ANTI-SEMITISM IN SOVIET EDUCATION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000200190017-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 4, 2005
• Sequence Number: 17
• Publication Date: June 12, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Remise 2005/01/27: CIA-RDP66B00403ROUN00190017-0
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
more properly be called a prophecy-be breathed into its nostrils by the State. What
printed in the RECORD. the State's creatures do, the State does."
There being no objection, the prophecy The similar argument of the individual
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, petitioners can fare no better. In the first
case under the act to reach this Court, Harri-
as follows: son v. United States, 380 U.S. 11, 19, we said:
RIPPLrNG CREEK CLUB, Inc., ET AL., PETITION- "Petitioner contends that even if the re-
ERS V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA peated pronunciation in public of this word
[A satire from National Review magazine, as 'Nigra' amounts to discrimination within
October 19581 the meaning of the statute, the statute
(Supreme Court of the United States, No. uwunuu ue appiiea to nim, since this conduct
367, October term, 1973, on writ of certi- is not 'State action.' The true bounds of the
orari to the U.S. 197 Appeals for the concept of 'State action' have only recently
Fifth Circuit, May 20, 1974) emerged. It is plain that, under the unitary
conditions of modern life, to limit the notion
Mr. Justice Smith delivered the opinion of 'State action' to those activities carried
of the Court. on by the legislature's express command or
This case involves the construction and implied permission is to empty it of all sig-
constitutionality of certain provisions of the nificant content. The true teaching of
Federal Discrimination Commission Act, 42 marsh, v. Alabama, 336 U.S. 501, Terry v.
U.S.C., 9001 et seq., empowering the Federal Adams, 345 U.S. 461, and Edgerton v.
Discrimination Commission to issue cease- Shockley, 361 U.S. 366, should by now be,
and-desist orders against "any individual, plain. It is that 'the State' cannot be dis-
firm, corporation, unincorporated associa- sociated from the community; that action
tion, or other entity whatsoever," whenever which meets the approval of the community
In the Commission's opinion such entity is and expresses its mood is as surely 'State
engaging, or is about to engage, in any dis- action' as is the most explicit statute."
criminatory action, practice, or course of We have frequently reaffirmed, and indeed
conduct" (42 U.S.C. 9004(b)). broadened, this holding. Firemen's Benev-
The corporate petitioner is a nonprofit olent Society v. United States, 397 U.S. 225;
corporation organized under the laws of the McCracken v. United States, 388 U.S. 409.
State of Alabama. Its organization and Compare United States v. One Book Called
functions are those usual in country clubs. "Tales of Uncle Remus," 31 F. 3d 922.
It maintains a clubhouse in which bar and But the corporate petitioner's constitu-
dining facilities are provided, and it oper- tional argument goes further than this; it
ates a golf course, tennis courts, swimming raises the question left open in the Fire-
pool, and other customary amenities. It men's Benevolent case, supra, whether the
has, and at all times relevant to this litiga- right of assembly guaranteed by the first
tion had, a membership of less than the full amendment ousts the application of the act
complement of 500 authorized by its -con- to purely social organizations, whose sole
stitution. New members are admitted upon raison d'etre Is the gathering together of
the nomination of five regular members and congenial persons. We did not reach this
the approval of the individual petitioners, an question, in Firemen's Benevolent. There
election committee of seven members ap- we held that the Commission had undoubted
pointed by the board of governors. An ini- power to prevent the production of the "min-
tiation fee and annual dues are charged. No istrel show" complained of, since the society
so-called Negro is or has ever been a member. functioned as an insurer as well as a social
On this state of facts the Commission in- organization; but we intimated that this
stituted an investigation into petitioners' question would be ruled by our decision In
discriminatory practices, and, finding such States Rights Democratic Party v. United
to exist, issued on March 27, 1970, an order States, 393 U.S. 1. In the latter case we held
requiring petitioner to cease discriminating that political associations could not hide
in its selection of membership (13 F.D.C. from the act behind the shield of the first
398). This order was duly affirmed, and an amendment, since such associations are by
injunction issued, by the Court of Appeals their nature concerned with government,
for the Fifth Circuit (58 F. 3d 119). We and discriminatory action "is not reasonably
denied certiorari (391 U.S. 917). More than related to any proper governmental objec-
a year having passed, and there still being tive," Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 500.
no Negroes among petitioner's membership, Petitioners seek to avoid the impact of the
the Commission initiated contempt proceed- States rights decision by arguing that its
ings. Petitioners were adjudged in con- rationale is limited to political associations;
tempt, and the statutory punishment of fine
and
and imprisonment was imposed. We grant- corded that it political holds only that the protection ac-
ed certiorari to reaffirm basic principles in their r governmental, cal, or would-be association's restricted
the ve t
govern-
administration of the act, (402 U.S. 933), mental, , activities. . But States s rights s can-
Petitioners' primary contention is that the not be so restricted. Whether or not the
act can have no application to, and the first amendment right is limited to the right
Commission no jurisdiction over
urel
s
, p
y
o- of political assembly, see Yamaguchi v. Wein-
cial organizations. Stripped of irrelevancies, berg, 370 U.S. 93, 99, we hold that the amend-
in one aspect this argument is in essence ment does not shield a mere social organiza-
that the 14th amendment, under which the tion from the Discrimination Act. It would
act was passed, applies only to State action, indeed be strange if it were otherwise.- No
and that the actions neither of the corporate discriminations leave deeper or more last-
petitioner nor of the individuals composing ing scars than do social ones, and it was
its election committee come within the scope Congress' particular intention in creating
of that amendment's prohibitions. It is true the Commission "to forge a weapon capable
that only State action is inhibited by the of dealing with this threat to our demo-
amendment; but to contend that action of cratic society" (S. Rept. No. 316, 89 Cong.,
the kind here involved is not State action Is 1st secs. 26),
to revive the,exploded fallacy of the Civil Petitioner's other contentions are equally
Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3. As we said in Saffold devoid of merit. It is settled that "the con-
v. Holder, 364 U.S. 221, 224, where the ghost tent of the term 'discriminatory' is suffi-
of those cases was laid to rest forever: ciently rooted in the common conscience of
"To say that action of a corporation is not the American people to constitute a valid
'State action' in the instant context is to fly standard with ascertainable criteria" (Harri-
in the face of juristic reality. No corporation son v. United States, supra, at 16). Thus,
has or can have existence of any legally sig- the Commission's condemnation of offensive
nificant kind without the active consent of pronunciations of group names, Harri-
-the State. While its activities may in no son v. United States, supra; of printing the
sense be governmental, the life which en- word "Negro" without a capital Initial,
ables it to carry on those activities was United States v. 377 Copies of the London
13101
Times, 236 F. Supp. 346 of advertising a
musical instrument as a "Jew's harp," Apex
Piano Co. v. United States (44 F. 3d 619,
certiorari denied, 399 U.S. 924); and of em-
ploying the phrase "dirty Irish trick" (Ng
Yang Toy v. United States, 399 U.S. 772),
have all been upheld. We have approved, in
Northfield Aircraft Co. v. United States, de-
cided this day, Commission regulations for-
bidding prospective employers to inquire as
to the names of job applicants, since this
might reveal the applicants' ancestry or na-
tional origin. At any rate, we are not here
concerned with the borderlines of the dis-
crimination concept. The flagrantly exclu-
sionary conduct of the petitioners is suffi-
ciently extreme to satisfy any definition.
