PREFACE The District of Columbia Advisory Committee, composed entirely of private citizens serving without remuneration, is one of 51 such groups throughout the nation, established as fact-gathering bodies pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1957, and designed to assist the United States Commission on Civil Rights in the performance of its statutory duties. Four principal programs are currently being sponsored by the D.C. Advisory Committee: one on the Centenary of the Emancipation Proclamation, one on Metropolitan Housing, one on the Administration of Justice, and a fourth on Employment Practices. The last of these programs has been the responsibility of a Special Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, composed of 5 members of the D.C. Advisory Committee and twenty others selected to give the group as broad a basis in the Washington community as possible. The Special 1/ Committee conducted the Conference summarized in this report. Lacking the power of subpoena or the authority to put witnesses under oath, it relied wholly on statements voluntarily submitted, either orally or in writing, by representatives of industry, labor, the schools, and the writing, by representatives community organizations. 1/ Unpublished transcript of the Conference on Equal Employment Opportunity of the District of Columbia Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, February 27-March 1, 1963, (hereinafter cited as D.C. Employment Conference). The transcript is in the files of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Washington 25, D.C. (Opening remarks by Dr. Duncan Howlett, Chairman of the D.C. Advisory Committee.) 2/ D.C. Employment Conference 6 (opening remarks by Mr. Ben D. Segal, Chairman of the Special Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity). The response, on the whole, was gratifying. Speakers from numerous groups appeared before the Special Committee to present their views, grievances, and recommendations. Only a few organizations which had been asked to appear failed to do so, or at least to submit written statements. Aside from its fact-finding mission, the Special Committee feels that an educational function was served within the community. The conference, held on February 27 and 28, and March 1, 1963, was amply covered by the local press and other media. Residents of the area were aroused to the grave problems of employment discrimination, both subtle and obvious, that plague minority groups in the District. The There was no attempt to ignore the advances which have taken place, nor to conceal the serious inequalities still remaining. sole guiding principle of the Special Committee was to uncover the facts to the best of its ability, and to provide the basis for recomendations founded on such facts. The work of the Special Committee forms the foundation for this report. 3/ 3/ The Advisory Committee and the Special Committee owe a great debt to two men for their efforts in digesting the transcripts of the Conference for use in the report: Mr. Hal Witt of the District of Columbia Bar and Mr. Alex Rode. INTRODUCTION Traditionally, our nation has been committed to a principle so simple in expression and yet so profound in its implications that it child in any part of the country, on an isolated farm or in the great urban centers, who has not heard the ringing phrase from the Declaration of Independence and responded to it? Was there a time, throughout all our history, when common men were not stirred to greater efforts by this exhortation? Whatever America has meant to men here and abroad, it has invariably been looked upon as a land of almost unlimited opportunity. Despite occasional economic lags, despite wars and internal upheaval, this image of the United States has persisted: it was a place where the only limitations to success were each individual's talent and industry. Neither class, nor social origin, nor parental occupation imposed limits on a man's ambitions. Along with our great natural wealth and democratic institutions, the keystone of initiative supported our might and our progress. And yet, nearly two hundred years after this principle was first espoused, for some Americans it is still not "self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." For members of our minority groups, and particularly for nineteen million American Negroes, the reality does not conform to the ideal. Across the continent, in every town, city and suburb, the Negro citizen finds his aspirations blocked by myriad forms of discrimination. Some, like segregation, are overt and obstinate, though they are gradually yielding before public opinion and the law. Others are far more subtle, and in a sense, far more insidious. Among the latter, inequality in employment is perhaps the most injurious. It saps the Negro's energy, undermines his motivation, perpetuates his economic dependence, and creates widespread frustration. As has so often been pointed out, all Americans are adversely affected by such discrimination: we cannot hope to maintain our prosperity and growth while ten per cent of our people are held in fetters. But job discrimination is not simply an economic question. It has become, in our time, a question of foreign policy, of domestic tranquillity, of harmony and coherence--a question, in short, of national power. Most basic of all, job discrimination is morally wrong. The time is long past, if it ever existed, when men could justify treating others as less than men. Although discrimination against other minority groups has by no means been totally eradicated, the Negro remains its principal victim. There is reason to believe that when bias against him yields at last, all Americans will be freed. This study, therefore, concerns itself primarily with discrimination as encountered by Negroes. Washington, D.C. is in many ways an ideal laboratory for the study of discriminatory practices. It is visited annually by countless diplo mats and foreign tourists. It no doubt influences the visitors' view of our nation as a whole, of its professed ideals and its way of life--and not only are foreigners influenced thus, but thousands of young Americans whose trip to the Nation's Capital may be the first and only contact they will ever have with the seat of the Federal Government. Washington is not a typical American city. There is little industry and relatively few large commercial enterprises; the Government is the 1/ And yet, because of its urban-suburban pattern dominant employer. and the composition of its population, Washington offers fruitful insights as a model for the study of joc discrimination. In 1960, approximately 54% of the D.C. population was nonwhite. In nearby Maryland and Virginia, comprising the remainder of the standard 2/ metropolitan statistical area, the corresponding figure was 6.5%. For decades, the Negroes have made up about 25% of the total area movement of whites to the suburbs. As far as can be discerned, the pattern remains constant to the present day. David A. Sawyer, "Fair Employment in the Nation's Capital: A Study of Progress and Dilemma, The Journal of Intergroup Relations, Winter 1962-63, 37. U.S. Census of Population: 1960. 4/ U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Housing in Washington, D.C., |