attempting to exercise their rights has not been effectively met, partly because the available criminal sanctions against such intimidation are inadequate and partly because juries discriminatorily selected cannot be relied upon to convict the guilty. Unless we move swiftly to secure these rights in fact as well as in theory, we risk a serious loss of faith and bitter disillusionment by those who, upon passage of the 1964 and 1965 acts, believed that the doors to equal opportunity finally had opened for them.

Senator ERVIN. Your recommendations are rather drastic. In the interests of time I am not going to cross-examine you about them but I will only make the observation that if the recommendations of the Civil Rights Commission were enacted into law, States would be substantially destroyed as effective instruments of government, State power would be supplanted in fields that have always been assigned to States, by Federal power. The rights of private contract would be most seriously curtailed, what are properly justiciable controversies would be transferred from the courts, where certain rules of law prevail, to boards, and the Federal Government would for the first time in American history embark on a program of enacting and enforcing criminal laws generally. Thank you for your appearance. Mrs. FREEMAN. Thank you.

Senator ERVIN. Do you have any questions?

Mr. AUTRY. Just one, Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Freeman, at the bottom of page 3 of your statement you say:

We recommend that whenever a prospective juror is called to demonstrate his qualifications for jury service, the State should be required to report his race, color, religion, sex and national origin.

You may know that the American Civil Liberties Union and the Anti-Defamation League and the chairman of the subcommittee all objected to eliciting a prospective juror's religion on the grounds of privacy. Also, I believe the Attorney General said that he did not know of any discrimination in jury service on account of religion. Does the Commission have any evidence that jurors are being discriminated against because of their religion?

Mrs. FREEMAN. I believe, sir, that there have been charges of discrimination. The Commission supports the administration's bill, and if the form would indicate and give the person a choice, where he would not be required to state religion, the Commission would have no objection.

Mr. AUTRY. And as to national origin, if the prospective juror objected to stating national origin, would you say the same thing?

Mrs. FREEMAN. No. I think that we would not have the same feeling about race or national origin. Take the case of Mississippi, where as you know as of the last reports only 7 percent of the Negro persons qualified to vote were actually registered

Mr. AUTRY. Excuse me, I was referring specifically to national origin. I wasn't referring to race there. The reason I bring this up is that the chairman of the subcommittee has a colloquy with the Attorney General concerning the use of the words "national origin." And I don't want to put words in the mouths of either one of them, but both the Attorney General and the chairman of the subcommittee, I recall, felt that under many circumstances they didn't know what "national origin" meant.

Mrs. FREEMAN. The position of the Commission is that where a class is discriminated against, there should be such record-keeping as would make proof of the discrimination possible. The Spanishspeaking Americans would be an example.

Mr. AUTRY. Mexican-Americans?

Mrs. FREEMAN. Mexican-Americans.

Mr. AUTRY. But this would apply to everybody, and that is the difficulty that the subcommittee has found with this. What is national origin? Of course, with Mexican-Americans you have just said what it is. Those are people who have recently come to this country perhaps, Spanish-speaking people, as you have just said. Technically, however, their national origin is-wouldn't they be for the most part American, except for those who are naturalized citizens? What I am trying to define here is whether you mean only naturalized Americans of a class or whether you mean all Americans of that class? Mrs. FREEMAN. I am trying to understand your question. Are you suggesting that the committee does not know the meaning of national origin?

Mr. AUTRY. I am suggesting that both the subcommittee and the Attorney General had some difficulty with the definition of the term "national origin."

Mrs. FREEMAN. It is a part of the 1964 act under title 7.

Mr. AUTRY. Those references were prohibitive in nature. They did not require that the information be elicited from every American. Mrs. FREEMAN. They required recordkeeping.

Mr. AUTRY. On the basis of national origin?

Mrs. FREEMAN. Title 7, section 709(a):

In connection with any investigation of a charge filed under Section 706, the Commission or its designated representatives shall . .

Then going to 709 (c):

Except as provided in Subsection (d), every employer, employment agency and labor organization subject to this title shall (1) make and keep such records relevant to the determinations of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are being committed, (2) preserve such records for such periods, and (3) make such reports therefrom, as the Commission shall prescribe by regulation or order, after public hearing, as reasonable, necessary, or appropriate for the enforcement of this title ..