Petitioners contend, finally, that the fact
that no so-called Negroes applied for ad-
mission to membership absolves them of any
responsibility for discrimination. This con-
tention is likewise without merit. Ever since
Barrett v. United States, 380 U.S. 585-in
one sense, indeed, ever since the New York
schools case, Hunt v. Board of Education,
355 U.S. 116-it has been clear that it is
no defense to a charge of exclusionary dis-
crimination that no members of the group
discriminated against. have sought admis-
sion. As we pointed out in Barrett, "the
lack of applications tends to show not apathy
but repression; to demonstrate good faith
it is necessary that the party charged ac-
tively seek out members of other groups."
It is urged that this confers irrebuttability
on the statutory presumption of discrimina-
tion when no member of the minority group
is found in the group or organization in-
volved; but that this is not so should be ob-
vious from Northern Vermont Driving
School, Inc. v. United States, 400 U.S. 33.
We hold, therefore, that the act is consti-
tutional as applied to petitioner; that social
organizations cannot discriminate against
members of minority groups. There are lim-
its, of course, to the extent to which social
alinements can be regulated (see Gotlieb v.
New York, decided this day, holding invalid
the New York compulsory intermarriage
law). But those limits were not reached in
this case. They were not even approached.
Affirmed.
TRIBUTE TO SENATOR RANDOLPH
Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, I call
attention to the fact that our well liked
and highly regarded colleague, the Sen-
ator from West Virginia, JENNING5 RAN-
DOLPH, led the ticket in West Virginia in
the selection of delegates at large to the
Democratic National Convention. Sen-
ator RANDOLPH led the ticket of 50 can-
didates, with an unofficial total of 128,777
votes. I am sure this will please all
Members of the Senate; and it is of
especial significance in view of the fact
that Senator RANDOLPH has been a con-
sistent supporter of civil rights and civil
rights legislation.
N
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, there
is increasing concern throughout the
free world over mounting anti-Semitism
in the Soviet Union. Not only does the
new wave of action reflect anti-Jewish
sentiments among the Soviet peoples,
sentiments which contributed to the bru-
tal pogroms of the last century, but also,
Mr. President, it reflects deliberate dis-
crimination by the Soviet Government
against members of the Jewish religion.
Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200190017-0
 13102
01111111k 40%
Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200190017-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE - June 12
We are familiar with the conspicuous
Communist actions against religious ob-
servances-the closing of synagogues,
banning of religious writings and publi-
cations, and the denial of rights to pre-
pare matzoth. We are also familiar with
the economic persecution of members of
the Jewish faith who frequently become
scapegoats for the economic failures of
communism. When harsh penalties, in-
cluding the death sentence, are imposed
on Soviet Jews for so-called private en-
terprise activities, th'3n it is evident to
all the world that this is not justice but
persecution, tyranny, :arid brutality.
Fewer Americans, however, are aware
that even in more insidious ways, gov-
ernment discrimination against Jews is
a part of modem Soviet life. In the
field of education, for instance, a study
recently completed 'ay Prof. Nicholas
DeWitt, of Indiana University, indicates
the unfortunate situation in Soviet uni-
versities. Under Soviet rule today only
3.22 percent of the .student population
is Jewish. This compares with about 10
percent in 1918 within the Pale of Set-
tlement, 5 percent outside the Pale, and
3 percent in St. Petersburg and Moscow.
Dr. DeWitt sees strong evidence of the
operation of a quota system that has
increased the extent of discrimination
against. Jewish students. He points out,
for instance, that between 1935 and 1960
the total number of Soviet students in-
creased by 248 percent whereas the
number of Jewish students declined 39
percent.
Mr. President, the study leads, as
Will Maslow, execut'.ve director of the
American Jewish Congress, points out,
to a most depressing conclusion-
greater education prejudice in the Soviet
Union today that in the czarist days of
pogroms and open violence.
Mr. President, in order that this out-
rageous state of affairs be fully revealed.
I ask unanimous consent to Include, fol-
lowing my remarks in the RECORD, the
text of this remarkable and scholarly
work that documents for all the world
the latest evidence of the Soviet double
standard and of the. campaign against
the Jewish religion being waged from
the Kremlin.
There being no objection, the mono-
graph was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
THE STATUS OP JEWS EN SOVIET EDUCATION
(By Nicholas DeWitt')
FOREWORD
(By W11 Maslow, exec,itive director, Ameri-
can Jewish Congress)
A higher percentage of Jewish students
was permitted to attend universities In czar-
ist Russia than is en-oiled In the U.S.S.R.
today.
'Formerly research associate of the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences and of the Rus-
slan Research Center, Harvard University:
currently associate professor, Russian and
East European Institute. Indiana University;
chairman, Department of International and
Comparative Educaticn, School of Educa-
tion; director, Foreign Area Studies for the
State of Indiana; director, International
Survey of Educational Development and
Planning; and consultant to the National
Science Foundation.
This is perhaps the most depressing con-
clusion to be drawn from the study of Jews
in Soviet education by this country's out-
standing authority on the subject, Prof.
Nicholas DeWitt, of Indiana University.
Professor DeWitt notes that approximately
322 percent of the student population in
Soviet universities is Jewish. Comparing
this figure with the official quotas imposed
on Jews In 1887 by the czarist Minister of
Education. we find that according to the
"History of the Jews in Russia and Poland,"
by the Jewish Historian Simon Dubnow,
published in 1918, the Jewish university
quota was 10 percent of the Christian uni-
varsity population within the Pale of Set-
tlement, 5 percent outside the Pale and 3
percent in St. Petersburg and Moscow.
The Soviet Government's own statistics
on the enrollment of Jewish and other na-
tionality groups in universities give the lie
to Soviet claims that no discrimination ex-
ists against Jews in Soviet education. The
study by Professor DeWitt, combined with
other extensive evidence of religious and
cultural discrimination against the Jews of
the U.S.S.R.. deepens our concern for the
future of Soviet Jewry.
MAY 1964.
INTRODUCTION
Over the last 10 years one of the persistent
features of Soviet propaganda efforts has
been an attempt to convince the world that
the U.S.S.R.'s policies toward all national
groups and especially toward Jews have been
equitable and just. The Soviet claim has
been that no discrimination, no Russiflca-
tion. and no restrictions whatsoever existed
in the past or presently exist which would
Impede the equal cultural development of all
national groups and all social strata in the
Soviet Union. The Soviet Government
claims that equality of educational oppor-
tunity is fully guaranteed by the laws and
the constitution of the U.S.S.R. Any and all
statements to the contrary are denounced
simply as malicious lies and sinister
fabrications.
In order to support the pretention that
the problem of discrimination against Jews
in education does not even exist, Soviet
propaganda agencies in recent years-
through broadcasts, periodicals. embassy re-
leases, etc.-have issued a flood of state-
ments containing official facts and figures.
These statements, released piecemeal, are In-
tended more to confuse than to clarify the
basic issue: Is there or is there not dis-
crimination against Jews so far as the equal
right of access to education is concerned?
