Gebhart v. Belton Brief for the Congress of Industrial Organizations as Amicus Curiae

    IN THE

Supreme Court of tje Urnteb States?

October Term, 1953

No. 10

GERHART, et al.,
Appellants.

vs.

BELTON, et al.,
Appellees.

BRIEF FOR THE
CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS 

AS AMICUS CURIAE

ARTHUR J. GOLDBERG
General Counsel

THOMAS E. HARRIS
Assistant General Counsel

DAVID E. FELLER
Assistant General Counsel

Congress of Industrial Organizations 
718 Jackson Place, N. W.
Washington 6, D. C.

•88



IN THE

Supreme Court of tfje Umteb States:
October Term, 1953

No. 10

GERHART, et al.,
Appellants.

vs.

BELTON, et al.,
Appellees.

BRIEF FOR THE
CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS 

AS AMICUS CURIAE

THE INTEREST OF THE CIO

This Brief amicus curiae is submitted by the Congress of 
Industrial Organizations with the consent of the parties.

The CIO is dedicated to the protection of our democratic 
system of government, and, hence of the civil rights of all 
Americans. Therefore, it supports the elimination of racial 
segregation and discrimination from every phase of American 
life.

The CIO’s interest in the specific issues before the Court 
in this case is two-fold.

First, racial segregation in the public schools directly af­
fects the millions of CIO members whose children attend these 
schools. The CIO is convinced that school segregation is 
harmful to the Negro children who are thus treated as in­
ferior, to the white children in whom attitudes of racial hos­
tility and discrimination are thus engendered and encouraged 
at an early age, and to the community as a whole. School



2

segregation is a weakening and divisive force in American 
life. At the CIO’s International Convention in November of 
this year, the delegates unanimously declared their opposi­
tion to school segregation, and their support for the position 
taken by the plaintiffs in these cases.

Secondly, the outcome of these cases will have indirect ef­
fects of great importance to the CIO. The CIO is endeavor­
ing to practice non-segregation and non-discrimination in the 
everyday conduct of its union business. This effort has re­
peatedly been obstructed by statutes, ordinances, and regula­
tions which require segregation in public meeting halls, pub­
lic dining places, toilet facilities, etc. These laws seek to re­
quire CIO unions to maintain “equal but separate” facilities 
even in their own buildings, despite our membership’s repudia­
tion of segregation in any form. Since the constitutionality 
of these laws rests on basically the same line of reasoning 
which is put forward to justify school segregation, the de­
cision of this Court in these school cases will, in all probability, 
have far-reaching implications as to the validity of these other 
segregation laws.

More broadly, school segregation, and the general pat­
tern of government enforced segregation of which it is a part, 
fosters an atmosphere of inter-racial hostility which makes it 
more difficult for the CIO to carry out its own non-segregation 
policy. Further, this atmosphere of inter-racial hostility is 
used by anti-labor employers in opposing CIO organizing 
drives: invariably these employers stress the CIO’s opposition 
to segregation and discrimination.

THE QUESTION DISCUSSED

In prior briefs amicus curiae, last year in Brown v. Board 
of Education of Topeka, and earlier in other school segrega­
tion cases, the CIO argued that segregation in public schools 
on the basis of race violates the Fourteenth Amendment per 
se. That is still our view, and we wholeheartedly subscribe to 
the arguments in support of it advanced by counsel for the 
appellants in Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and for the respondents in No. 
10. Instead of repeating those arguments, however, we have 
concluded that it would be most helpful to the Court for us



3

to confine our discussion to one particular issue on which the 
CIO has a certain amount of special experience and expert 
knowledge.

That issue, set out in paragraph 4 of the Court’s Order of 
June 8, 1953, is what the Court should do if it concludes that 
segregation in the public schools violates the Fourteenth 
Amendment, i. e., whether the Court should order segregation 
terminated “forthwith” or permit “gradual adjustment.”

