S. 2300-CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION ACT OF 1978

MONDAY, MARCH 6, 1978

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:10 a.m., in room 2228, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Birch Bayh (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Scott and Hatch.

Staff present: Nels Ackerson, chief counsel and executive director; Linda Rogers-Kingsbury, chief clerk; Ben Dixon, professional staff member; Barbara Dixon, staff representative for Senator Bayh; and Jim McClellan, staff representative for Senator Hatch.

*

Senator BAYH. The subcommittee will come to order.

Today we begin the fourth and final day of testimony on S. 2300, the Civil Rights Commission Act of 1978. This is an extra day of hearings requested by the minority, and the witnesses that are to appear today, with one exception, were asked to present testimony on the bill by Senator Scott, the ranking minority member of the subcommittee and Senator Hatch, a member of the subcommittee. As I understand it three other groups will be submitting statements for the record.

Since the Senate will not convene today until 12 noon, our original worry that the floor debate on Panama would interfere with these hearings because of the 2-hour rule is largely ended. However, I would still ask that all witnesses keep their oral statements as short as possible to allow adequate time for any questions that might arise. e. As usual any longer statements may be submitted and made part of the record.

I would also like to point out one small change in the witness list, Rabbi Sternberger will appear third instead of seventh as planned. I hope this does not inconvenience our other witnesses. Our first witness today is Mr. L. F. Walentynowicz, executive director, National Polish American Congress.

Sir, if you will come forward we will begin.

TESTIMONY OF L. F. WALENTYNOWICZ, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL POLISH AMERICAN CONGRESS, ACCOMPANIED BY ZDZISLAW DZIEKONSKI, EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT

Mr. WALENTYNOWICZ. It is a pleasure to come before the committee and talk on this particular matter because I know that in our minds the circumstances surrounding the continued existence of the Civil Rights Commission highlights why we have not achieved more progress in the fight against discrimination.

You have our statement. I could read the statement at length to you or I can summarize it. I take it from your earlier remarks that you prefer that we do summarize the statement.

Senator BAYH. We would prefer it, but handle it any way you see fit. Mr. WALENTYNOWICZ. To begin with let me give you some preliminary comments, Mr. Chairman. The reason we say that these hearings highlight things is our belief that we all are Americans and we all want to fight prohibited discrimination and there are a variety of ways in which this fight can be conducted. But it would seem to me, that when the U.S. Congress issued the mandates that it did issue with respect to the Civil Rights Commission, and it has issued in other statutes, indicating that there is no priority over the kinds of prohibited discrimination, and then when Congress speaks that we would eliminate discrimination based on race, color, creed, sex, and national origin, and say so without indicating any priority for any of these types of prohibited discrimination and goes further, as with the Civil Rights Commission, and says that this kind of discrimination should be eliminated with due concern for the equal protection clause of the Constitution-and equal protection of our laws then I think it behooves all the branches of Government-the executive, the agencies, and including Congress itself-to follow that mandate. I think that it is especially important for the Civil Rights Commission, because it is, given the lead position in this fight, to conduct itself in a fair and equal manner and follow that mandate. I think the record of the Commission for the last 20 years indicates that it has failed to follow that congressional mandate. Therefore, the desirability of its continued existence is seriously in question and its credibility has already been substantially eroded and may continue to erode.

I think it is very, very important for this committee to look at this situation through its oversight function and to do something about it. With that I would like to detail my prepared statement and then answer any questions addressed to us.

In behalf of the Polish American Congress, I wish to express our sincere appreciation for this opportunity to express our concerns and views with respect to the subject matter of this hearing.

Civil rights have long been dear to the hearts and minds of people of and with Polish background and tradition and if anything are more so with those who are or have become U.S. citizens.

The history of the Polish people, the Polish patriots who helped found this country and the Americans of Polish background who helped make this country as great as it is, is a living and visible confirmation of the feeling and commitment of these people to human rights including civil rights.

I say this without any sense of pretention for there are people of many other backgrounds and traditions who have similar histories and the same feelings and commitments. I do say it, however, to make this committee and others, who may hear and read these remarks, understand more fully why they are being made and so that they may not be misperceived.

