tion; because of attitudes-it is called white racism in the report of the Commission on Civil Disorders-a subtle kind of thing, vet very pervasive and very strong, because it perpetuates generation after generation. Thus the institutions and the system are perpetuated.

We can do something about it. I remember back in the thirties-some of you do not remember that far back-when we were told by our communications media and our Government, that if we were good Americans we were supposed to hate the Russians-and we did.

Then in the forties we were told that they became our allies: we were not supposed to hate the Russians so much, so we stopped hating them so much.

And then in the fifties, when World War II ended, we were told that when the Russians became recalcitrant, we were supposed to hate them a little more, and we did.

Then in the sixties we were told not to hate the Russians so much because Communist China and the Chinese are our enemies so we don't hate the Russians quite as much and we hate the Chinese Communists more.

If we can do that, in a situation of that kind, then it seems to me that communications can do a good deal toward closing this gan between the urban blacks and the urban whites. And until this is done, the problem will not be solved.

Finally, and this is finally-Abraham Lincoln was known as "Honest Abe." He said that "if I could save the Union without freeing a single slave, I would do it." Freeing the slaves, vou see, was not the primary concern. But he was willing to do that if he had to. However, he was smart enough to discover that the Union could not have been saved without freeing the slaves.

Now, today in our cities we are in somewhat the same position. I think that we are asking this question-can we save our cities without freeing the black man? And I submit that the answer is no-we cannot save our cities without freeing the black man.

Yet all the efforts to date are in the direction of trying to save our cities. The effort is in terms of control of the black man, not freeing him. The efforts are in terms of how do we use the Army to keep him back, how do we use the militia, the police, which laws do we pass to control him-not how to solve the problems.

I believe that these problems can be solved. And so, take the French general who said to his servant, "Take this tree out tomorrow and plant it." The servant said, "But why the hurry, that tree won't grow up for 20 years?"

The general said, "In which case, plant it now."

Dr. POOLE. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Tucker, for a very stimulating and provocative paper.

Our first discussant is Otis Dudley Duncan, of the University of Michigan.

Biographical Sketch: Otis Dudley Duncan

Director, The Population Studies Center, the University of Michigan; president-elect, Population Association of America; member, Census Advisory Committee on Population Statistics; advisory panel on regional economics, Office of Business Economics, U.S. Department of Commerce; and advisory panel on social measurements, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; author of numerous works, largely on population and urban problems.

STATEMENT OF OTIS DUDLEY DUNCAN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Mr. DUNCAN. I want to sound again the note that was first sounded this morning by Calvin Beale, that of disaggregation. I believe Mr. Tucker's paper will be found to have made a significant contribution in this direction.

Disaggregation, in case you are not acquainted with the technical terminology, means putting your finger on the problem where it really is, and not burying it in some broad category like rural-urban migra

tion.

In the first place, take the title of the conference. The rural-urban shift is not a national problem, if it is a problem-it is a problem of some localities perhaps and some sectors, maybe. Indeed, it is not a problem at all nationally, but a great indication of economic growth. How else indeed would we have achieved the benefits of the technological and organizational revolution in agriculture?

Even if it were a problem, there is evidence that it may shortly disappear, and do we really have to object to problems that solve themselves? A wise epidemiologist in my presence once said, "You know, if a disease is on the increase, there is really nothing you can do to control it. If it is on the decrease, you better control it in a hurry; otherwise it will go away of its own accord."

Now, the table that I have asked to have passed out-this is apropos of the question of whether the problem might go away of its own accord.

PERCENT WITH FARM BACKGROUND, BY AGE, COLOR, AND SIZE OF PLACE, FOR CIVILIAN MEN 20 TO 64 YEARS OLD: MARCH 1962

1 Denotes percentages based on population of 100,000 or less; these and other data for nonwhite are subject to relatively high sampling variability.

Source: Peter M. Blau and Otis Dudley Duncan, "The American Occupational Structure" (New York: Wiley, 1967) table 8.2; and unpublished tables prepared for that study, based on March 1962 Current Population Survey. "Farm background" refers to father's occupation.

These figures show the proportion of the population who have farm background-whose fathers were farmers or farm laborers. Men in the United States as of 1962 are broken down into age groups. The succession of age groups here really represents a progression in time. The older age groups came earlier, the younger groups have come later. Therefore, they represent what is happening more recently, and point to what is likely to happen in the future.

These age groups show, in their decline of levels from 38 to 14 percent of farm background, a very rapid shrinkage in the propor tion of our population who originated on farms.

This same decline is recapitulated in each of the size of community groups into which the country can be divided.

These represent rates of in-migration. They do not measure how rapid the movement off the farms was, but how much impact it has on the destinations where people moved from their farms. Therefore, it is significant to look at the gradation by size of community, and to note that the proportion of men who have farm background is smaller the larger size of the community. This says that the problems that we are talking about, these alleged problems of migration-which are supposed to be the greatest in the big cities-are actually least in big cities.

Actually, the rural-urban migrant is not per se a social problem. He is in fact usually a person who is in process of bettering himself, and bettering the prospects of his children.

Indeed, for the generality of population, that is to say the population aside from the four categories that Beale mentioned this morning, and one of which was discussed a minute ago for the generality of the population our work on occupational achievement shows that the farm migrant in the city actually does better than the urban native, provided you consider urban natives who are comparably disadvantaged in terms of socioeconomic status of their families.

So the migrant is actually a person who is selected for or else advantaged by the experience of moving. Migration in general is a good thing. It is the way in which a population adjusts to opportunity and change in opportunity. So we may be in great danger of stating the problem wrong if we do not state it with some precision.

This bring us to the materials in Mr. Tucker's paper.

The problems he describes are indeed all too real. But he is quite clear as to what is at stake. "It is the Negro in 'Negro migration," he says, "which presents the greatest threat and challenge to cities-not migration itself. *** Increasing numbers of black migrants to large cities are coming not from rural areas, but from other metropolitan areas.***The problem of black migrants today is not the result of migration, but of the city's inability to deal with the migrants. Why do we blame black men for the failure of the whites? *** The problems are problems cities are facing now, because Americans as a people have resolutely refused to assimilate blacks into their society at all levels."

Let me underline these kinds of remarks and this type of diagnosis with a brief summary of some results we have recently obtained.

If you take a cross section of the ages of prime working force participation in the U.S. economy, you can figure that the gap between the Negro and the white man in terms of income is something like

$3,800, on the average. The question arises, how does that come about? Some small part of it, about one-quarter, comes about by virtue of initial disadvantages faced by the black-coming from a family of larger size, a family that was poor in its own circumstances, with lower skill occupations, and lower education of the parents. Possibly $70 out of the $3,800 gap could have been averted had he come from the same size family. So much for family planning as a solution.

Another substantial chunk of the income gap arises through schooling-and included in there are things that are measured by aptitude. and scholastic kinds of tests-where the disadvantaged in regard to such a factor translates itself into a disadvantage in the marketplace. Another substanial chunk of the gap arises because men with the same schooling get poorer occupational opportunities if they are black. But you are left often accounting for all these things with over onethird of this initial gap that you discern, say $1,400 out of $3,800-it still remains after you are talking about men in the same lines of work, with the same amount of schooling, and of the same quality as judged by scholastic aptitude and achievement, and from families with the same socioeconomic circumstances and the same size-you are still left with this amount of gap, which would hold even if Negroes had the same occupations as they do not-as whites, even if they had the same educational level-which they do not--and even if they came from families with the same advantages-which they do not.

So this amonut of at least one-third of the gap is in the purest sense almost the most refined essence of discrimination that you might care to measure, which is cumulated on top of discriminations represented by differentials in occupations, apart from educational qualifications, and differential in education, apart from family disadvantage.

I submit that the solution does not lie in "keeping them on the farm." I was somewhat sympathetic to the suggestion that if we had control of the streams of migration, redirection of some of it to the smaller towns and cities might be useful.

But the truth is, you can discriminate in small towns as well as in the metropolis.

Thank you.

Dr. POOLE. Thank you very much, Professor Duncan.

Our next assessor is Mr. Hugh Mields, Jr., special consultant to Mayor Daley of Chicago.

Biographical Sketch: Hugh Mields, Jr.

Consultant, Harold F. Wise/Robert Gladstone & Associates; associate director, U.S. Conference of Mayors; consultant, on a variety of urban problems, to the cities of Chicago, Washington, D.C., San Diego, Norfolk, New Haven, Milwaukee, and New York.

STATEMENT OF HUGH MIELDS, JR., SPECIAL CONSULTANT FOR URBAN PROGRAMS, CITY OF CHICAGO

Mr. MIELDS. And currently playing centerfield.

A caveat before I start.

I am certainly for the negative income tax. I hope that we may have an opportunity to vote on that before this meeting adjourns. I think the problem of racial segregation and discrimination, as

posed by Mr. Tucker, is one that is accurate and largely true in most of our urban areas, as well as the country at large

It is an exceedingly difficult problem to deal with. It is one that needs to be resolved by a basic change in attitudes-which cannot be accomplished tomorrow, overnight, within the week, but over a longer period of time, and generation, perhaps longer.

Despite the prevalence of these kinds of attitudes, and despite the unfortunate consequences of those attitudes, there is still an impressive number of individuals, Government officials included, as well as academics and others, who are working, and working hard at trying to resolve these very difficult and critical problems.

The cities, of course, have the greatest single problem of any level of government. The cities operate the schools, the water and sewage plants, they provide for roads and streets, they provide services and facilities in great number, and are constantly being plagued by the citizen for more. Not only by the poor citizen but the affluent citizen

as well.

The cities now face a tremendously increasing demand for more, simply more--more of everything.

There are a whole range of problems facing local governments and each is considered "critical" by one group or another--and in general terms the cities are desperately trying to resolve them all.

It has been said here today that local government is obsolete, and I would reply that to a certain extent some of the governmental organizations, as they have developed over the years, are not so obsolete as they are short of resources and thus incapable of delivering the kinds of solutions to the problems we are discussing here today.

But, in the last analysis, it is up to the city to pay off, to solve, to resolve these problems. It is up to the city, the local governments, to find the resources, to find the tax money, to find the technicians, to turn attitudes around, so that they can undertake the kinds of programs that are required to solve these very tough and overriding problems. We have not been able to adequately deal with the problems of poverty. We have countenanced a welfare system over the years which has been oppressive and degrading, a system that has not worked.

But we have, at least, recognized the fact that it doesn't work and at the Federal level, and in the cities, turned to the poverty program, the war on poverty in an effort to find real and lasting solutions.

We have, I think, as a result of that program instilled new ideas and new approaches to the whole problem of dealing with the poor. We have exposed the problem for what it is. We have made it apparent and real to many, many more people than have ever recognized the extent and depth of poverty in the United States.

It has been a controversial program, as all of you know it has been so controversial that at times it seemed that it would not survive. Yet even the 90th Congress approved the largest single amount of money on an annual basis that they had ever approved for the operation of this very important program.

That was $2.19 billion, for this next fiscal year.

Of course, the problem is, we have to get the Appropriations Committee to ratify what the Congress, as a whole, did last year. And that is not a simple task particularly in the face of so many other overriding demands for funds on the part of the Federal Government.