This issue is very similar to the problem which the CIO and 
its affiliated unions have repeatedly faced as to how best to 
put into effect the non-segregation and non-discrimination 
policies of the national organizations in localities where segre­
gation and discrimination have theretofore prevailed. It is 
our experience in the handling of this problem that we wish 
to lay before the Court.

ARGUMENT

NON-SEGREGATION COULD BE EFFECTUATED WITH 
LESS DISTURBANCE BY A “FORTHWITH” DECREE 
THAN BY “GRADUAL ADJUSTMENT.”

This memorandum seeks to summarize for the Court the 
experience and conclusions of unions and employers as to the 
best way to effectuate non-discrimination or non-segregation 
policies, and specifically as to how “forthwith” enforcement 
compares with “gradual adjustment.” The bulk of this ex­
perience, both union and employer, relates to the institution 
or enforcement of a policy of non-discrimination and non­
segregation in employment. The unions have, however, also 
had some experience with respect to desegregation in other 
fields, such as use of meeting halls and other union facilities.

As will be seen, all of this experience, union and employer, 
reinforces this central point: if a union or an employer wants 
to put into effect a policy of non-discrimination or non-segre­
gation, it should do it “forthwith,” firmly and decisively, and 
should avoid “gradual adjustment” or any other formula of 
indefinite postponement. If the policy of non-discrimination 
or non-segregation is put into effect concurrently with its an­
nouncement, and if it is enforced with firmness and decisive­



4

ness, there is every likelihood that the policy will be generally 
accepted and that any substantial degree of inter-racial fric­
tion will be avoided. The bulk of the people in any communi­
ty  or plant or office are influenced in their attitudes on racial 
discrimination by the current practice in the community or 
plant or office. If the practice is changed, and if the change be 
made unequivocally, they accept the new practice and their at­
titudes come to reflect it. Thus traditional Southern attitudes 
on racial segregation largely mirror, according to our ex­
perience, simply the prevailing practices, rather than deeply 
or strongly held individual convictions. Once the practice is 
changed, beliefs as to what the practice should be will change 
too.

Conversely, “gradual adjustment” to a new policy of non­
segregation or non-discrimination is apt to work less well. 
Long drawn out discussion of a contemplated ultimate end of 
segregation or discrimination may serve only to exacerbate 
racial tensions. Division along racial lines may harden and 
people may be led to take more extreme and adamant stands 
than they would have if the issue had been disposed of prompt­
ly, once and for all. For example, in a plant where Negro 
workers have customarily been excluded from certain types 
of jobs it may prove extremely difficult to persuade the 
white workers, through a program of education and discus­
sion, that the time has come to end this discrimination. Such 
a program may serve only to accentuate inter-racial tension 
by keeping the issue alive and in suspension. On the other 
hand, if the union and employer firmly announce that hence­
forth there will be no job discrimination, the new policy will, 
in our experience, be accepted by the workers with little fric­
tion, and the issue will be disposed of once and for all.

We do not mean that education and discussion do not serve 
a purpose in this field; they do. But they should accompany 
the effective implementation of a policy of non-discrimination 
and non-segregation. Absent such effective implementation, 
endless discussion and the indefinite postponements of “grad­
ual adjustment” may serve only to freeze or accentuate at­
titudes. If no fixed terminal date for segregation is set, its 
proponents will regard the issue as really still open, and the



5

controversy is likely only to become more intense with the 
passage of time.

Our experience suggests, we think, one further point: 
The CIO and its unions have put non-segregation and non­
discrimination policies into effect in all parts of the country. 
No major strife has resulted within these organizations—and 
they are voluntary organizations, whose officers are elected 
by the membership and whose very existence depends upon the 
continued good will of the membership. If the non-segregation 
policies of these voluntary organizations, when promptly and 
firmly implemented, can win such acceptance, then, a fortiori, 
a definitive decree of the highest Court of the land will receive 
general acceptance.