Mr. AUTRY. And you feel that language requires that we elicit from all Americans what their national origin is?

Mrs. FREEMAN. I believe the Commission has the power to get such information as is necessary to carry out

Mr. AUTRY. Yes, exactly, but do we want national origin included in a questionnaire required of all prospective jurors?

Mrs. FREEMAN. We want the bill to be as inclusive as possible to end the discrimination that is in existence.

Mr. AUTRY. Thank you.

Senator ERVIN. I still wonder why you put that in, because your origin and mine are both American I would say, and I have never had anybody yet cite me a single instance where anybody has ever been excluded from a jury service on account of national origin.

Mrs. FREEMAN. Are you referring to the Spanish-Americans? Senator ERVIN. Yes, they, too. Most of them are Americans. Most of them are born in Texas. Their national origin, I would say,

is American. Of course, you go back to national origin, my ancestors came from Scotland and North Ireland and England and France. I don't think my national origin is French. I think it is American, and I think this is a wholly meaningless term that is put in for so much window dressing. And yet under title II, you could spend a week questioning whether people because of national origin have been excluded from juries, and none of us know what we mean by the term. Thank you.

Mrs. FREEMAN. Thank you.

Mr. AUTRY. Mr. Chairman, the next witness is the Honorable Jack P. Nix, State superintendent of schools, of Atlanta, Ga.

Senator ERVIN. I presume, Mr. Nix, you would rather proceed with the hearing at this time rather than adjourn and come back later in the afternoon?

STATEMENT OF HON. JACK P. NIX, STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS, STATE OF GEORGIA

Mr. Nix. Yes, Mr. Chairman, because I have a plane to get back to Atlanta.

Mr. Chairman, I am a State constitutional officer elected by the people of Georgia, responsible for the administration of the Georgia program of public education, including vocational and technical education.

It is appropriate, I think, that I provide this committee with some factual situations we have experienced in Georgia with our 196 school systems in their efforts to comply with the intent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and, in particular, the desegregation guidelines issued by the U.S. Office of Education applicable to the 1965-66 school year which we have just concluded, and in more recent days, the revised desegregation guidelines issued by this same office which are applicable to the 1966 summer school program and the 1966-67 school year. I feel it incumbent as State superintendent of schools of Georgia to mention to this committee some factual statements concerning the current status of public school education in our State.

During the past 4 years, in particular, the General Assembly of Georgia, the Governor of the State of Georgia, the State board of education, the State department of education, our professional education associations, civic groups, and other people interested in education have taken a serious look at our program of public education. Under the leadership of these groups every hamlet of Georgia has heard the story that public schools exist solely for the educational welfare of children, and instruction is the basic purpose of schools. It is our contention that when lay people, together with State and national leadership, accept this philosophy of public school education, then and only then will our public schools be permitted to do that which they were established to do-instruct children.

After some years of self-evaluation and study, the 1964 General Assembly of Georgia acted on what we call the minimum foundation law. Under this law we were attempting to establish equality of educational opportunity for all Georgia's children and youth regardless of where they may live or what their stations in life might be. This program was adopted in 1964 and became law, and upon its enactment our State board of education began to assert its full

leadership in moving toward the kind of instruction asked for by the people and required by our State legislature.

Following this law we had a study made by Dr. W. D. McClurkin of George Peabody College of Teachers, on the organization of school systems in Georgia, which pointed us in the direction of larger area school systems and larger schools which would provide the necessary financial support for quality instruction.

In addition to this, we have recently adopted standards for systemwide schools in our State approved by the State board of education. We are in the process of having an 8 months' evaluation of these standards.

In addition to this, an additional study relative to education in the Southern States was carried on by Dr. Jackson of Peabody College in Tennessee, and the composite thinking in all of these studies incorporated into our foundation law point in the direction of quality instruction desired by Georgia.

Too, they identify the kind of an organizational vehicle in which we must travel to obtain quality instruction. These spectacular reports and this law are serving as a basis and foundation for building a good educational program in our State. This effort on Georgia's part to attain its educational objective and to keep before our people the basic purposes of schools-that of instructing our children-will, of necessity, require time, leadership, patience, and money.

