent Executive Order 10925 is, as many officials have declared, a landmark in the history of efforts of the Federal Government to eliminate discrimination in employment financed, in whole or in part, by Federal funds.

4

Significant as it is, the order appears to have limited application. As is discussed more fully elsewhere in this report, equality of employment opportunity cannot be achieved merely by eliminating discrimination in hiring. To be considered for jobs on a nondiscriminatory basis members of minority groups must first have equal opportunities to obtain training and to apply for jobs. Yet Executive Order 10925 does not on its face purport to affect training and recruitment services provided through the use of Federal funds. Nor does it explicitly apply to all federally-financed employment.