I

UNION EXPERIENCE

We have stated the conclusions which the CIO has reached 
as to the best procedure to follow in putting into effect a policy 
of non-discrimination or non-segregation. These conclusions 
rest on a very considerable body of experience. The CIO and 
its affiliated unions have some hundreds of thousands of mem­
bers in Southern communities where racial segregation and 
discrimination, except for the changes the CIO has effected, 
permeate all aspects of life. It and its affiliates have other 
hundreds of thousands of members in border communities, 
or others, where some degree of segregation and discrimina­
tion is prevalent.

Yet the CIO has from its beginning stood out against these 
community prejudices. The CIO Constitution dedicates our 
organizations “to bring about the effective organization of the 
workingmen and women of America regardless of race, creed, 
color or nationality” and “to protect and extend our demo­
cratic constitutions and civil rights and liberties, and thus 
to perpetuate the cherished traditions of our democracy.” 
Similar provisions are found in the constitutions of the inter­
national unions affiliated with the CIO. Accordingly the CIO 
and its affiliated unions have, from their inceptions, opposed 
discrimination in any form based on race or color.



6

The meetings of the CIO and its affiliates are never segre­
gated, although, in many areas where we operate ours are the 
only unsegregated meetings held in the community. Negro 
members belong to the same local unions and have the same 
rights as white members. Local union officers are elected 
without regard to color. Scores of Negroes now hold local 
union offices, or participate in collective bargaining as mem­
bers of union negotiating committees. There are local unions 
that have Negro presidents.

The CIO conducts educational institutes at various places 
in the south for southern workers—white and Negro; male 
and female. These educational classes are entirely non-seg- 
regated. So also are the political meetings held from time 
to time by the CIO’s Political Action Committee.

As discussed in more detail later, there is now no segre­
gation in the use of CIO facilities, such as meeting halls, rest 
rooms, drinking fountains, etc. Where the CIO and its unions 
have their way, there is likewise no segregation in the use 
of plant eating places, locker rooms, rest rooms, etc. Some­
times, however, state laws or local ordinances require seg­
regation in the use of these facilities, and employers usually 
comply with laws, unlike the CIO which disregards them as 
unconstitutional.

Many of the collective bargaining agreements which the 
CIO and its affiliates have negotiated specifically forbid dis­
crimination on account of race in hiring, promotion, or any 
term or condition of employment; and whether or not the 
contracts contain such specific provisions we see to it that 
they are administered in a non-discriminatory manner.

We do not assert that this insistence by the CIO and its 
unions on no segregation and no discrimination on account of 
race has not sometimes been the subject of friction within the 
unions. Nor do we say that it has not sometimes made the 
CIO’s organizing task more difficult in some communities. 
There has been some friction: Our unions have had to expel 
a few members and have even suspended the charter of an 
occasional local union for refusal to abide by these principles, 
likewise, anti-union employers have repeatedly cited our 
anti-discrimination policies in opposing organizing campaigns



7

of CIO unions, and their opposition has sometimes been suc­
cessful.

We do assert, however, that there has been no major strife 
or difficulty or division within CIO unions or locals on this is­
sue. We are confident, moreover, that the unequivocal stand 
taken by the CIO and its affiliated unions in opposition to seg­
regation or discrimination, and their refusal to temporize on 
this issue, has resulted in more rapid acceptance of this policy 
by locals in the South, and in less friction with regard to it, 
than would have been the case had we followed a program of 
gradual adjustment to local mores.

We will set forth, with a minimum of comment, some of 
the experiences of the CIO and its unions on this subject.

At the outset we wish to call to the Court’s attention 
the experience of the United Automobile, Aircraft and Ag­
ricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, on this sub­
ject. The following quotation is from an article by Brendan 
Sexton, Educational Director of the UAW, entitled “The In­
tervention of the Union in the Plant,” appearing in The Jour­
nal of Social Issues. Volume 9, No. 1, pages 8-10. Italics 
have been added.