In the 1964-65 fiscal year our financial receipts for the maintenance and operation of public schools in Georgia consisted of some $304 million plus, provided with 30 percent local money, 63.9 percent State money and 6.1 percent Federal money. For school year that is just closing and at the end of this month at the close of this fiscal year, we anticipate that the percentages will change to 26.6 percent local funds, 61.4 percent State funds, and 12 percent Federal funds.

In the employment of over 42,000 teachers in our State during the 1964-65 school year, 6.1 percent of them represented 2,568 teachers, leaving 39,536 teachers for the State and local systems to finance. I think this illustrates the meager contribution the Federal Government is making toward the maintenance and operation of public school education in Georgia. I assure you that we appreciate even this contribution; however, the noise that is being made in some places could infer that the Federal Government is underwriting the total program of instruction in the States.

School administration, to be successful in the fulfillment of the basic purpose of schools, must be kept as close to the child, the teacher, and the classroom as possible and practical where instruction and learning actually take place. The experience we sustained this year in operating a local school system from the State level, after having been named the receiver of the school system by the Federal courts, definitely proved the wisdom of this statement. Actuating a law from the national level through a multiplicity of rules and regulations that doubled in 1 year's time is rather confusing and distracts the attention of local people from the basic purpose of schools-that of instructing children. Herein, in my opinion, lies one of the difficulties in the implementation of the guidelines of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

For purposes of simplicity and effectiveness, I would like to address my remarks to two aspects of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Senator Ervin's amendment to the administration's 1966 Civil Rights Act: (1) The provision for the cutoff and "deferment of funds"; and

(2) The requirement for racial balance contained in the two sets of guidelines previously referred to but not contained in the act itself as passed by Congress.

Title VI, section 602, provides that—

compliance with any requirement adopted pursuant to this section shall be effected (1) by the termination of or refusal to grant or to continue assistance under such program or activity to any recipient as to whom there has been an express finding on the record, after opportunity for a hearing, of a failure to comply with such a requirement. *** (2) by any other means authorized by law; provided, however, that no such action shall be taken until the department or agency concerned has advised the appropriate person or persons of the failure to comply with the requirement and has determined that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary

means.

I am sure the members of this committee are eminently familiar with the general "Statement of Policies Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," respecting desegregation of elementary and secondary schools, issued by the U.S. Office of Education, applicable to the 1965-66 school year. Under this statement of policies, local school systems were expected to file a voluntary plan of desegregation with the U.S. Office of Education if, in local application, the system had had a record of operating a dual school system and had not previously been subject to a court order.

As I have previously stated, we have 196 school systems in Georgia. All but two of these systems filed voluntary plans or submitted court orders to the U.S. Office of Education last year. It was later determined one of these plans was not acceptable to the U.S. Office of Education. As a result of the two systems' failure to file (Lincoln and Glascock Counties), Federal financial assistance was withheld from the systems, initially without any hearing.

However, it is the third system to which I would like to direct my remarks and point out the inequities existing in the cutoff provisions of the act and how those who need the funds the greatest are subject to further inequities as a result thereof. As a matter of fact, I am of the opinion the cutoff provisions of this act in this case constituted an act of discrimination against the children so affected.

Taliaferro County had submitted a plan of desegregation which was not acceptable to the U.S. Office of Education. Early in September of 1965, as a result of racial demonstrations in the county, the matter was taken into Federal district court and the State superintendent of schools was made receiver for the Taliaferro County school system. Pursuant to the instructions of the court, a plan of desegregation for the balance of the school year 1965-66 was filed and approved by the district court. This approved plan was presented to the U.S. Öffice of Education as a basis for compliance with the desegregation guidelines. The then State superintendent of schools, Dr. Claude Purcell, requested by letter that the U.S. Office of Education approve this plan as a means for continuing Federal assistance to Taliaferro County. This request was turned down and the county has not received any Federal assistance for this school year even though the desegregation plan, as previously stated, had been approved by the Federal court.

Later in the school year, more particularly January of this year, at which time I became State superintendent of schools, the Court itself indicated a great deal of concern as to why remedial instructional assistance had not been given to the transferees and the children remaining in the system resulting from the plan ordered by the Court.