Lapas attēli

really get as much discretion in the management of his resources as posible, and I think we do have too many different Federal programs, too many different jurisdictions, and too many different centers of management in most of our States and cities. The movement toward consolidation which has begun both in the Federal Government and in the more strongly managed States and cities is, I think, a great step forward.

Senator KENNEDY. Do you have some people within the Ford Foundation that are studying this whole problem at the present time?


Mr. Bundy. Well, I do not know that we are engaged in a specific study of this particular problem.

What would you say, Lou?

Mr. WINNICK. It is not under staff study. But many of our grantees have particular interests in this field, Senator Kennedy, and have given a great deal of attention to not only the Heller plan, but also to plans related to the Heller plan, such as tax credits for cities that will levy income taxes of their own.

I might add, Senator, that the Brookings Institution, to which we have given considerable support, was perhaps the leading and first exponent of the Heller plan, which is more formally known as the Heller-Pechman plan. It was actually Joe Pechman who first suggested it. Joe Pechman, as you know, is a very important researcher at the Brookings Institution.

We do not ourselves, Senator, conduct very many research projects. We finance others who do research projects and try to keep in touch with their progress and results.

Senator KENNEDY. The testimony has been very helpful.


Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much, Mac, for making a very, very valuable contribution to our committee. We are grateful to you and your entire staff.

I think that the entire country, frankly, is indebted to the Ford Foundation.

I have watched your foundation through your predecessors and yourself. With your imagination and your experimentation, you are providing vital leverage. You are almost another arm of government, because you undertake and you are willing to take a chance on many programs that will have to prove their worth. Government lags behind and often comes to the assistance and forward thrust of those programs. I am pleased that you came here and also it gives me an opportunity to thank you personally and your foundation.

Mr. Bundy. The foundation and its staff deserve the credit. I am very much of a freshman there, Mr. Chairman, but I do want to say again how much I appreciate the opportunity to come here, and what a really distinguished job I think has been done in these hearings as one student and observer.

I am just sure that the record of these hearings will itself be a powerful instrument as we all go forward with these problems.

Senator RIBICOFF. Thank you very much.
Mr. Joseph Monserrat.

Thank you very much, Mr. Monserrat, for being with us. You are a very knowledgeable man in a most important field, who understands a most important area. Do you have a formal statement?

Mr. MONSERRAT. No, I do not.
Senator RIBICOFF. All right. Then would you proceed at your own

pace, sir?



Mr. MONSERRAT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I want to thank you for the opportunity of appearing here. I, too, think that this committee and its hearings have much to offer toward the solution of some of the major problems confronting our cities.

I thought a great deal about my presentation to your hearings. I thought about two ways of presenting the problems of the Puerto Ricans in the United States. One was to present to you a series of concerns and problems of a group of people who are generally the afterthought of many programs. By doing so I might attempt to create a situation in which perhaps they would be less of an afterthought. But at the same time I thought that some of the lessons that we at the Commonwealth have learned might be of help in solving some of the issues you are discussing here. I am the director of the Migration Division of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's Department of Labor.


We in the United States are probably the most migratory people in the world, and one of the major issues surrounding the problems of urbanization has to do with internal migration in the United States. Yet at no time during these hearings, at least to my knowledge, have you discussed the total area of migration as it is reflected by urban problems.

We do not have a single textbook or a single theory or a single course in a university on the dynamics of migration within the United States.

Yet we are moving today more than we have ever moved in the history of the United States. And if we are talking about the urbanization in the year 2000 of over 90 percent of our population, it is obvious that much of it will come about as a result of migration.

And so I thought, Mr. Chairman, that I would try to do two things. I would try to combine the experience of the migration division, and illustrate, through the problems of the Puerto Rican community, the vicious circle that I believe is in part responsible for some of the problems that you have been dealing with during these hearings.

To start with, I might point out that I believe that many of the programs that we are discussing are tangential to, and do not deal with,

the problems of the cities themselves. This is one of the lessons we learned from the Puerto Rican migration to the United States.


I would like to point out that many of our cities, New York for example, need new people to meet some of their economic needs. But at the same time the cities are not prepared to meet the needs of the people they require for their own economic health. As social mobility takes place, the older immigrants-for example, the Jewish immigrants and the Italian immigrants of the garment industry-retire or move out of the cities. Their children no longer do the jobs that need to be done, so that in urban centers today we have a vacuum created by the movement of people up the social ladder, and we have two migrations in urban centers. We have the migration of people coming to the centers in search of better economic opportunities, as is the case of Puerto Ricans. Then we have the migration away from the urban centers of people who have already achieved economic succss.


This constant movement is, I believe, something that should be studied. I would like to recommend to this committee that it attempt to find a way of making a national study of internal migration in the United States. I believe that this is pertinent for planning of all kinds, and I believe that this is necessary, and I also believe that it has in fact never been done.

I would like to humanize the problems of migration rather than place them before you in terms of statistics. A Puerto Rican worker comes into a community. He comes to fill a very important and necessary role in the economy of the city. Because of the fact that the industries there are low-income industries, although he may work full time, he does not earn enough to provide all the other resources that his family needs. He then must seek these in the community.