The work of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, its continued existence and proposed expansion of mandates creates a mixed reaction with most Americans of Polish origin and background. To the extent that the work of the Commission and its continued existence promotes the cause of civil rights for all, such work and existence is not only supported but enthusiastically endorsed. And, this feeling continues with respect to the proposed new mandates to include the problems of the aged and handicapped individuals. Nevertheless, the full record of the Commission is such as to raise serious misgivings about its overall performance and the desirability of continuing its existence if it continues to conduct its affairs in the uneven and discriminatory fashion it is now doing.

Mr. Destro, one of the subsequent speakers in this morning's hearing, suggests that the Civil Rights Commission has become a partisan lobby group for certain favored groups.

Let me elaborate and detail what I mean. Congress imposed five mandates upon the Commission when it first created it in 1957. Essentially, these were and are:

One, investigate voting right violations;

Two, study and collect information concerning legal developments constituting denial of equal protection of laws under the Constitution; Three, appraise Federal laws and policies with respect to equal protection of the laws;

Four, serve as a national clearinghouse for information in respect to denials of equal protection of the laws; and

Five, submit reports, findings and recommendations to the President and Congress.

Significantly, all these mandates included the additional mandate that they were to be performed with respect to the problems of discrimination relating to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. No priority as to the handling of these mandates was established and no direction was given that the resolution of one type of discrimination was to receive preference over the resolution of another type. To the contrary, the language specifically directs the Commission to report and make recommendations to see to it that all the forms of prohibited discrimination are addressed in such a fashion as to insure everyone the equal protection of the laws and our Constitution. Given these mandates and notwithstanding the trying circumstances then existing, the Commission had a significant opportunity to secure the confidence of the greater part, if not all, of America and reshape the attitude of its people toward prohibited discrimination and the benefits stemming from a true application of the equal protection concept found in our laws and Constitution. Essential to the total success of such an effort was to create the impression that the Commission's activities were even and fair and were concerned with the good and welfare of all Americans. What did the Commission do? Instead of carrying out its mandates in an even and fair fashion with care and concern for the good and welfare of all Americans, the Commission's record to date indicates that it is a champion and strong advocate of some groups that have and still are suffering discrimination but is totally indifferent, and neglectful of the discrimination suffered and still being suffered by other groups.

In fact, the effect on some of the practices the Commission engages in not only perpetrate the discrimination being suffered by these disfavored groups, but also requires them to suffer the consequences of the actions the Commission proposes or approves to rectify the discrimination being suffered by the groups that it now favors. As a result, a great deal of resentment has been created and the progress in eliminating all prohibited discrimination and the effects thereof has not been as rapid as desirable. Here are some illustrations.

In its 20 years of existence, the Commission has never conducted any studies on the existence of America of discrimination based on national origin with the exception of people of Hispanic origin. No such studies have ever been conducted on discrimination based on religion though numerous studies have been made on racial and sexual discrimination and discrimination based on color.

Such studies would have been useful, even if no discrimination was found, for it would have reassured Americans that the degree of attention the Commission was paying to racial, color and sexual discrimination was indeed justified and necessary.

It would have also helped explain the existence of the "Polish" joke which defames and attacks the very integrity of people of Polish origin and the absence of such people, except sometimes in token numbers, in many many facets of American life.

In this regard, another illustration reflecting the Commission's practices and attitudes is particularly pertinent.

Recently, the Commission issued a study critical of the use of stereotypes in the electronic media. Much emphasis was placed in this report on the adverse affect such stereotyping is having not only on American children who are forming impressions but also upon older Americans in perpetuating false and discriminatory impressions. Yet, no mention was made of the effect of "Polish" jokes and novelties even though the harmful effects of such items is and was a matter of common knowledge.

Another illustration is the Commission's recent report regarding affirmative action. The report in essence supports affirmative action programs that exclude disadvantaged and discriminated whites other than Hispanics without offering any sensible justification therefor. But such a conclusion is not surprising because it reflects a long litany of other similar actions by the Commission, including data collection and use of designations.

For reasons not entirely clear, national origin groups such as FolishAmericans, Italian-Americans, Arabian-Americans, et cetera, are never separately considered even though numerically and otherwise they are distinct, and significant groups. Instead they are continually included in designations used by the Commission as "nonminority", "white" or "other", having the further effect as being part of the "net" group that ends up being disfavored by the Commission.

Treated this way, these groups end up bearing the full brunt of the Commission's criticism for the discrimination of the groups it does favor, even though there is no persuasive evidence that groups such as Polish-Americans are indeed uniquely and solely responsible for such discrimination. This occurs notwithstanding there is substantial evidence that these same groups also have been and are suffering discrimination.