“Where the problem of ‘up-grading’ has created conflict, 
the union has been divided regarding the attitude it 
should take towards the recalcitrant group of workers. 
One group has advocated a ‘soft’ educational approach, 
another a ‘hard’ course of action. Those who favor edu­
cation have argued that the abrupt introduction of Ne­
groes into cohesive work groups can only produce aggra­
vations, incite suspicions and provoke wildcat strikes 
and/or slowdowns. Those who argue for ‘action’ insist 
that an informal work group should not be allowed to 
constitute itself, on the basis of its own sentiments or 
prejudices, the arbiter of a man’s right to a job. The 
job is the man’s right and the work group must bend to 
that broader democratic rule; the individual seeking that 
job should not have to bend to the wishes of the work­
group. But more than demonstration of principle is in­
volved, the action partisans would argue. Tactically, the 
approach is also correct, for the union and the company 
are also claimants to a man’s loyalty, and by invoking the 
authority of the union and management, the work group 
can psychologically accept these wider claims. In some



8

instances, this dispute has been complicated by two 
groups of extremists; on the one hand, the Communists 
and their supporters have espoused action largely for 
disruptive purposes; on the other hand, advocates of ‘do- 
nothingism’ argue for education as a blind to postpone 
change. Apart from these extraneous motivations, the 
issue remains as a real moral and tactical dilemma.
“The writer knows of no objective tests of either ap­
proach. In practice, the union has found that the great­
est progress has been achieved where the action method 
has been used, followed by educational techniques. In 
those instances, the educational materials have served 
as a convenient and psychologically necessary rational­
ization to make acceptable the fact that his behavior has 
been changed by external sanction— the authority of 
the union.
“There are many drawbacks to the use of ‘group dis­
cussion’ as a technique of effecting change in a work 
plant. Actually we doubt that minority individuals would 
win many jobs or promotion if unions had put the ques­
tion to a vote in the work group. Lazy prejudices are 
hard to change when the group is allowed to feel that 
that being accepted by it is a privilege. The question 
arises, too, what is the locus of democratic opinion? Who 
should be permitted to vote on such a question? Should 
it be the workers in the specific department where the 
job is open, the general job classification to which the 
workers are assigned, the local union of which they are 
members?
“In the UAW, as in many other unions, the basic issue 
is decided at international union conventions. And resolu­
tions establishing a non-discrimination policy received 
all but unanimous support. Since this was accepted as 
basic union policy, all sub-units of the union are expected 
to carry out this policy. . . .
“. . . Sometimes great resistance develops when such a 
policy is imposed. In such instances both the action and 
education techniques must be applied judiciously. In 
an area in which prejudices are strong, however, pro­
longed discussion may only serve to generate and re­
inforce resistance to the application of the union policy.” 

In the passage of his article just quoted, Mr. Sexton sums 
up the conclusions which have been reached by the UAW-CIO, 
one of the country’s largest unions, on how a union can best 
go about implementing a non-discrimination policy. Else-*



9

where in this article Mr. Sexton summarizes some of the ex­
periences which led his union to this conclusion. Typical of 
these experiences is the following, described on page 9 of 
Mr. Sexton’s article:

