Mr. KILSON. Then we need more.

Mr. SEDLER. Dr. Sowell's remarks merely pointed out that affirmative action inflicts certain pain on blacks as it inflicts pain on whites. The real problem is that this generation must come to grips with the consequences of our history of racism and, I would add, of the consequences of our history of sexism.

A physician could let a patient die in peace, or the physician could inflict some pain on the patient in the hopes of curing the patient. I think, given the choice, most patients would prefer to have the pain inflicted on them so that they may ultimately be cured.

I fully agree with the necessity for programs to overcome social disadvantage. We need social justice as well as we need racial justice. But in the final analysis what we need is equality.

Racial preference has been our whole history. It has been preference for whites. This is nothing new that has come up. We have always preferred whites. As a result, we have white supremacy and black inequality. We need the same kind or better-I hope-a more just, a more reasonable racial preference for blacks only to the extent of redressing the history of preference for whites.

What this country needs is an end to white supremacy. I believe that is the most important issue facing the Nation at this time. We will forever be a racially divided Nation until we end white supremacy, until we no longer have two societies-black and white, separate but unequal. That is what affirmative action is all about. That is why it is necessary. That is why it is justified.

Senator HATCH. I have kept you longer than I intended, but this has been one of the more stimulating sessions I have attended. What I would like to do is give each of you the opportunity, maybe in just a minute or two, to summarize your views.

Let us take you first, Professor Abram; then you, Dr. Kilson; then you, Professor Van Alstyne; and finally, Professor Sedler. Mr. ABRAM. You have been, sir, extremely patient, and I am very grateful that an important subcommittee of an extraordinary committee should have taken the time to deal with this subject which, I can tell you, has been very much on my mind.

I think I am going to say what I have to say in perhaps three or four sentences. I stand precisely as I have always stood all of my adult life in support of a colorblind interpretation of colorblind words in the American Constitution.

I do not believe that a color-conscious interpretation of those words was justified when it was a policy that reigned from the beginning of the Republic until relatively recent times, and I do not believe that it is justified now.

I think the rendition of a color-conscious interpretation of the Constitution and the laws of this country has inflicted immeasurable damage upon us, is divisive, and in the end presents, as Mr. Justice Jackson said, a loaded weapon to those who wish to use it for some other urgent purpose at some other time.

I urge you, sir, to introduce legislation requiring that any civil rights act presently on the books or any that would be subsequently enacted require as a method of proving the right of the plaintiff as asserted that there was a discriminatory purpose in the action

complained of. That, I think, would redress the wrong which I think has been inflicted.

Senator HATCH. Thank you so much.

Dr. Kilson?

Mr. KILSON. I have no particular policy recommendation, legislation, or suggestion. I am very pleased that you and your staff, Senator Hatch, have composed here today a highly variegated panel of testimony before you, and I think it has been terribly important to have the difficulties and the incredible complexity of affirmative action laid out here.

I want to say that I have become more aware of the long-run risk to the very character and nature of our politics associated with affirmative action, but I think we can run those risks. We have run comparable and even worst risks with other policy positions, which one could go into-we do not have the time. We have run such risks in the past; we can run those risks today.

I have no doubt you are going to shave off something from affirmative action-I have gathered as much from that smile on your face, Senator Hatch-but do not shave off too much.

Senator HATCH. Thank you. You should never interpret my smiles. [Laughter.]

Professor Van Alstyne?

Mr. VAN ALSTYNE. I have no closing statement, Senator. I want to thank you very much and join Professor Kilson especially. It has been a privilege to appear before you.

I have been before Senate and House committees peripatetically, I guess, over the last 12 years. But you are owed our mutual high regard for the careful diversity you have built into this one. I have no sense that this has been a rigged, biased, or predestined panel. You have been very gracious in giving us each an adequate opportunity to explain our points of view. If I have not been effective until now, another hour would not suffice.

I thank you very much for the opportunity to come here.
Senator HATCH. Thank you.

Professor Sedler?

Mr. SEDLER. I would join my colleagues in expressing my high regard for the hearings that you have held, Senator. I think the presentations that all of us have made have served to clarify the different viewpoints on affirmative action.

Perhaps it is well to recall, as we do in so many contexts, that often that which unites us is greater than that which divides us. I think we all would like to see an end to white supremacy. I think we all would want to bring about societal racial equality. I think we all would want to bring about true gender-based equality for men and women. We would want to see blacks and other nonwhite minorities and women be full and equal participants in American society.

People of good will in good faith can disagree about the methods to bring about the kind of society-the kind of equality-that I think all of us would like to see in America.

There are benefits to affirmative action. There are costs to affirmative action. I think the real point of disagreement with all of us is whether the benefits outweigh the costs. I can only reiterate my view that they do.

There are problems with affirmative action programs. I would hope that the first direction of the committee and of all the committees within the Senate would be to look at the particular Federal affirmative action programs, not with the view toward dismantling them but with the view to improving them, to eliminate injustices in the programs, to minimize and distribute the burden insofar as is possible, to make sure that affirmative action programs are, in the words of Justice Powell, "precisely tailored to advance valid and substantial interests."

I am particularly pleased to have had all of you distinguished gentlemen with us today. It has been an extremely well-balanced panel.

I think this particular panel-I want to commend you all-has been both provocative and enlightening.

This is a particularly difficult area for me. I assure my minority friends that I have nothing but the desire to do the very best legislatively I can for them and for our society generally.

I feel deeply-and I have expressed myself deeply-with regard to affirmative action programs. I have to confess that I agree with Professor Van Alstyne and Dr. Abram here today, although I admire the articulate statements that each of you have made. They have been profound and will add much to the discussion.

However, the thing that concerns me more than anything else is that so many people in our society are terrified to even discuss this issue for fear of being labeled "racists"; I think that is a pretty pathetic state of events.

The reason we filed the Equal Protection Amendment-S.J. Res. 41-is that we want to create some dialog here just like this so that both sides can be heard, with people not afraid to express their positions.

If those who really do feel strongly about civil rights, but may have opposite opinions to yours, Dr. Kilson and Dr. Sedler, do not speak out, then our country will continue to pursue a public policy—a very important public policy-that has had the benefit of extremely little congressional debate.

I have to admit, I feel strongly about affirmative action, and I have expressed it in no uncertain terms. I would feel deeply hurt if anybody thought from that that I had feelings against any minority group, because I do not. I do not think I ever have had.

I worked as a young man, as a lather in the building construction trades unions. When it was considered demeaning to work with blacks, I worked with blacks and was proud to do so. They always did the most back-breaking, difficult, hard work; they were always assigned to do that. We only had three black lathers in the whole local, as I recall, and I worked regularly with them.

All I am saying is that I think it is a pathetic thing that when we speak out-because we differ-some think it is because of ulterior motives rather than motives of promoting the more traditional conception of civil rights in this country-colorblind treatment under the law.

I acknowledge that there are strongly held views on this issue contrary to my own. I just hope that the other side would acknowledge the same thing.

We will have a second and third day and perhaps a fourth day of hearings in June-hopefully of this same caliber-so that we can continue the dialog.

With that, we will recess these hearings until June 11.

[Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene on June 11, 1981.]