Today’s post is written by John C. Harris, Archives Technician at National Archives at Philadelphia with a special thanks to Michael Demofonte, Archives Technician, Archives II, Research Services, Digitization Division for his editorial feedback and helping me make sense of the data.
Introduction:
Data. It is a daunting word for those of us who entered the humanities to avoid number crunching and equations. But, at some point in our education and training, it was likely made apparent that to do good historical research, we rely on data and statistics to inform a scientific approach to analyzing the past. Our plan to avoid math was foiled.
The indexes from Record Group 228, Records of the Committee on Fair Employment Practices (FEPC) lend themselves to data analysis. The FEPC was established on June 25, 1941, by Executive Order 8802 to “encourage full participation in the national defense program by all citizens of the United States, regardless of race, creed, color, or national origin.”[1] The Committee received and investigated complaints of discrimination which violated EO 8802 and provided guidance to amend those grievances found to be valid.[2][3] In addition to the case files, which provide detailed information about the factors in each case, the FEPC also created index cards to track the filing of cases. Those cards which comprise indexes in NARA’s Record Group 228 holdings include the fields “Reason for Discrimination,” “Location,” “Type of Discrimination,” and “Parties Charged,” which account for the most fundamental conditions of each case. Today, those very same index cards offer researchers an efficient way to quantify the types of cases filed in the regions of the FEPC, various demographics experiences with discrimination, where they were filed, and more. All of which illuminates the range of historical circumstances and human experiences represented and preserved within the collection.
The analysis in this post will explore the data within the Index to Active and Closed Cases, 1941-1946 of Region IV of the FEPC (which covered Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and Washington, D.C.) held at the National Archives at Philadelphia. The index of this collection is made up of recorded complaints of discrimination at federal agencies, private companies, and labor unions with federal contracts which were involved in the war effort from 1941 to 1946. The goal of this project is chiefly to activate the data contained in the index and secondarily to elevate awareness of the kinds of insights that can be drawn from this and similar collections. It will do so by determining the top three “Reasons for Discrimination” in the first section. In the next section, the top three “Locations,” or cities and states where the most cases were filed within Region IV will be analyzed. The third section will determine the top three “Types of Discrimination.” And the last factor from the index cards analyzed is the analyzed the top three “Parties Charged.” The paper will conclude by relaying key limitations on certain assumptions that can be made from the data analyzed in this project before highlighting different avenues of research that this index might support despite those limitations.
1. Analysis of “Reason for Discrimination”
As specified in EO 8802, the FEPC was established to record, monitor, and evaluate alleged instances of discrimination based upon one’s race, creed, color, or national origin. The field “Reason for Discrimination” on the index cards accounts for the demographics of those who were alleged to have been discriminated against. Of the 590 cases recorded in the Index of Active and Closed Cases from FEPC’s Region IV contained in the collection, race was the most often indicated in the field “Reason for Discrimination.” “Negro”/“Negroes”/“Negro (other)”[4] were listed 508 times which makes up 86.10% of the cases. There is an exponential dropoff in cases that designate the next largest demographic in the index which are the 17 discrimination cases reported in the index which reference discrimination against those of Jewish ethnicity, which makes up 2.88% of the index. Whereas cases which reference discrimination against workers of German national origin were recorded 11 times, making up 1.86% of the index and the third highest demographic count.
These numbers contextualize the urgency of A. Philip Randolph and other Civil Rights leaders’ efforts to create equal working conditions for all laborers in the Defense sector. It is unsurprising that cases of alleged discrimination against Blacks were the most frequently reported to the FEPC. But the rate at which these transgressions were recorded relative to the other demographics in the index is staggering. According to these numbers, cases reference discrimination against Black workers under the jurisdiction of Region IV of the FEPC at a rate 29.89 times more than their Jewish counterparts; 46 times more frequently than those of German origin, and 6.19 times more than the entire rest of the index combined. While this might be unfortunately predictable given the societal structures in place at the time, a deeper look into where these cases were filed helps to reveal aspects of the relative experiences of these demographics across the administrative region.
2. Analysis of “Location”
The three most frequently represented “Locations” within the index are Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia, where 523 cases were recorded. Together, these three locations represent 88.64% of cases filed within Region IV.
Table 1: Number of Cases Which Reference Discrimination Against the Demographics of the Top 3 “Reasons for Discrimination” at the Top 3 Geographic Locations (And the percentage of all cases)
| Washington D.C. | Maryland | Virginia | All other locations | Total | |
| Black | 240 (40.68% of all cases) | 120 (20.34% of all cases) | 88 (14.92% of all cases) | 60 (10.17% of all cases) | 508 (86.10% of all cases) |
| Jewish | 11 (1.86% of all cases) | 5 (.85% of all cases) | 1 (.17% of all cases) | 0 | 17 (2.88% of all cases) |
| German | 11 (1.86% of all cases) | 1 (.17% of all cases) | 0 | 0 | 12 (2.03% of all cases) |
| All Other | 20 (3.39% of all cases) | 17 (2.88% of all cases) | 9 (1.53% of all cases) | 7 (1.19% of all cases) | 53 (8.98% of all cases) |
| Overall | 282 (47.79% of all cases) | 143 (24.24% of all cases) | 98 (16.61% of all cases) | 67 (11.36% of all cases) | 590 (100% of all cases) |
Nearly half of all the cases of alleged discrimination filed within Region IV occurred in the capital. A more thorough investigation into the efficacy of the FEPC throughout its jurisdiction and the societal conditions of each geographic location will help to explain why so many more cases were filed in Washington, D.C., but this analysis is limited to what can be drawn directly from the index itself. What can be immediately determined is that cases of discrimination were reported in Washington, D.C. at 1.99 and 2.88 times the rate of the two subsequent locations, respectively, and were 4.31 times more prevalent than the cases reported in North Carolina and West Virginia combined.
The following table narrows in the scope even more to relay the frequency of cases which reference discrimination against the most aggrieved demographics at the top three locations.
Table 2: Percentage of Cases Which Reference Discrimination Against the Demographics of the Top 3 “Reasons for Discrimination” at the Top 3 Geographic Locations
| Washington D.C. | Maryland | Virginia | All other locations | |
| Percent of Black Cases | 47.24% | 23.62% | 17.32% | 11.81% |
| Percent of Jewish Cases | 64.71% | 29.41% | 5.88% | 0 |
| Percent of German Cases | 91.67% | 8.33% | 0 | 0 |
| Percent of All Cases | 47.79% | 24.24% | 16.61% | 11.36% |
What appears is a high degree of correlation between the frequencies of Black cases by location and the frequencies of all cases, differing by less than one percentage point in nearly all situations. Alternatively, it is clear that cases alleging discrimination against other demographics were filed throughout the Region at more disparate rates.
Washington, D.C. is where 47.24% of cases reference discrimination against Black workers originated and where 47.79% of all cases were filed; Maryland is where 23.62% of cases reference discrimination against Black workers originated and where 24.24% of all cases were filed; Virginia is where 17.32% of the cases that reference discrimination against Black workers originated and where 16.61% of all cases were filed. A similar distribution is extended to the combined cases from all other locations, which represent 11.81% of the cases which reference discrimination against Black workers and represent 11.36% of all cases. But the distribution of cases was not nearly so even for the remaining demographics in the top three.
The most apparent maldistribution of cases were those that occurred in the nation’s capital. Cases filed in Washington, D.C. which reference discrimination against Jewish ethnicity and German national origin each represent just 1.86% of all cases filed within the jurisdiction of Region IV. However, 91.67% of the cases which reference discrimination against Germans and 64.71% of the cases which reference discrimination against Jews occurred in Washington, D.C. Again, an examination of the social conditions throughout Region IV may reveal more as to why cases which reference discrimination against German and Jewish workers were so concentrated in Washington, D.C.
The following section will shift away from the relationship between the top three demographics’ and the locations in which cases were filed and focus instead on the same demographics’ experience with the forms of discrimination included in the index. After which it will once again bring location into the scope and explore the forms of discrimination that occurred at various locations as is listed in the index.
3. Analysis of “Type of Discrimination”
The next insight into the experience of the workers is derived from looking at how the claims indicated the workers were discriminated against. There are three primary “Types of Discrimination” specified within the index. They are “Hire,” “Upgrade,” and “Discharge.” In plain words, or that which cannot fit within the fields of the index cards, these alleged “Types of Discrimination” can be understood as the employer’s refusal to offer a job to an applicant, the employer’s refusal to promote or increase the wages of a current employee, and the employer’s action to fire an employee. Together, these three forms of discrimination are listed in just over two-thirds of all cases, or 67.45%. Like tables in the previous section, the Table 3 will relay the count of the types of discrimination experienced by the demographics, and Table 4 will relay the frequency of cases which reference discrimination against the most aggrieved demographics at the top three locations.
Table 3: Number of Cases Filed that Indicate the Top 3 “Types of Discrimination” by the Top 3 Demographics of the Top 3 “Reason For Discrimination”
| Hire | Upgrade | Discharge | Other Types of Discrimination | Total | |
| Black | 193 (32.71% of all cases) | 92 (15.59 % of all cases) | 59 (10% of all cases) | 164 (27.8% of all cases) | 508 (86.10% of all cases) |
| Jewish | 6 (1.02% of all cases) | 1 (.17% of all cases) | 6 (1.02% of all cases) | 4 (.68% of all cases) | 17 (2.89% of all cases) |
| German | 8 (1.36% of all cases) | 0 | 4 (.68% of all cases) | 0 | 12 (2.03% of all cases) |
| All Other Reasons | 12 (2.03% of all cases) | 3 (.51%of all cases) | 15 (2.54% of all cases) | 23 (3.90% of all cases) | 53 (8.98% of all cases) |
| Overall | 219 (37.11% of all cases) | 95 (16.10% of all cases) | 84 (14.24% of all cases) | 192 (32.55 of all cases) | 590 (100% of all cases) |
Table 4: Percent of Cases Filed that Indicate the Top 3 “Types of Discrimination” by the Top 3 Demographics of the Top 3 “Reason For Discrimination”
| Hire | Upgrade | Discharge | Other Types of Discrimination | |
| Percent of Black Cases | 37.99% | 18.11% | 11.61% | 32.28% |
| Percent of Jewish Cases | 35.29% | 5.88% | 35.29% | 23.53% |
| Percent of German Cases | 66.66% | 0 | 33.33% | 0 |
| Percent of All Cases | 32.71% | 18.11% | 11.61% | 27.79% |
The index makes it clear the employers in this administrative region of the FEPC levied these “Types of Discrimination” on the demographics of laborers at different rates. To researchers, these numbers are particularly important as each of the top three forms of discrimination occurred at different stages of the employment process. Therefore, what is revealed are aspects of the workers’ varied experiences as they sought employment, while they were employed, and, when it occurred, their termination from jobs.
Table 3 once again emphasizes that Black laborers were most frequently reference in the index. It also relays that cases involving Black workers far outnumbered the other demographics in each of the top three “Types of Discrimination.” However, Table 4 provides a little more interesting context. Unlike Black workers, for whom cases were filed alleging multiple variations of discrimination, including nearly all cases of refusal to upgrade found in the index, cases alleging discrimination due to German national origin or Jewish religion/ethnicity were far more singular. 66.6% of German cases cited “Refusal to Hire” as the discrimination experienced, compared to 37.99% of Black cases or 35.29% of Jewish cases (a 1.75:1 ratio and a 1.88:1 ratio, respectively). On the other hand, 35.29% of Jewish cases involved wrongful termination, compared to 33.33% of German cases or 11.61% of Black cases (a 1.05:1 ratio and a 3.03:1 ratio respectively).” What this tells us is that each of the top 3 demographics experienced discrimination at three distinct stages of employment (seeking work, while on the job, and when they were terminated) at varying rates.
4. Analysis of Top 3 “Parties Charged” and “Types of Discrimination” at the Top 3 “Parties Charged”
The previous sections confirm a varied distribution of the top three “Reasons for Discrimination” and “Types of Discrimination” across the demographic groups at different geographic locations. However, according to the index, the workers’ experiences at individual sites of employment are where the largest differences occurred. To demonstrate that variance, the scope will expand beyond the “Top Three” demographics and incorporate all of the nine different demographics referenced in the cases at the top three “Parties Charged.”
Table 5 will represent a total count of the cases at the top three “Parties Charged.” Tables 6,7, and 8 will analyze the frequency of cases filed at each of the top three “Parties Charged.”
All together, the top three “Parties Charged,” which represent 1.14% of all 263 employers listed in the index, combined for 80 out of 590 cases and make up 13.55% of the total cases.
Table 5: Number of Cases Which Reference Discrimination Against the Demographics of the “Reasons for Discrimination” at the Top 3 “Parties Charged”
| Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company in Baltimore, MA | Norfolk Navy Yard in Portsmouth, VA | War Department, Washington, D.C. | All other Parties Charged | Total | |
| Black | 29 (4.91% of all cases) | 23 (3.89% of all cases) | 19 (3.22% of all cases) | 436 (73.90% of all cases) | 508 (86.10% of all cases) |
| German | 1 (.17% of all cases) | 10 (1.7% of all cases) | 11 (1.87% of all cases) | ||
| Jewish | 1 (.17% of all cases) | 16 (2.71% of all cases) | 17 (2.88% of all cases) | ||
| 7th Day Adventist | 2 (.34% of all cases) | 7 (1.19% of all cases) | 9 (1.53% of all cases) | ||
| Catholic | 1 (.17% of all cases) | 1 (.17% of all cases) | |||
| National Origin (Hungary) | 1 (.17% of all cases) | 1 (.17% of all cases) | |||
| Filipino | 1 (.17% of all cases) | 1 (.17% of all cases) | |||
| Mexican | 1 (.17% of all cases) | 1 (.17% of all cases) | |||
| All other reasons | 41 (6.94% of all cases) | 41 (6.94% of all cases) | |||
| Overall | 29 (4.91% of all cases) | 26 (4.41% of all cases) | 24 (3.56% of all cases) | 510 (86.44% of all cases) | 590 (100% of all cases) |
Once again, more light can be shed on the experience of the varying demographics by examining the frequency of their appearance in cases filed at the top three “Parties Charged.”
Table 6: Percent of the Demographics of the “Reasons for Discrimination” that Make Up Those Who Filed the 29 Cases Against Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company in Baltimore.
| Hire | Upgrade | Discharge | Total | |
| Black | 29 (100% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 29 (100% of cases filed at this site of employment) |
Table 6 represents the most staggering example of discrimination faced by a single demographic at a single site of employment: the cases against Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company in Baltimore. All 29 cases, which make up nearly 5% of all cases in the index, and represent the most cases filed against a single employer, reference discrimination against Black laborers and alleged they were not hired because of the color of their skin.
Table 7: Percent of the Demographics of the “Reasons for Discrimination” that Make Up Those Who Filed the 26 Cases Against the Norfolk Navy Yard in Portsmouth, VA.
| Discharge | Hire | Upgrade | Demotion | Working Conditions | Work Assignment | Refused Sabbath | Total | |
| Black | 8 (30.8% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 2 (7.70% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 7 (26.92% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 3 (11.54% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 2 (7.70% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 1 (3.85% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 23 (88.46% of cases filed at this site of employment) | |
| Seventh-day Adventist | 1 (3.85% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 1 (3.85% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 2 (7.70% of cases filed at this site of employment) | |||||
| Catholic | 1 (3.85% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 1 (3.85% of cases filed at this site of employment) | ||||||
| Overall | 9 (34.6% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 2 (7.70% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 8 (30.76% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 3 (11.54% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 2 (7.70% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 1 (3.85% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 1 (3.85% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 26 (100% of cases filed at this site of employment) |
Table 7 reveals the employer with the second-most cases of alleged discrimination filed against them was the Norfolk Navy Yard in Portsmouth, Virginia. There 26 cases originated. The majority of these reference discrimination against Black workers (nearly a third of whom alleged their discharge was the result of discrimination). However, the circumstances of the cases filed at the Norfolk Navy Yard differ from the other locations in that they indicate discrimination against workers outside of the top three demographics. The data shows that over 10% of the cases filed against the Norfolk Navy Yard alleged religious discrimination, in the form of two cases involving Seventh-Day Adventists and one Catholic. The same three cases represent 20% of all non-Jewish religious discrimination cases listed in the index.
Similar to Table 7, Table 8, which highlights the cases filed against the War Department in Washington, D.C., new demographics from outside of the Top Three are represented. However, unlike Table 7, these additional classes of workers did not have cases filed regarding persecution for their religious practices.
Table 8: Percent of the Demographics of the “Reasons for Discrimination” that Make Up Those Who Filed the 24 Cases Against the War Department, Washington, D.C.
| Demotion | Work Assignment | Discharge | Upgrade | Refusal to Release | Hire | Working Conditions | Instructions on Job | Total | |
| Black | 1 (4.17% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 2 (8.33% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 4 (16.67% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 6 (25% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 2 (8.33% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 2 (8.33% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 2 (8.33% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 19 (79.17% of cases filed at this site of employment) | |
| German | 1 (4.17% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 1 (4.17% of cases filed at this site of employment) | |||||||
| Jewish | 1 (4.17% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 1 (4.17% of cases filed at this site of employment) | |||||||
| Hungary | 1 (4.17% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 1 (4.17% of cases filed at this site of employment) | |||||||
| Filipino | 1 (4.17% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 1 (4.17% of cases filed at this site of employment) | |||||||
| Mexican | 1 (4.17% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 1 (4.17% of cases filed at this site of employment) | |||||||
| Total | 1 (4.17% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 3 (12.5% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 7 (29.17% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 6 (25% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 2 (8.33% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 2 (8.33% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 2 (8.33% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 1 (4.17% of cases filed at this site of employment) | 24 (100% of cases filed at this site of employment) |
The third largest number of discrimination cases from within the index were filed against the War Department. There, 24 cases of discrimination were filed, making up 4.08% of all cases. Once again, the largest number of cases were filed on behalf of Black workers, alleging seven different Types of Discrimination across 19 cases. Similar to the cases from the Norfolk Navy Yard, those filing against the War Department also included individuals from outside of the top three most represented demographics. Unlike the workers from outside the top three demographics in Virginia, whose cases were filed due to their religious affiliations, the individuals from outside the top three demographics here indicated that they were discriminated against because of their national origins. The cases which reference discrimination against Filipino, Hungarian, and Mexican workers at the War Department in Washington, D.C. are the only cases which reference discrimination against those demographics in the entire index.
5. What the Index Cannot Confirm and Potential Research It May Support
It is important to emphasize that these numbers alone cannot represent the entirety of discrimination in the defense sector from 1942 to 1946. Rather, this data can only reveal what occurred in the instances of the cases filed in Region IV of the FEPC. Despite that limitation, and in addition to the access to actual case files provided by the index, its ability to provide a general insight, based on hard data, into the experience of laborers who utilized the FEPC and their reasons for doing so is what makes the index a critical resource. With that said, it is worth exploring what the index cannot communicate to researchers.
Perhaps the most important thing to remember when looking at data like this is the adage, “Correlation does not imply causation.” Or, in other words, that a cause-and-effect relationship cannot be confirmed by the presence of what is referred to in statistics as a “positive relationship.” To use examples from the index, Black laborers are reference in cases of discrimination in Region IV of the FEPC 6.19 times more than the entire rest of the index combined, but that does not immediately mean that discrimination against Black laborers occurred at a rate 6 times more than other demographics throughout every employer in the defense industry. And while there are no cases which reference discrimination against Germans by their employers in Virginia, West Virginia, and North Carolina, we cannot determine that workers of German national origin were discriminated against only in Washington, D.C., and Maryland within Region IV of the FEPC. Instead, we can only determine that in Region IV, German workers only filed cases in those two states. Lastly, the assertion that the only form of discrimination that Jewish workers at the War Department in Washington, D.C. faced was being wrongfully discharged cannot be made despite the fact that the single case opened by a Jewish worker at that location was done so on the grounds of wrongful termination. Once again, the conclusions drawn must be contained in the data that the index communicates, not what it might imply.
To further emphasize the limitations on what kinds of conclusions can be drawn from this index, there are two primary issues which prevent this index from representing the entirety of discriminatory circumstances throughout Region IV of the FEPC.
First, there are instances in which multiple complainants appeared in single cases. Such as case 4-GR-167, in which the Treasury Department, Fiscal Division in Washington, D.C. is accused of refusing to hire Beulah Dungee and eight others on account of their being Black. But Dungee’s case is not an outlier. The number of cases filed which included multiple complainants with the “et al.” abbreviation in the Party Aggrieved field totals 42. Of which, 41 claimed the “Reason for Discrimination” was that they were Black, one of which listed their being Seventh-day Adventist as the reason. Therefore, the index can only be said to represent the number of cases filed, not the real number of instances of discrimination.
Furthermore, these cases cannot be said to represent every act of discrimination that occurred against workers employed at federal agencies, private companies, and labor unions with federal contracts which were involved in the war effort from 1941 to 1946. This data can only account for the discriminatory acts which were alleged to have occurred by opening and documenting the cases. It is important to note that the index is made up of cases that were opened after an allegation was made. There are 80 cases with notations that indicate the case was closed for reasons ranging from its inability to be substantiated, the position being abolished, or there was a satisfactory adjustment made to resolve the complaint. A deeper look into the case files will reveal more about the narrative of each case that the index cards cannot contain.
Despite these limitations, there are opportunities for the index to contribute to new research beyond what was examined in this project. As noted early on in the paper, it may be useful to examine and compare the efficacy of the Committee on Fair Employment Practices beyond the nation’s capital, where Region IV was headquartered. It makes sense to assume that the headquarters were most equipped to effectively receive, track, and resolve complaints. However, as expressed in Ronald Takaki’s Double Victory: A Multicultural History of America in World War II[5], the actual power of the agency is subject to speculation. Perhaps the infrastructural issues such as low funding and staffing pointed out by Takaki were compounded by a physical distance from the regional headquarters, which may, in part, account for the exponential drop-off in cases filed in North Carolina and West Virginia. Alternatively, there may simply have been proportionally less defense industry jobs in those states. An analysis of the indexes of the other regional jurisdictions may help determine whether the same pattern occurred across the country.
The data from this index also calls into question the relationship between race, religion, and ethnicity as defined by federal protections. The Jewish demographic was the second most represented group within the index. However, what is not evident in the index is what part, or parts, of their Jewish identity the employers found objectionable. It may have been their Jewish name, and ethnicity, or creed which is the closest term stated in EO 8802. Or, conversely, an adherence to the faith specifically. Additional support for the need of further research into the FEPC’s defined role of religion as a protected class is that religion is entirely absent from the executive order that established the FEPC, yet an implied adherence to a faith system is cited as the reason for discrimination in 5.25% percent of cases.
Another vein of research exists in the experience of another demographic not represented in the index as a protected class but who made up nearly a third of all cases. The experience of women who were employed at sites under the jurisdiction of the FEPC and their relationship to the review processes of the committee may be particularly enlightening to the trajectory of their experience in the American workforce. Women were not an explicitly protected class under Executive Order 8802, however they are included in 220 (37.29%) of the cases filed in Region IV of the FEPC. And while the FEPC has been cast as a predecessor of Affirmative Action,[6] there may be evidence to suggest that women’s use of a committee aimed at eliminating discrimination in such a large sector of the workforce contributed to the campaign for the Equal Rights Amendment two decades later.
Lastly, additional insight may be derived from a comparative analysis of similar data drawn from the indexes of other regions of the FEPC. The analysis here is of the case files from just one of thirteen different regions. Region I was headquartered in Boston, MA, with a jurisdiction of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, and its records are preserved by the National Archives at Boston. The National Archives at New York City retains the records of Region II, which was presided over from New York City and consisted of New York State alone. Region III was headquartered in Philadelphia, PA, and contained Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania (and Region IV, which was the subject of this project), which was retained by NARA at Philadelphia. NARA at Chicago holds the records for Region V, which was headquartered in Cleveland, OH, and administered Kentucky, Michigan, and Ohio; Region VI, which was headquartered in Chicago, IL, and administered Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin; and Region VIII, which was headquartered in Minneapolis, MN, and administered Indiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The records from Region VII, which was centered in Atlanta, GA, and regulated the defense sector in the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee, are held by NARA at Atlanta. NARA at Kansas City preserves the records of both Region IX, which was headquartered in Kansas City, MO, and Region XI, which was headquartered in Denver, both of which administered the states of Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and the states of Colorado, Indiana, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming, respectively. The records of Region XIII, which administered the state of Louisiana from New Orleans, are interfiled with the records of Region X of the FEPC, which covered Louisiana, New Mexico, and Texas and was administered from Dallas, TX, and are held by NARA at Fort Worth. And NARA at San Francisco preserves the records of Region XII, which was administered from San Francisco and had a jurisdiction of California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.
Conclusion:
To reiterate, the strength of this index is its ability to shed light on the experience of laborers and how the FEPC was utilized. For example, in Region IV, the Committee on Fair Employment Practices investigated cases of discrimination against Black laborers more than any other group. They represent 86.10% of the 590 cases in the index, 240 of which (or roughly 40%) occurred in Washington, D.C.
However, the index also allows for relative comparisons of the cases opened by, or on behalf of, different demographics. A comparison of the previously mentioned 40% of Black cases in D.C. with the German cases in D.C. indicates that cases involving alleged discrimination against workers of German national origin were more concentrated in that location than their Black counterparts, where 90% of the 11 German cases within the index were filed.
Another relative comparison of data from the index indicates a varied experience with the “Type[s] of Discrimination” faced by the different demographics. Cases which reference discrimination against Black workers far outnumbered every other demographic in each of the top three “Types of Discrimination.” For example, the 193 (or 32.71%) cases which identified Black workers were refused jobs. However, eight of the twelve (or 66.66%) of the German cases reported a refusal to hire. This reveals that a greater proportion of German laborers filed cases indicating they were refused jobs.
These relative comparisons are not meant to assert that German workers, who were referenced in 11 cases, were more discriminated against than Black workers, who were referenced in 508 cases. Instead, these numbers are presented to emphasize the kinds of nuanced relationships between the many factors represented in the index and the range of information available in the Index of Active and Closed Cases from FEPC’s Region IV.
The analysis of this index is just the beginning of what Record Group 228, Records of the Committee on Fair Employment Practices (FEPC), can provide to researchers. It is enlightening to quantify the experiences with discrimination detailed in the index of case files. But, to the joy of my fellow arithmophobes, history is not just data. That data needs to be situated within its context to reveal a story. These index cards are a starting point for researchers. Their data simultaneously reveals the previously outlined kinds of general understandings derived from the macrotrends within the region and, just as importantly, indicates how to search the 7 linear foot collection of case files from the Closed Cases and Active Cases, which reveal greater details about the circumstances of each recorded dispute from Region IV of the FEPC. Together, the quantitative data from the index and the qualitative data from the case files contribute to the history of the Fair Employment Practices Committee, working conditions in the defense sector during World War Two, and the utilization of federally mandated protections by communities of laborers who were systematically othered by American society in the early 20th century.
[1] It is impossible to examine the work of the FEPC without mention of the grassroots activism by Civil Rights leaders which pushed this effort forward. A. Philip Randolph was perhaps the most notable. Randolph was a pioneering civil rights activist who led campaigns to end segregation in the military and to end employment discrimination in the defense industry which included his proposal of the first March on Washington Movement. Randolph’s proposed march was announced on January 25, 1941 and scheduled for July 1 of that year. However, the demonstration never occurred. Exactly six months after Randolph’s announcement, and just a week before the March on Washington was set to occur, President Roosevelt signed EO 8802 to prevent the march’s emphatic display of opposition against the forms of systemic racism enabled by the very system at which Roosevelt sat at the helm of as President. This direct affront to the legitimacy of the president’s moral authority was narrowly avoided. However, the Order by itself did not solve the issue of systemic discrimination. Thus the President’s commission went to work.
[2] Executive Order 8802 dated June 25, 1941, in which President Franklin D. Roosevelt prohibits discrimination in the defense program; 6/25/1941; Executive Orders, 1862 – 2011; General Records of the United States Government, Record Group 11; National Archives Building, Washington, DC. Accessed at https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/executive-order-8802
[3] Executive Order 8802 references specifically “race, creed, color, or national origin” as the protected classes. However, the index examined in the project includes cases which reference discrimination against several religious groups including Jewish, Seventh-day Adventist, and Catholic workers. While the Order is clear that racial discrimination was the primary focus of the FEPC it can also be said that the committee was engaging in the de-facto protection of religious groups.
[4] In 2021 the Archivist of the United States established the Task Force on Racism which led NARA to implement Reparative Description to “[address] terminology and how NARA presents information to the public.” See more here. The terms “Negro,” “Negroes”, and “Negro (other)” were used throughout the index but to align this project with the trend away from the use of those terms in information presented by NARA the term “Black” will be used in this paper instead from this point forward.
[5] Ronald Takaki, Double Victory: A Multicultural History of America in World War II (Back Bay Books, 2001).
[6] Eileen Boris, “Fair Employment and the Origins of Affirmative Action in the 1940s” National Women’s Studies Association Journal Vol. 10, No. 3, Affirmative Action Reconsidered (Autumn, 1998), pp. 142-151.