“Members of Local 988 of the UAW-CIO, at the plant of 
the International Harvester Corporation in Memphis, Ten­
nessee, struck against the upgrading of a Negro into a 
semi-skilled job in which Negroes had hitherto not been 
employed. A good deal of education on the desirability 
of eliminating discrimination had been carried on in this 
local. In all likelihood this program was as effective as 
any union education program in any similar local. More­
over this local union had seemed to be more advanced in 
its attitudes than many other ‘Southern’ locals in the 
UAW. It had elected Negroes as local union officers and 
bargaining committeemen and had, on at least two oc­
casions, sent Negroes as delegates to international union 
conventions. Nevertheless, when a Negro was promoted 
to a welding job, the workers at the plant struck to en­
force an informal ban against the admission of Negroes 
into this classification.
“The union neither debated nor discussed the question 
with the workers affected. It sent to the local union 
an order adopted by the international executive board, 
signed by Walter Reuther, which ‘instructed’ all workers 
to return to their jobs. The order called upon the author­
ity, of the constitution which had been adopted at the in­
ternational union’s convention. As a result of the order, 
the strike was called off. The Negro worker was up­
graded and there has been no recurrence of trouble at this 
plant.”

The experiences of the United Steelworkers of America, 
CIO, another of the country’s largest unions, have been simi­
lar. The greatest aggregation of heavy industry in the South 
is found in and around Birmingham, Alabama. The mines 
and mills of the area—coal, iron, and steel—are all unionized, 
with tens of thousands of steelworkers and iron miners be­
longing to the United Steelworkers of America.

Despite a prevalent community pattern of segregation and 
discrimination, the Steelworker’s locals have been unsegre­
gated from their inception. White and Negro members be­
long to the same local unions, attend meetings together, and



10

elect their local union officers without regard to the color of 
their skins. In the administration of collective bargaining 
agreements, the local union officers and the staff representa­
tives of the International—some of whom, like some of the 
local union officers, are Negroes—are scrupulous to see that 
there is no discrimination in hiring, advancement, or any 
term or condition of employment on account of race.

In past years there was undeniably some friction in the 
Birmingham area over these union policies of no discrimina­
tion and no segregation. The union, nevertheless, adhered 
to these policies firmly and unequivocally, while at the same 
time undertaking to persuade its members of their soundness 
and justice. As part of the latter effort, the late Philip Mur­
ray, then President of the CIO and of the United Steelwork­
ers of America, on one occasion addressed a mass meeting 
of thousands of persons in the Birmingham ball park.

The international unions’ firm adherence to its policies, 
coupled contemporaneously with discussion and explanation, 
has won general acceptance for those policies among the mem­
bership in the Birmingham area. They are no longer a source 
of friction or difficulty. Relations between white and Negro 
workers in the local unions and in the plants are now general­
ly excellent. Indeed a few months ago the largest steel mill in 
the area was shut down when thousands of white workers 
joined a small number of Negro workers in protesting cer­
tain work conditions of the latter.

The experience of the Steelworkers’ Union with regard to 
race segregation has not, incidentally, been confined to the 
South. In 1947 the Gary, Indiana, schools started admitting 
Negroes to elementary and high school classes theretofore re­
served for whites, and hundreds of the white students, many 
of them children of steelworkers, declared a “holiday” from 
classes. The Steelworker’s Union went into action in sup­
port of the school authorities. The District Director, Joseph 
Germano, explained to a meeting at the union hall the policies 
of the union against discrimination or segregation, and the 
meeting voted to suspend from the union members whose 
children remained away from school. The children went back



11

to school. (This incident was reported in The New York 
Times for September 8, 1947.)

The following quotation relates to one of our smaller 
unions, the United Packinghouse Workers, CIO. It is from 
John Hope H, “The Self-Survey of the Packinghouse Union,” 
in The Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 9, No. 1, p. 35:

“An effort of a dissident white minority to stymie the 
desegregation of plant facilities, as required by the mas­
ter contract of 1952, in a Southern branch plant of a 
major chain packer was defeated when the local officers 
who had courageously abided by their contractual obliga­
tions were re-elected over a lily-white slate of candidates 
who had sought to retire them from office purely on the 
race issue. In another Southern plant a brief protest of 
white women against, newly hired Negro women using the 
some locker room was followed by their acceptance, and 
later by the insistence of white women that procrastina­
tion in the desegregation of the men’s locker room be 
ended. Both are now integrated and no unfavorable 
consequences are apparent.”

These illustrations could be multiplied indefinitely.
We shall, however, cite but one further instance from the 

CIO’s experience; an instance which relates not to segregation 
or discrimination on the job, but to segregation in union 
meeting halls, eating places, toilets, etc.

We have already mentioned that various state and local 
ordinances purport to require separate and segregated facili­
ties. The existence of these laws, and uncertainty as whether 
they should be complied with, occasioned a certain amount 
of friction and confusion in CIO State and local councils for 
some years.

However, in April 1950, the General Counsel of the CIO 
advised its state and local councils that all such laws and 
ordinances were, in his opinion, unconstitutional, and that, 
in line with general CIO policy, “Therefore, no segregation 
in the use of facilities in buildings or office space under the 
control of CIO Industrial Union Councils should be permitted, 
and there should be no signs indicating such segregation.”

This policy, once clearly laid down, received complete ac­
ceptance. There is now no segregation in the use of any CIO



12

council facility—and there has been not the slightest friction 
or difficulty about it.

AFL and independent unions seem to have reached the 
same conclusions that we have: That a union policy against 
discrimination or segregation can be implemented without 
substantial strife or difficulty, if such a policy is unequivocally 
enunciated and unhesitatingly enforced.

For example, the Indianapolis News, for June 24 and 25, 
1953, carries a story about a wildcat strike among a minority 
of Indianapolis railway operators against the proposed hiring 
of Negro drivers. It reports that the secretary-treasurer 
of the local union, a local of the Amalgamated Association of 
Street, Electric Railway & Motor Coach Employees of Amer­
ica, AFL, declared that “Our International Union prohibits 
any kind of discrimination,” and ordered the strikers to 
return to work, on pain of suspension from the union. The 
newspaper account further relates that the strikers returned 
to work, and gave assurances that there would be no repeti­
tion of the walk-out.

The United Mine Workers (Independent) has followed the 
same policy, and with the same results. Here is a quotation 
from Herbert R. Northrup, “Organized Labor and the Negro,” 
New York, 1946, p. 166, emphasis added:

“It must be re-emphasized at this point that the UMW 
has an enviable record of practicing, as well as preaching, 
racial equality in its organization ever since it began to 
function. It is true that there have been instances of 
discrimination against Negroes in particular locals, both 
in the North and in the South. But the officials of the 
national union have never, to the writer’s knowledge, 
condoned such action, and have not hesitated to chas­
tise individual locals for failing to live up to the letter 
of the non-discrimination policy. Moreover, the UMW 
has always conducted both its organizing campaigns and 
its day-to-day union affairs without prejudice to any 
race.”

We close this enumeration of union experiences and view­
points on how best to effectuate an anti-discrimination, anti­
segregation, policy with a quotation from Hugo Ernst, Presi­
dent, Hotel and Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Inter­



13

national Union, AFL, which appears in that Union’s publica­
tion, The Catering Industry Employee, for July 1952:

“I wish to speak out in the strongest possible terms con­
cerning the question of our local unions and the admis­
sion of non-Caucasian members.
“This article is prompted by a newspaper clipping which 
was sent me the other day by a West Coast friend. It 
was from the front page of a daily paper, and it set forth 
the sorry details of a lawsuit filed against one of our 
local unions by an employer and three bartenders who 
work for him.
“The suit was filed because, although the employer was 
willing and ready to sign a union contract, and his work­
ers were willing and ready to join the union, the union 
would not sign the contract and would not accept these 
bartenders as members. The bartenders are all three 
Negroes.
“By far the most damaging part of this story lies, not 
in the unfavorable publicity of that front-page story, but 
in the fact that there are still, in 1952, members of our 
International Union who will thus attack the principles 
of fair play on which every strong union must be built. 
“Our International Constitution is explicit on this matter 
of discrimination. Section 11, Article XI states:
“ ‘No Local may reject a person prior to applying for 
membership; nor may any Local reject any applicant by 
reason of race, religion or color.’
“Nothing could be plainer than that.
“Nobody can be denied membership in our union because 
he is a Negro, or because he is an Oriental, or an Indian 
or because he is a Catholic or a Jew or a Protestant or 
a Moslem or a Buddhist.
“If he is employed at the trade he is eligible for member­
ship in the Local Union established to represent persons 
in his craft—and that’s that!
“Indeed, it is necessary for me to declare in the plainest 
possible terms that I will have no choice, whenever such 
situations are brought to my attention, but to place the 
guilty local union under trusteeship wherever it persists 
in flaunting our constitution on this point.”