Take health, for example. The health resources of the community are the public resources, but the public resources are not adequate to meet his needs. He becomes, in many instances, the cause of the problem in many people's minds. Because of this, eliminating him is seen as the solution to the problem.

Puerto Rican migration to New York City and other areas has been a subject of discussion for many years, but the why of it has never been discussed. What we find is that as long as we are dealing with tangents to the problem and not the problem itself, we are going to continue in the kind of vicious circle we are involved in.


The Puerto Rican community of New York—or of the country-is probably the youngest community. Its median age is 21.9 years. It is a group who has been here, for the most part, less than 15 years. Moreover, 85 percent of Puerto Ricans born in the United States are under 14 years of age. We have in the public school system of New York City some 200,000 youngsters. Our entire future generation is dependent upon what happens in those schools. But when we look at those schools

we find what exists in schools throughout urban centers. The reality is that we have two school systems. We have a school system for the middle and upper class who are expected to achieve academically, and we have a school system for the lower class whom we expect not to achieve.

We do not really address ourselves to the issue of the schools. There is a youngster who will be conceived tonight and born 9 months from now, but if that youngster is going to be born in a neighborhood in almost any urban center, if that youngster's name is going to be Rodriguez, and if he is going to be born in East Harlem, he has already been labeled a "failure” and his future has pretty much been decided for him as being dismal.

I repeat, through many of the programs that you are speaking on and are concerned with here, we are dealing or attempting to deal with tangents to the issues. We are trying to find, through these programs, a way of avoiding facing up to reality itself.

What do we need in school systems for youngsters? The Puerto Rican youngster-or for that matter any other poor youngsters-coming into a New York school or any other school system, is faced with the oldest schools in the community, schools where it is already known that he is about to fail. A number of studies that we have done demonstrate how miserably he does fail.


We believe that we know some of the answers to the problems of schools. But the cities are not dealing with these problems. We have conducted many experiments, but then what happens to the experiments? We know that what we need in a school is teachers that have the necessary resources to meet the educational needs of the children. A child walks in the door of a school. He is bright and brilliant. He has a special need. Another child can walk in the door. He is a slow learner. He has a special need.

What instruments do the teachers have to meet the special educational needs of each child as he comes into the school? What we have been avoiding is the fact that our schools per se do not have the resources they need. This is where the two school systems I spoke of earlier come in. We can see what happens in one school system, where these resources are more abundant, and we can see what happens in the other school system where these resources are less abundant.

We Puerto Ricans have become the symbol, almost the personification, of many of the existing problems of the community. The newcomers to a community highlight the existing chronic problems of that community. They do not cause them. They are the victims of them. They are seen by too many as the cause, and since they are seen as the cause, they become the solution. But the reality is that they are not the solution.


We have a series of special problems which I would like to bring to the attention of the committee because I think they exemplify other problems in the community. Puerto Ricans, for example, are born citizens of the United States, and yet a State supreme court justice in the State of New York can make a statement to the effect that more stringent regulations are needed to regulate the movement of people from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a part of the American Union, to New York.

The importance of this remark is the fact that while Puerto Ricans may intellectually be recognized as citizens, emotionally they are considered as foreigners. This is one of the first problems that confront us.

Second, we are confronted by the problem of language. A person can be born in Puerto Rico and die in Puerto Rico. He is a citizen the day he is born. He does not have to learn a word of English. Yet we in the United States are one of the few countries on earth where a man can consider himself educated and yet speak but one language, despite the fact that we have received people who have spoken all of the modern languages of the world. Here I come to another point which I think is important if we are going to deal with some of the issues of the cities.

REALITIES OF AMERICAN LEGACY The first thing that second-generation American has done historically to “become an American" has been to deny the values, the culture, and the language of his parents, in order to become a carbon copy of whatever it is that is American around him. As I look at the situation around the country, I find that our children are being taught by the children of first-generation Americans and second-generation Americans, who themselves are in the process of adjustment and do not know it. Many of the youngsters in our schools, many of the lowincome groups, reflect and place a mirror before many of these folks who no longer want to see themselves as they are.

If we are going to deal with some of the issues involved in cities, I think we are going to have to begin to deal with some of the realities of the legacy that we have inherited in America. No newcomer has ever been welcomed with open arms. The reality of our urban community is that we have never solved the problems of a first generation American group. The only thing we have done is to hand this problem down from group to group to group, and the last group to come is the group that faces the identical problems that were not resolved for the group before.

. We talk about housing today. More than 50 years ago Lincoln Steffens and Jacob Riis were writing about the same bad housing in which Puerto Ricans live in today on the Lower East Side. We are talking about urban issues. We have never touched them. This

is why I think this particular committee's work is so important. Because what we in the Puerto Rican community have learned is that there is

very little we can do to help ourselves unless we can help resolve the basic problems of the community--because we are a victim of them.

I repeat that what we find as an attempt at an answer is makeshift, sanctioned by some of the high priests of our society, the social scientists, many of whom I believe are almost prostituting science.

“CULTURALLY DEPRIVED”—A MISLEADING TERM There is a youngster now who is going to be called culturally deprived. This word is being used throughout our country by educators, by legislators, and by everyone else, and what does it mean? There

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »