Anti-jewish Bias in Employment Discussed; Evidence Presented

Evidence that many of the largest firms in the United States, including some holding Federal Government contracts–which officially ban bias–are practicing discrimination against Jewish workers, was presented here today at a conference of officials of public anti-discrimination agencies and private Jewish organizations from all parts of the nation. The conference reached the following conclusions:

1. While gains have been made as a result of laws and general education, employment discrimination against Jews is more widespread than revealed by complaints and other available evidence.

2. Subtleties with which discrimination against Jews is practiced make it more difficult to detect and deal with than discrimination against other groups.

3. Problem merits additional attention by both Jewish organization and public agencies.

Federal, state and municipal governmental agencies represented at the conference, included the President’s Committee on Government Contracts, commissions against discrimination in Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island and municipal commissions in Gary, Minneapolis, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. The conference, believed to be the first of its kind, was sponsored by the National Community Relations Advisory Council’s committee on employment discrimination.

Figures reported by the governmental agencies showed that about one-eighth of all complaints of discrimination lodged with them were on the basis of religion, and that more than eight out of every ten cases of religious discrimination involved Jewish workers. The conference agreed with Louis Feinmark of New Haven, chairman of the committee on Employment Discrimination, that the extent of discrimination against Jews in employment could not be measured by the volume of complaints coming to the agencies.

LIST OF DISCRIMINATORY FIRMS READS LIKE WHO’S WHO OF U.S. INDUSTRY

Mr. Feinmark said a study by the Chicago Bureau on Jewish Employment Problems showed that out of about 19,000 job-orders filed with commercial employment agencies in that city between March, 1953, and September, 1954, nearly one-quarter were closed to Jews by employers’ discriminatory specifications. Nine out of ten of the jobs covered were in routine clerical work, another a was an acute shortage of clerical help in the area during the period studied.

The list of discriminatory firms, Mr. Feinmark said, “reads like a Who’s Who of American industry. Many operate in cities and states which provide protection of fair employment practices legislation; approximately 150 have been identified as government contractors. ” Mr. Feinmark said he believed the findings of the Chicago investigation would be duplicated in other cities, if similar studies were made.

Employment agencies were charged with discriminatory practices in a relatively large proportion of Jewish cases filed with state and municipal agencies. Jewish complaints involved clerical workers to a far larger extent than skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled industrial workers. Complaints of discrimination by finance, insurance and real estate firms were twice as large among Jewish cases as among all others.

Failure of Jewish workers to file complaints in a larger proportion of cases were ascribed to ignorance of the legal recourse available, to a feeling that complaints will prove futile, to a fear of jeopardizing other job opportunities, and to the fact that the majority eventually find employment, it was established at the conference.