II
EMPLOYER EXPERIENCE

The views of employers who have sought to carry out a 
policy of non-discrimination, on how best to implement such



14

a policy, largely agree, we believe, with the unions’ conclu­
sions on this subject. We wish particularly to call attention 
to the testimony on this subject of Ivan L. Willis, Vice Presi­
dent in Charge of Industrial Relations, International Har­
vester Company, given at Hearings on “Discrimination and 
Full Utilization of Manpower Resources”, before the Subcom­
mittee on Labor and Labor-Management Relations of the 
Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 82nd Con­
gress, 2nd Session, pp. 84-85. The quotation is long, but, 
we believe, well worth the Court’s consideration:

“In carrying out our nondiscrimination policy, our ap­
proach is about this.
“First, we do something about the problem, rather than 
just talk about it.
“Second, we take our actions at as rapid a pace as cir­
cumstances permit, and, once taken, we do not retreat. 
“Third, we try to keep everyone involved as well in­
formed as possible, all the time.
“To illustrate this approach, let me take the example 
of a new factory located in a Southern city. In this 
particular city there are state laws in effect which re­
quire separate drinking fountains, separate toilet facili­
ties, separate eating facilities, and so forth. Obviously, 
we have to comply with state laws, and we do.
“But, beyond that, many questions arise. The first ques­
tion is, of course, ‘Are we going to hire Negroes at all?’ 
Our answer is ‘Yes’.
“The second question then may be: ‘If we do hire Negroes, 
are we going to segregate them, in the sense that we will 
simply have all-Negro departments?’
“Our answer is ‘No’. We do not favor all-Negro or all- 
white departments.
“The third question is: ‘Shall we start out that way, or 
shall we start in conformity with local customs and try 
to make a change later?’
“Our answer was: ‘We are going to start on an unsegre­
gated basis’.
“The next question is: ‘How can we do that?’
“Our answer—for now we are coming to the root of the 
problem—was more complicated. We said: ‘First, we will 
have to make sure that all our managerial people, our 
foremen, and supervisors thoroughly understand our 
policy and the reasons behind it, so that they will be able 
and willing to do a good job in its application.’



15

“Second, we said, ‘Everybody must know our policy’. So, 
as men came to the hiring office to apply for work in the 
new plant, they were all told what our policy was.
“I might insert there, Senator, when we first started em­
ploying people at that plant, we permitted all applicants 
regardless of their race or color to come into a common 
waiting room. That was our first departure perhaps from 
the customary practice in that area where it was nor­
mally the practice to have white employees come into 
one room for interviews and the Negroes be either hired 
at the gate or to come into a separate room.
“They were told that they might find themselves working 
next to a Negro employee and were given the oppor­
tunity at that time to decide whether that would be dis­
tasteful to them. Surprisingly few withdrew at that 
point. Next, in the orientation classes for new employees, 
all employees were taken together, with no segregation. 
Finally, their job assignments were made on the same 
basis. As time has passed and they have gained expe­
rience, their promotion and upgrading to better jobs 
have been carried out on the basis of seniority and 
ability.
“We have had very few evidences of resentment or bad 
feeling as a result of our policy. A few times, in this 
southern plant, there have been incidents, principally 
arising in cases where a Negro employee was being up­
graded. These have not been too serious in nature and 
have been met successfully, through the joint efforts of 
the company and the labor union involved, which was 
the UAW-CIO.
“As a consequence of our experience, we feel perfectly 
sure that progress can be made, with proper planning 
and execution of policy. We know that more progress 
will be made in the future. We have every reason to be 
quite satisfied with the development of our Negro em­
ployees, in productivity and in other ways.
“In the introduction of Negro employees into some of 
our offices, as distinguished from the manufacturing 
shops, we have followed essentially the same procedures. 
First, we have thoroughly discussed all phases of the 
change with supervisory people. Next, we have had 
similar discussions with the employees already on the 
rolls. In practice, we have not met any difficulty which 
I would consider to be a real problem. In general, things 
have gone smoothly, and the Negro men and women 
have fitted in quite well with the rest of the group.



16

“As a result of our total experience, I think all of us are 
convinced that there is nothing insuperable about the 
problem of integrating minority groups into industry, in 
any area of the United States. We recognize that prog­
ress may be faster in some places than in others, but we 
do see progress all along the line.”

If the views set forth in this testimony are compared with 
those of Brendan Sexton, UAW Educational Director, quoted 
supra, p. 7, it will be seen that here is one subject on 
which the views of the company and the union coincide to 
a remarkable degree. They are in full agreement that the 
best way to effectuate a policy against racial discrimination 
or segregation is to announce it firmly and carry it out un­
equivocally, instead of attempting to depart gradually from 
local customs.

These views likewise find support in the conclusions of the 
New York State War Council Committee on Discrimination 
in Employment. In a pamphlet issued in 1942, entitled “How 
Management Can Integrate Negroes in War Industries”, the 
Council stated:

“Introduction of the Negro Worker. Necessity for Firm­
ness and a Real Desire to Integrate Negroes.
“All persons who have dealt with the problem, including 
the personnel managers and government officials inter­
viewed, agree that nothing is so important as a firm posi­
tion on the part of management. Once this position has 
been stated in terms of Executive Order 8802 and the 
laws of the State of New York and a recalcitrant white 
worker still refuses to work with colored persons, man­
agement can only transfer the worker or ask for his 
resignation. This will seldom or never be necessary if 
the situation is clearly explained. Of all the companies 
interviewed only one found it necessary to allow a person 
to resign.”

Finally, we respectfully call attention to certain conclu­
sions which resulted from a study conducted by the New York 
State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, at Cornell 
University. Its Research Bulletin No. 6, February 1950, on 
“Negroes in the Work Group”, states:

“Certain conclusions may be reasonably inferred from 
the data obtained from this study. Again it must be



17

noted that this is a selected study of a few firms, all of 
which had a good record for employing Negroes.
“ (1) A Firm and Unequivocal Stand 
“Employers who decide to hire Negroes for the first time 
or to hire additional Negroes in new capacities should 
adopt a firm attitude in this matter. The employer must 
be resolute in his intentions to enforce this policy re­
gardless of any real or illusory objections that may be 
raised by people in the organization.
“By adhering to a determined attitude to make the pro­
gram work, any obstacles that may be raised will be 
smoothed over or adjusted. Employers earnest in their 
determination to integrate the Negro will soon find their 
subordinates as well as their employees following their 
views.”

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, we respectfully suggest to the Court, 
that if it concludes, as we think it should, that segregation 
in public schools violates the Fourteenth Amendment, it would 
be preferable for it to implement this conclusion by directing 
the cessation of segregation “forthwith” rather than by “grad­
ual adjustment”.

Respectfully submitted,

ARTHUR J. GOLDBERG
General Counsel

THOMAS E. HARRIS
Assistant General Counsel

DAVID E. FELLER
Assistant General Counsel

Congress of Industrial Organizations 
718 Jackson Place, N. W.
Washington 6, D. C.