QUOTA SYSTEMS
When put together and examined in or-
derly fashion, the official statistics do permit
clarification of this basic Issue. Since 1955,
there have been persistent reports on a "nu-
merus clausus"-more simply, a quota eye-
tem-for determining the admission to
Soviet universities and other Institutions of
higher learning of all nationalities, and of
Jews In particular.
In my earlier studies of Soviet education,
particularly in "Education and Professional
Employment In the USSR." (especially pp.
353-880 and 420-421). I dwelt at some length
on the operational features of the so-called
equivalent balances. These are admission
quotas by nationality, which stipulate that
the composition of students by nationality
should optimally be such as to give a pro-
portionate representation among students
approximately equivalent to the proportion
which a given nationality has in the total
population. This is a major policy directive,
but how this numerus clausus is used as a
direct discriminatory device against the ad-
mission of Jews to Institutions of higher
learning in the U.S.S.R. can be easily seen:
If the share of Jewish applicants is high, the
admissions are out back and preferences are
given to other nationals, though on strictly
competitive and nondiscriminatory grounds
most of the qualified Jewish applicants
should have been admitted.
I feel deeply honored that. by calling at-
tention to this policy directive, and espe-
cially for interpreting Its operational fea-
tures, I have recently been denounced by
the Soviet Government for the "lunatic hal-
lucinations of an American professor." I
was pleased indeed to see that the research-
ers of the Institute of Economics of the
Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., a mem-
ber of the state planning committee, and a
member of the Ministry of Higher and Sec-
ondary Specialized Education all joined
forces in their recent review of my book (in
" t'estnik vysshei Shkoly," December 1963,
pp. 76-79). Their greatest vehemence was
directed against my statements that such a
quota system exists. For though It is
guarded as a state secret in the Soviet Union,
it is common knowledge in the West. In my
judgment, and I think the factual evidence
presented later will corroborate it, this de-
vice is deliberately used In the U.S.S.R. as a
means of discrimination against Jews In edu-
cation by the tacit exclusion or limitation
of Jewish applicants from admission to in-
stitutions of higher learning in the light of
intensified competition for places.
I would not have focused attention on this
Item were It not for the fact that in the very
same review the Soviet officials explicitly ad-
mit that the "Soviet national republics, fur-
thermore, have a special right to assign to
the central major higher educational estab-
lishments a certain number of nationals
for preferential admissions without com-
petitive entrance requirements. ' ' * These
preferential quotas ' * ' expand the edu-
cational opportunities. ? ' * These annu-
ally planned preferential admission quotas
are not a hindrance and discrimination (as
claimed by the author), but measures of
direct benefit for the national development."
It is worth rereading statements of this
sort in order to grasp their full meaning.
The quotation above raises other questions.
First, Is there or is there not a nationality
quota? There Is, and it is annually planned
for all key institutions. As a student of edu-
cational development, I would say that any
quota system is bad, but racial or national
quotas in education are utter folly.
The second question then becomes one of
mere logic. If someone is admitted to an
institution of higher learning on the basis
of a preferential nationality quota, there
must, be definition, be someone else who is
excluded from admission either because he
does not fall within such a quota or because
there are only a limited number of admis-
sion places left after the preferential quota
has been filled. Who, then, is excluded?
The final question which must be raised In
regard to the equality of educational oppor-
tunity for Jews in Soviet education is this:
Which of the Soviet national republics could
nominate Jews for preferential admission
quotas? I do not know of any.
THE STATISTICAL JIGSAW PUZZLE
I hope that this brief diversion to these
questions may have served as a supplemen-
tary example of what I like to think of as
Soviet tactics of deliberate confusion. Not
infrequently the Soviet Government denies
something merely in order to admit it. Such
tactics of confusion' are equally applicable
to recent statistics which the Soviet infor-
mation services have released as proof that
something does not exist.
It is common knowledge that for almost
20 years, beginning with the late 1930's, the
word "Jews" as a statistical category in the
U.S.S.R. did not exist in any type of current
reporting of national composition, be it of
population, students, language of newsprint,
native tongue. etc.
Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200190017-0
 Approved For Re se 2005/01/27: CIA-RDP66B00403ROW00190017-0
1964' CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD -SENATE 13103
Not until the late 1950s did figures identi- interpretations. This is not a mere exercise other hand, there was a slightly higher pro-
fying Jews as Jews begin to appear in offi- in semantics; aside from the potentially portion of Jewish students enrolled in eve-
cial sources. In the statistical breakdowns biased phraseology of the census question, ning programs than the proportion of all
by nationality prior to that time, Jews were the major fact remains that the Jews, either students enrolled in such programs.
relegated either to the other nationalities by choice or by compulsion, appear linguist(- The data in table 3 are of particular inter-
category or to a residual category; that is, tally the most Russifled nationality in the est, however, when subjected to further anal-
after all identified nationalities in a given U.S.S.R. ysis. Table 4 presents data on the Jewish
tabulation were counted, there was invariably The implication of this trend is particu- population in relation to the total population
some officially unexplained remainder. larly significant in historical perspective. and on Jewish higher education enrollment
Since 1956, however, piecemeal figures or While in the.1926 census about 75 percent of in relation to total higher education enroll-
tabulations specifically identifying Jews as Jews declared Yiddish as their native lan- ment for all nationalities. On the basis of
Jews have appeared from time to time, al- guage, less than 20 percent (about 400,000) these two sets of data, the index of Jewish
though the reporting practice of using the probably made such a declaration in 1959. representation in higher education has been
word "other" or "remainder" is still quite This linguistic shift has a direct bearing calculated for the different republics (col-
common. From these piecemeal releases, upon the education of Jews, particularly umn G). This index shows the relationship
facts on Jews are quoted in Soviet infor- when it is coupled with their high degree of between the number of Jewish students to
mation sources. Usually these are used as urbanization. the Jewish population as compared with the
illustrations, such as: 36,173 Jews were work- Putting the two together-linguistic number of students of all nationalities in
ing in 1962 among research and academic homogeneity and urban concentration-we relation to the total population. This index
workers; or 290,707 Jews had completed high- can reasonably assume that the levels of is simply indicative of the differential rates
er education as of December 1, 1960; or 143,- educational attainment among Jews, and of access to higher education for the Jewish
14Jews d completed December 1, s1961; or econdary specialized 77,177 thus their potential suitability for higher population and for the population at large.
education of
were enrolled December 1, institutions 77 education (postulating random intellectual The very peculiar behavior of this index by
Jews J were of Si is 1960, ability), must be substantially higher than republic must be noted.
Many other isolated October
igures cbe cited. that of the population at large. While the proportion of Jewish population
Howeny the problems gures can
meaning ed. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT (col. C) in the total population varies
fully understood without an analysis of the This assumption is indeed reflected in the sudents (Co, and while the share en s also stude trends rather than statistical quotations in demographic data. The substantially high- sttudents (col. g among all the index also
isolation. This paper, accordingly, will de- er levels of educational attainment for the shows a strong variation, the ndex o-
vote Itself to an analysis of trends on the Jewish population are clearly evidenced by tion. General (.col. kishows less upon
status of education of Jews as they can be partial data from the 1959 Soviet census of repu General speaking,depf about upon
ascertained from official Soviet statistics re- population. Table 2 presents data on the third from there a deviation of lab fu Cher
leased since the mid-1950's and particularly number of persons with 7 or more years of third rom the national average. A rhee
in conjunction with the 1959 census of education per 1,000 population. In 1939 republics with this index is that in the
population, there were 3 to 4 times as many population, the a high popeption of Jewish
.POPULATION Jews per 1,000 population with 7 or more owish , the index ofrepresentation of
It is well nigh impossible to discuss the years of education as there were among the Jewish students in higher education is below
question of educational opportunity without population at large. In 1959, although this the national average. Conversely, in some
reference to some base, such as population, difference narrowed, the Jewish population republics with a smaller proportion of Jews
be given to the overall size of the Jewish census failed to release these data for the Such behavior of the index of representa-
population in the Soviet Union? Over the U.S.S.R. at large and for most republics, tion is conceivable only in the presence of
ears, this in the
p
Y Jewish
population has been as which would permit comprehensive compari- normative regulations concerning admis-
follows: 1926 census, 2,646,000; 1937 census, sons, sions of Jews to higher education. If there
no data published, declared not valid; 1939 Parenthetically, it might be noted that were no restrictive regulations, a far greater
census, data nreleased; 1939 estimates (in the educational attainment level (7 or more geographic variation in the index would be
prewar U.S.S.R. not boundaries), 3,021,000; 1940 years of education) over the 20-year period observed. Furthermore, those republics with
(in postwar U.S.S.R. boundaries absorbing 1939-59 improved for the Soviet population a greater proportion of Jews in the popula-
Jews from annexed territories), about 5 mil- at large by a factor of 3 to 3.5, while for tion would obviously have higher rates of
lion; 1959 census, 2,268,000. the Jewish population by a factor of only Jewish representation among higher educa-
Largely because of the calamities of the 1.5 to 2.5, The implications of this are ob- tion students.
Second World War, the Jewish population in vious: The expansion of educational oppor- An examination of the data along similar
the Soviet Union was some 17 percent smaller tunities for the population at large pro- lines can be carried further if the urban pop-
in 1959 than three decades earlier. Ob ceeded at a more rapid rate-than for the ulation is related to higher education attend-
viously, the change in the size of the popu- Jewish population. In fact, the, rates of ance. These data are presented in table 5.
lation is relevant to the numerical trends completion of secondary schooling (i.e., 7 Since the Jewish population is almost ex-
In education, or more years of education) probably went elusively urban, it is obvious that the mean-
down for Jews during these two decades, ing of the index of representation (in this
LINGUISTIC IDENTITY AND URBANIZATION while for the population at large they rose. case, the ratio of Jewish students per Jewish
the Ta summarizes
dent ty lof census ata on
Soviet educational attainment generally
of l the Jewish epopu- urban popultion to
nationalities ies
total population) sis that all
population and of Jews within it. Two im- lation is important for judging .their rates a number of republics-Byelorussia, Uzbeki-
portent observations become evident from of access to higher education. The general stan, Georgia, Lithuania and Moldavia-the
these data in regard to the status of Jews in rate of completion of secondary education in access of Jews to higher education is far
Soviet education: urban schools of the U.S.S.R. below the proportionate
1. No other national group shows a higher Jews attend) is about twice as high casthat tion orepresentation
hee e-
level of urban concentration than the Jewish for rural schools. Further, most instruction Jews In in Athgain, noteothat there isas con-
population (95.3 percent were urban resi- (about 80 percent) in higher education is verse relationship between the proportion of
dents as compared with an average of only conducted in the Russian language. Both Jews in .the urban population and the index
47.9 percent for the total population). these factors are obviously relevant to the of representation of Jews in higher educa-
2. Except for the Russians proper as a problem of continuing studies in higher edu- tion.
national group, no other national group in cation if there was merely a random selec- To sum up, the examination of regional
the Soviet Union declared Russian as its tion, based on ability, for such studies. data relating higher education enrollments
native language to the extent so declared by HIGHER EDUCATION ENROLLMENTS to the population for all nationalities and
the Jewish population-76.4 percent. In for Jews indicates:
other words, while fthe total population In the postwar period the only comprehen- 1. There Is a pattern strongly suggest-
other words, while for the language population sive set of figures for the enrollment of Jews ing the presence of normative regulations
declared
their native language, only in higher education was released by the (i.e.,aquota system) ;
nationality, a tabu
tat percents hei Jewish pon age, nay Soviet Government for the fall of 1960. A 2. The Jewish representation among all
type clared the language of their nationality as union rep, c, is ation present d in t ble and students in relationship to the Jewish papu-u their native language.
attend-
ther comment. One is that the meaning of substantial variation in the distribution of ancel in Lrelation Itolthe total p population;
the census question-"Which language do students by type of program for the different and
you consider your native language?"-is ob- republics. On the average, the proportion of 3. If, however, the ratio of Jews in the
viously liable to a great many subjective Jewish students enrolled in full-time day U.S.S.R.'s urban population is compared with
programs was slightly lower (44.5 percent) the Jewish representation among all stu-
' Source 3. than the proportion of all students enrolled dents, it is evident that in those republics
in such day programs (48.2 percent). On the where Jews constitute an above-average pro-
Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200190017-0
 13104
Approved For Release 2005/01/27: CIA-RDP66 0 403R000200190017-0Juut~e 12
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
portion of the urban population, their repre-
sentation among university students is well
below the rate of the general population's
access to higher education. In only three
of the Soviet Union's 15 republics is the
Jewish university representation significant-
ly above average.
HISTORICAL DATA ON IiIGITER EDUCATION
ENROLLM tNTS
During the last three decades Soviet high-
er education enrollmer-.ts have multiplied
about five times. What happened to the en-
rollment of Jewish students during this
period?
Table 8 presents data on enrollments In
Soviet hipor education
((ti.e, Infull-time extension-
correspondence corning prry For recent years
atudend:).
the only available data specifically identify-
ing Jewish students were released for 1960
only. For all other years Jewish students
have been included in the "unaccounted"
residual.
The full implications of these data are ob-
vious. In the late 1950'.e and the early 1960's
there were actually felver Jewish students
in Soviet higher education than there bad
been in the early 1930's. The historical trend
in a nutshell Is as follows:
Day and evening stu-
dente:
Total---------------
Jews----------------
581,500
71:900
1,400,000
45,800
Trendt
uup +)
or down
(-))
+248
Figures for residual enrollments in the
late 1950's indicate that there has been
hardly any change and thus the number of
Jewish students has not changed either.
in the early 1960's the maximum increment
possible (allowing enrollment increases for
other nationalities) would be 10.000 to
15,000 Jewish students This is an exagger-
atedly optimistic figure. But even if it were
true, the enrollment of Jewish students in
day and evening programs in 1060 would still
be substantially below that of 1935.
Soviet censorship has prevented the re-
ews
o
lease cf data for the late 1930's. when the
bl
y
number of Jewish students was proba
even higher than in (935. But if we take
1935 ae a base and com:fare that year's figures
with the total enrollment of 77.177 Jews in
1960 in Soviet higher education, (including
extension-correspondence students). It is
evident that the current total figure is just
about the same as the 1935 figure for Jewish
student day and evening enrollment only.
PROFESSIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION GRADUATES
Table 7 presents figures on the total num-
ber of higher education graduates and the
number of Jews among them. It is to be
noted particularly that these data refer to
the current stock of employed graduates and
thus reflect past trends in training. These
data are highly revealing if we Compare them
with the present situation in higher educa-
tion-i.e., the current percentages of Jewish
students to total enrollment. This is done
In table S.
It is obvious that the proportion of Jewish
students currently enrolled In higher edu-
cation is substantially smaller than the
proportion of Jews who enjoyed higher edu-
cation In the past.
Table 9 presents data on the number of
higher education graduates employed in the
national economy, the total for all nationali-
ties, for "accounted" nationalities and for
the "residlual." Again, the only year for
which Jews are identified properly is 1980.
On the basis of these data, however, esti-
mates (approximate through reasonably re-
liable) as to the total number of Jews among
professional higher education graduates for
other years are possible, as follows:
Number of Jews among profe siona# higher
education graduates (appro)
-Year:
1941------------------ 1170,000.
70. 000 to 270. 000.
1954----------------
1960------------------ 290,000.
1982------------------ 310.000.
The implication to be drawn from these
figures Is that, on the average, Soviet insti-
tutions of higher education in the late 1950'8
weregraduating annually about 10,000 Jews,
which is about the same as annual output of
Jewish graduates In the late 1930's. It must
be recalled, however, that In the meantime
the number of graduates for all nationalities
combined had increased from about 100.000
annually in 1940 to about 330,000 in the early
1960'5?
As a result of this trend, the proportion
who bad completed higher educa-
f J
a See source 6 for a discussion of general
trends in education.
tion among all Soviet professionals declined
from about 18 or 19 percent in 1941 to 8.2
percent in 1960.
RESEARCH AND ACADEMIC PERSONNEL
Among the figures cited most frequently
by the Soviet Government in Its denials of
discrimination against Jews in education are
those for so-called scientists. In reality,
these figures do not refer to scientists as we
understand the term, but rather to personnel
employed as teachers in higher education
and as researchers in various Institutions
conducting research (academies, as well as
industrial, agricultural, medical and other
institutes). Usually, the Soviet sources state
the latest available figure. but if one takes
care to consider the trend, the current situ-
ation regarding Jewish representation
among Soviet academic and research profes-
sionals is markedly different from that two
decades ago. Table 10 summarizes this trend.
While It is true that their absolute number
Increased (in fact, about doubled in 20
years), the proportion of Jewish profession-
als in the research community declined dras-
tically. It was, in truth, cut in half. Itdoes
not seem unreasonable to conclude, there-
fore, that even at this high level of profes-
sional certification there were outside forces
in operation responsible for this drastic
change.
SUMMARY
In accordance with their heritage and his-
tory, Jews living in the lands now comprising
the Soviet Union have traditionally sought
opportunities for education, Including uni-
versity training, In numbers far exceeding
their proportionate representation in the
total population. This holds equally true
today. Official government statistics, how-
ever, demonstrate clearly that Soviet author-
ities are now employing a quota system to re-
duce the proportion of Jews enjoying oppor-
tunities for higher education-this despite
the high degree of urbanization of the Jews
of the U.S.S.R. and the high percentage of
Jews who- speak Russian, the language used
in most Soviet universities.
While Soviet Jews still attend universities
in the U.S.S.R. In a proportion exceeding
their statistical representation in the coun-
try at large, the evidence shows that this pro-
portion Is steadily and rapidly decreasing.
According to all available figures, the Soviet
Government is succeeding in Its effort to
limit the number of Jews in higher edu-
cation.
TABLE 1.-Total population and Jewish population in the U.S.S.R. as of 1959, by language, see, and rural-urban composition
Declare3 their native lengulge as that of their nationality:
Total--------------------------------------- ---
Declared R6-fan as their native language:
Total .....................................................................
Urban ----------------------------------------------?-
Ru'al-----------------
Dechu(d other language as theft native language: --
Tolal ----------------- ----------------------------------------
ilrhan---------------- .---------------------- ------------------------_^.----------
Rural--------------------------------------------------------
Total population:
Total___---____--_.-__?___?_____.__________________________ __'
Url)an----------?----------------------?-?-----?--?--?-------?.._-.---??----
--?---
Rural
I Inc`uding Jews who speak as a native langu age (leorgtan (35,700Tedrhik (20,800)
and Tatar (25,400). (Apparently, "other languages," including Yiddish, accounted
for the "residual"-some 410,0(X.)
Total Males
2
9& 9 88
108.7
1487.8
214.9
273.8
5
.
1
2
7 41
91
50.5
454.7
198.3
256.
.
.
105.2 47.0
58.2
33.0
15.7
17.3
2 &0
0
s. 2
1, 733.2
781.1
940.1
.
1
8
8 8
7
4.0
1,671.4
760.9
910.5
.
.
24 1.2
L2
61.8
32.2
29.6
346
8
23.5
23.3
.
5
85
17.9
17.7
.
11.2
6.6
5.6
0
8 94
208
114.8
2,207.8
1, 030.6
1,237.2
7
.
.
45
2
54
8
2,161.7
977.0
1,184.
.
100.0
10& 8 48.8
.
me
106.1
53.6
52.5
* Including lows who use as a native language Ukrainian (24,800) and Tadzhik
(5,200).
Source: Source 1, pp. 184-202.
Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200190017-0
 Approved For R'se 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP66B00403R(200190017-0
1 964- . _ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 13105
TABLE 2.-Number of persons with 7 or more years of education per 1,000 in the total population of the Soviet Union, and among Jews,
1939 and 1959
[Persons with such education per 1,000 population]
To
tal
Urb
an
Rural
Population
Jews
Population
Jews
Population
Jews
1939
1969
1939
1959
1939
1959
1939
1959
1939 1959
1939 1969
Russian S.F.S.R. (p.416d.)-------------------
83
282
462
690
174
369
469
694
38 168
389 015
Ukrainian S.S.R. (p. 194)_____________________
103
319
280
591
183
308
299
594
56 299
172 484
Belorussian S.S.R. (p. 134)____________________
83
271
206
510
204
416
211
608
43 187
168 504
Azerbaidzhan S.S.R. (p. 148)__________________
80
282
299
478
164
355
306
484
32 216
185 285
Lithuanian S.S.R. (p.166)--------------------
----------
188
-
---
-------
464
----------
333
----------
464
---------- 99 ---
------- 487
Moldavian S.S.R. (p. 96) ----------------------
----------
196
---
-------
438
----------
362
----------
436
---------- 148 ---
------- 462
Latvian S.S.R. (p.98)-------------------------
------------
365
---
------
597
---------
- 459
---------
697
----- ----- 247 ...
.......
Source: Source 2 (page number indicated in parentheses).
TABLE 3.-Enrollment in Soviet institutions of higher education, total enrollment and Jewish enrollment, by type of program, distributed
by Union Republic, fall 1960
Total students of all nationalities (thousands)
Jewish students (units)
By type of program
By type of program
Union Republic
-
Total
Total
--
Full-time
Extension-
Full-time
Extension-
day
Evening
correspond-
day
Evening
correspond-
ence
enco
Russians.F.S.R------------------------ ________
1,496.1
699.2
167.1
629.8
46,555
21,483
6,268
18,804
Ukrainians.S.R---------- _------------------------------
417.8
199.0
44.1
174.7
18,673
7,007
3,545
8,121
Belorussians.S.R---------------------------------------
59.3
32.3
5.5
21.5
3,020
1,416
669
935
Uzbeks.S.R--------------------- _-----------------------
101.3
51.3
7.1
42.0
2,902
1,238
317
1,347
Kazakh S.S.R-------------------------------------------
77.1
42.7
3.4
31.0
837
495
84
258
Georgian S.S.R-------------------------------------- ____
56.3
25.2
4.0
26.2
910
372
105
433
zerbaidzhan S.S.R------------------------- -----
36.0
18.5
3.4
14.1
906
417
148
341
ithuanian S.S.R----------------------
26.7
15.6
1.9
9.2
413
270
77
66
Moldavian S.S.R--------------------------- ------------
19.2
10.4
.5
8.3
1,225
570
113
542
atvian S.S.R---------------------------------- ____.....
21.6
12.6
1.9
7.1
800
513
61
226
Kirgiz S.S.R------------------ _------------------------ __
17.4
10.8
.9
5.6
263
180
33
50
adzhik S.S.R-------------------------------------------
19.9
11.4
1.1
7.4
391
219
69
103
rmenian s.S.R------------------------ _----------------
20.2
10.9
1.8
7.5
52
28
12
12
urkmen S.S.R------------------ _--------------------
13.2
8.0
.7
4.6
104
53
6
45
stonians.S.R------------------------------------------
13.5
7.6
.5
5.4
126
71
13
42
U.S.S.R.total ----------------------- ___-----------
2,395.5
1,155.5
214.9
995.1
77,177
34,332
11,520
31,325
Distribution by program (in percent) --------------------
100.0
48.2
10.3
41.5
100.0
44.5
14.9
A
~40.
TABLE 4.-Soviet population and higher education enrollments for all nationalities and for. Jews, and index of representation
Popular as of 1959
Higher education enrollments as of 1960
Union republic
Index of
All nationalities
Jews
Percent
All nationalities
Jews
Percent
representation
(thousands)
(thousands)
(thousands)
(thousands)
(A)
(B)
(0)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(G)
Russian S.F.S.R------------------- _----------------------
117,534.3
875.3
0.745
1,496,074
46,555
3.11
417
Ukrainian S.S.R------------------------------------------
41,869.0
840.3
2.007
417,748
18,673
4.47
223
Byelorussian S.S.R---------------------------------------
8,054.6
150.1
1.863
59,296
3,020
5.09
273
Uzbek s.S.R---------------------------------------------
8,105.7
94.3
1.163
101,271
2,902
2.86
246
Kazakh S.S.R--------------------------------------------
9,309.8
28.1
.301
77,135
837
1.08
359
Georgian S.S.R--------------------------- _...............
4,044.0
51.6
1.276
56,322
910
1.62
127
Azerbaidzhan S.S.R--------------------------------------
3,697.7
40.2
1.087
36,017
906
2.52
232
Lithuanian s.S.R----------------------------------------
2,711.4
24.7
.911
26,713
413
1.55.
170
Moldavian 5.S.R-----------------------------------------
2,884.6
95.1
3.297
19,217
1,225
6.37
193
Latvian S.S.R--------------------------------------------
2,093.6
36.6
1.748
21,568
800
3.71
212
Kirgiz S.S.R---------------------------------------------
T
h
k
2,065.8
8.8
.416
17,379
263
1.51
363
S.S.R-------------------------------------------
adz
i
Armenian S
S
R
1,979.9
1
763
0
4
1
.626
19,959
391
1.96
- 313
------------------------------------------
.
.
Turkmen S.S.R_____________________________-------------
,
.
1,516.4
.0
4.1
.066
.270
20,106
13,161
52
104
.26
.79
458
292
Estonian s.S.R-------------------------------------------
1,196.8
5.4
.451
13,607
126
.93
206
U.S.S.R.total --------------------------------------
208,826.4
2,267.8
1.086
2,395,645
77,177
3.22
297
Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200190017-0
L
L
T
A
T
E
 13106
Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200190017-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE . Jurve 12
TAEL$ 5. -Jewish population in the Soviet urban population and Jewish students in relation to total higher education enrollment, and index
of representation -
Urban population, 1959
nigher education enrollments as of 1960
Index repro-
Union Republic
All nationalities
Jews
Percent
All nationalities
Jews
Percent
sentatlon
(thousands)
(thousands)
(thousands)
(thousands)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(F)
(0)
Russian 8.F.8.R-----------------------------------------
61,811.1
876-8
1.42
1,496,074
46,556
3.11
219
Ukrainian B.B.R----------------------------------------
19,147.4
840.3
4.39
497,748
18,673
4.47
102
Belorussian 8.8.R------------ -------------- --------------
2,480.5
160.1
&05
69,296
3,020
6.00
84
Uzbek 8.9 R------------------------------- --------------
2, T18 a
99 3
3,46
101,271
2,902
2.88
83
Kazakh 8.,3.R----------------- --------------------------
4,067.2
28.1
.46
77,135
837
1.08
156
Georgian E.S.R-------------------------------------------
1,'129
51.6
8.81
78,322
910
1.62
54
Azerbaidzhan B.B.R---------------- ----------------------
1,767.8
40.2
2.27
86,017
906
2.52
111
Lithuanian 8.8.R----------------------------------------
1,046 0
24.7
2.38
26,713
413
1.66
66
Moldavian 8.8.11------------- . ---------------------------
642.2
96.1
14.81
19,217
1,225
6.37
43
Latvian 8.8.R--------------------------------------------
1,178.9
36.8
3.12
21,888
800
3.71
119
Kirgiz S.S.R----------------- .---------------------------
696.2
8.6
1.24
17,379
263
1.51
121
8.11--------------- ---------------------------
Tadzhik 8
64& 2
12.4
1.92
19,959
391
1.96
102
.
Armenian 8.8.R-------------- ----------------------------
881.8
1.0
.11
20,165
62
.28
238
------------ ---------------------------
Turkmen S.8.R-
7W.8
4.1
.58
13,151
104
.79
130
-
Estonian E.8.R--------------- ?---------------------------
675. 5
6.4
.80
13,607
126
.93
116
U.S.3.R. total ---------- ..---------------------------
99,977.7
$767.3
2.27
51,
- 77,177
8.22
142
Sources: Table 3 above and source 1, pp. 194,185-
TABLE: (i.-Soviet higher education-enrollments in full-time day and evening programs (excluding extension-correspondence students),
total, by nationality, and Jewish students
[In thousands!
Total of
Number of
Total of
Number of
full-time
students
Unao- !
Jaws
full-tune
students
Unao-
Jews
Year
(day) and
accounted
counted
(specifically
ifi
Year
(day) and
e errin
accounted
major
counted
residual
(specifically
identified)
evening
in major
residual
Ident
ed)
g
students
nationality
students
nationality
groups
groups
1929--- ----------------------
1931
204.2
405
9
-
27.6
460
1968----------------------------?_
1959-------------------------------
1,833.0
I.&L0
1,211.8
1.221.7
12L2
1199
C'
'
(
------------------------------
-
------------------
1933
.
488.8
--
___.?--?-
6&7
1990 (usual tatital relases)
1,9
12L0
P
-----------
-
1934-------------------------------
627.a
---------__
--__------
643
1960 (swx3al tabulation Identify-
400
1
9
1
2
0
(78
1)
1935-------------------------------
663.6
_---_-____..
___-__
74.9
trigoinationalities)------------_
.
,
,
.
.
1950__________________________-__--
8451
747.8
97.9
'
19el...............................
1,611.0
561
0
1
1,881.2
61&9
1
129.8
1421
1956-------------------------------
1,279.9
1,169.I
20&
118.8
120
2
)
((
P)
1962 -------------------------------
.
,
,
1957_______________________________
1,820.8
1,
1
.
Sources: Source 6, appendix table A-6, p. 316, and sources thereto; source 6, p. 657
and 9ouroes thereto; source 7, p. 673; and table 3 above.
TABLI. 7.-Soviet proftssionat higher education graduates employed in the national economy, total and Jews, by Union republic as of
December 1000
Union republic
Total, all
nation-
autias
Number
of Jews
Percent
Union republic
Total, all
nation-
antics
Number
of Jews
Percent
-
------- ..----------------
Russian B
F
S
R
-
2,083,306
960,732
7.88
Latvian BBR-----------------------------------
40,807
8,811
8.85
---
--
.
.
.
----------------
Ukrainian 8SR----------------
-
686.851
83.689
12.20
Kirgiz SSR------------------------------------
hik 8SR
T
d
29, 776
23
368
1,073
169
1
3.60
5
00
Belorussian SSR------------- .-----------------
Uzbek 88R
-
---------
110,177
108,936
12.836
&lei
11.47
7.49
a
z
----------------------------------
Armenian 88R-------- -??------------?-?-----
,
41.093
,
204
.
0.60
------------------
--------
Kazakh 8311------------------------------- ----
124,818
4.148
3.32
Turkmen SSR--______.......__..--------------
SSR
E
i
22.506
24
211
486
868
2.16
3
58
Georgian 8811----------- _----------------------
106,670
1,818
1.70
----------------------------------
ston
an
,
-
.
Azerbaidzhan 8811----------- .-----------------
Llthuar,la788R_____________._______-_-_------
78.213
37.230
4.110
1.800
6.61
5.41
U.B.B.R.total _-..---_---_----------------
3,645,224
290,707
8.20
Moldavian 8811-------------------------------
88,284
2.206
1& 02
Source: Source 4, pp. 70-7L
TABLE 8. L Comparison of the proportion of Jews in the Soviet urban population, in total number of higher education graduates, and among
students in higher education, by Union republic
(In percent(
Proportion of
Proportion
Proportion of
Proportion
Proportion
Jews in total
of Jews
Proportion
Jews in total
of Jews
Union republic
of Jews
in urban
number of
higher
among
students in
Union republic
of Jews
to urban
number of
higher
among
students in
population
education
higher
population,
education
higher
,
1959
graduates,
education,
1969
graduates,
education,
1960
1960
1960
1960
Russlan B.F.8.11 -------------------------
1.42
7.68
8.11
Latvian 8.8.11 ---------------------------
3.12
24
1
8.85
3.60
3.71
1
51
Ukrainian 8.8.11---------------------- ___
4.39
12.20
4.47
09
Kirgiz, 8.8.R -----------------------------
T
d
btk 8
8
11
.
92
1
6.00
.
1.96
Belorussian 6.5.11------------------------
Uzbek 8
8
11
6.05
8.46
11.47
7.49
5.
286
---------------------------
z
.
.
a
Armenian 8.13.11 -------------------------
.
.11
.50
.26
.
.
-----------------------------
Kazakh 8-8.11---------------------------
-09
3.32
1.06
Turkmen -----------------------
.58
80
2.16
88
3
.79
93
Georgian 8.8.1`t --------------------------
3.01
1.70
1.02
Estonian B.S.R--------------------------
.
.
.
Azerbaidzhan S.S.R --------------------
Lithuanten S.S.R---------? -_------------
2.27
236
5.81
&41
252
1.56
U.S.S.R. total--------------------
227
&20
3.22
Moldavian S.8.R------------------------
14.81
18. 67
437
Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200190017-0
 Approved For Rese 2005/01/27: CIA-RDP66B00403ROQU00190017-0
1964 ^ ~ .~ 4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
13107
TABLE 9.-Number of higher education graduates employed in the national economy of the U.S.S.R., 1941-62, total, accounted nationalities,
and Jewish professionals
[In thousands]
Accounted
Residual
Jews
Year
Total
major
of other
properly
Source
nationalities'
nationalities
identified:
1941----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
909.0
718.6
190.4
(2)
No. 4, p. 69.
1954---------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,008.5
1,700.0
300.5
(2
No. 9, p. 261, 1969.
-
1959----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3,235.7
2, 809.7
3426.0
(2)
No. 10, p. 617.
1960(usual statistical releases) ----------------------------------- ___- _---------- _____
3,545.2
3,091.2
4454.0
(2)
No. 10, 1960, p. 663.
1960(special tabulation identifying allnationalities) -------------------- _-------------
3,545.2
3,091.2
(163.3)
8290.7
No. 4, p. 67.
1961
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3,824.0
3,346.4
6477.6
(2)
No. 10, 1961, p. 586.
-
1962---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4,049.7
3,552.2
7 497.5
(2)
No. 7, p. 473.
2 Those of Union republic nationality (Russian, Ukranian, etc.).
2 Not identified.
2 Among which another 19 minor nationalities (totaling 110,200) are identified, though
Jews are still censored out by this reference. The residual net of identified minor
nationalities, is 315,800, and of these the majority are obviously Jews.
4 Again 19 other nationalities are listed totaling 122,500; the remainder, including
Jews, is 331,500.
8 Since the number of Jewish professionals is given as 291,000 other than Jews in the
remainder accounted for 40,000.
8 Again 20 other nationalities are listed accounting for 129,400; the remainder, includ-
ing Jews, is 348,200.
7 Again 20 other nationalities are listed totaling 139,600; the remainder, which in-
cluded Jews, is 367,900.
1939
------
1947
--------
1055
-------
1918
-- ------
1959
--- -----
1960
--------
1961
-------
----------------------------
Total (thousands) ---------------------------___
95.9
-
145.6
22.3.9
284.0
310.0
354.2
404.1
Jews (thousands)_________________________________________
20.0
24.4
24.6
28.9
30.6
33.5
30.:
ProportionofJews (percent) ------------------------------
21.2
16.8
11.0
10.2
9.8
9.5
8.:
SOURCES
Source 1: Tsentral'noe Statisticheskoe
Upravlenie pri Sovete Ministrov SSSR "Itogi
vsesoiuznot perepisi, naselenlla 1959 goda:
SSSR," Moscow, 1962.
Source 2: Tsentral'noe Statisticheskoe
Upravlenie pri Sovete Ministrov SSSR, "Itogi
vsesoiuznoi perepisi naseleniia 1959 goda"
(for the 15 Soviet republics) : Armenian,
Azerbaidzhan, Belorussian, Estonian, Geor-
gian, Kazakh, Kirgiz, Latvian, Lithuanian,
Moldavian, Russian, Tadzhik, Turkmen,
Ukrainian, Uzbek (Moscow 1962).
Source 3: M. Abramovich, "Jews in the
1959 Soviet Population Census," reprinted
from Jews in Eastern Europe, n.d.; and F.
Lorimer, "The Population of the Soviet
Union," Geneva: League of Nations, 1946.
Source 4: Tsentral'noe Statisticheskoe
Upravlenie pri Sovete Ministrov SSSR,
"Vysshee obrazovanie v SSSR," Moscow,
1961. 1
Source 5: Nicholas DeWitt, "Soviet Profes-
sional Manpower-Its Education, Training,
and Supply," Washington, D.C.: National
Science Foundation, 1955.
Source 6: Nicholas DeWitt, "Education and
Professional Employment in the U.S.S.R.,"
Washington, D.C.: National Science Founda-
tion, 1961.
Source 7: Tsentral'noe Statisticheskoe
Upravlenle pri Sovete Ministrov SSSR,
"Narodnoe khoziaistvo SSSR v 1962 gody,"
Moscow, 1963. N
Source 8: Tsentral'noe Statisticheskoe
Upravlenie pri Sovete Ministrov SSSR,
"Srednee. spetsial'noe obrazovanie v SSSR,"
Moscow, 1962.
Source 9: Tsentral'noe Statisticheskoe
Upravlenie pri Sovete Ministrov SSSR, "Dos-
tizheniia sovetskoi vlasti za sorok let v
tsifrakh; statisticheskii sbornik," Moscow,
1957.
Source 10: Tsentral'noe Statisticheskoe
Upravlenie pri Sovete Ministrov SSSR,
"Narodnoe khoziaistvo SSSR V 1959 gody,"
Moscow, 1960; "Narodnoe khoziaistvo SSSR
v 1960 gody," Moscow, 1961; "Narodnoe
khoziaistvo SSSR v 1961 gody," Moscow, 1962.
Mr. JAVITS subsequently said: Mr.
President, I should like to add to what
my colleague from New York has said
about anti-Jewish activities in the So-
viet Union by calling attention to the
barbaric execution just reported of nine
people, most of them Jews, according
to the report in the New York Times, for
so-called economic crimes in the Soviet
Union-something that no other civilized
nation on earth would think of doing,
indicating the bald-faced hypocrisy of
pretending that there is no anti-Jewish
campaign in the Soviet Union, when,
notwithstanding the tiny fraction of the
population they represent, such barbaric
punishments are imposed upon them as
shown in the record: I ask unanimous
consent that the report be printed at
this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
SOVIET EXECUTION OF NINE ON MAY 4 Is
REPORTED
Moscow, June 11.-Nine men convicted of
"economic crimes" were executed by shoot-
ing here last May 4, reliable sources said to-
day.
All those executed were said to have had
Jewish names. One was identified as Roif-
man, who was tried last February together
with other alleged members of a large ring of
speculators. A man called Shakerman had
been named as leader of the ring.
At the end of the trial it was unofficially
reported that the verdict called for nine
death sentences. Today's report was the first
indication that the sentences had been car-
ried out.
However, One of the men reported shot
May 4 had not been involved in the Shaker-
the RECORD a resolution adopted by the
Council of the Second Province of the
Protestant Episcopal Church. It is an-
other indication of the strong support of
church groups and religious leaders for
this moral cause.
There being no objection, the resolu-
tion was order to be printed in the REC-
ORD, as follows:
RESOLUTION ON FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS BILL
(H.R. 7152)
Whereas other religious leaders and church
people of all political persuasions have united
in support of this measure, identifying it
as a moral issue transcending any political
considerations: Be it therefore
Resolved, That the members of the Council
of the Second Province record their support
of this legislation and urge the Senate of the
United States to adopt the measure without
further delay; and be,it further
Resolved, That this resolution be com-
municated to all Members of the U.S. Senate.
TRIBUTE TO SENATOR DODD
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, the
past weekend, our good friend and my
senior colleague from Connecticut [Mr.
DODD], was unanimously renominated for
a second term as a U.S. Senator. The
delegates to the Democratic State con-
vention in Connecticut fully recognized
the outstanding record of Tom DODD, and
honored him with their nomination.
Senator DonD was nominated by the
great - Governor of our State, John N.
Dempsey, who delivered a richly deserved
tribute detailing our senior Senator's
man case. He was identified unofficially as record. Accepting the nomination, Sen-
Ki.empert, a man whose trial and death sen- ator DODD gave a most eloquent state-
tence was reported by a Moscow newspaper merit, outlining the philosophy he will
last month. c r int th c min cam i n T k
r
o e o
a
as
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF CIVIL
RIGHTS BILL
y
g p
g.
unanimous consent that the speeches of
Governor Dempsey and Senator Donn be
inserted in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the speeches
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, I ask were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
unanimous consent to have printed in as follows:
Approved For. Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200190017-0
 13108
OOL f
Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200190017-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE r_- i%ne 12
REMARKS of Gov. JOHN DEMPSEY IN No9r-
NATION OF THOMAS J. DODD FOR REELECTION
AS U.B. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT. DEMO-
CRATIC: STATE CONVENTION, HARTFORD, JUNE
6, 1961:
The Spirit in this groat hall today is the
spirit of victory, and this convention will
make an important contribution toward
that victory.
Once again we are rioving Into an elec-
tion campaign of great significance to the
future of the United Mates and the State
of Connecticut.
We meet today while the terrible memory
of the assassination of a beloved President
haunts our national conscience. The in-
spiration and the high purpose which John
F. Kennedy brought to sublic office will serve
as a model for freemen I verywhere.
Our standard bearer In this campaign is
a leader who with courage and responsi-
bility met the awesom3 challenges imposed
on him by grave na'ticnal tragedy-a great
leader, :a great Democre t, and a great Amer-
ican--Lyndon B. Johnson,
President Johnson's leadership carries
forward the DemocraticI tradition of Frank-
lin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John
Kennedy-the traditicn in which we as
Democrates are proud ,o share.
It was my high honor this week to wel-
come President Johnson to Connecticut, and
to hear his inspiring report to the Na-
tion on America's strength and America's
greatness. And let me tell you that Presi-
dent Johnson knows the Democratic Party
of Connecticut is ready and eager for this
year's campaign.
Strong bonds unite tae Democrats of Con-
necticut. We are united in a common goal of
service to our people. We are united in re-
spect for our leadership. We are united by
pride In the great Democratic record of
achievement, both on the national level and
right here in the State of Connecticut.
Every Democratic candidate In our State
will carry proudly into this year's election
campaign the great record of Democratic
accomplishment. This pride is reflected in
the platform which this convention has
adopted-a platform which commits us to
the continuing fulfillment of the Democratic
tradition.
The Democratic Party cares about people.
Our concern for people is reflected in every
section of our fine platform. Together we
have done much to create a fuller life for all
the citizens of Connecticut. Together we
have built educations: and job opportuni-
ties for our young people. We have devoted
the full resources of government to the care
of the sick, the mentally III, the mentally re-
tarded, and those in need of rehabilitation.
We have worked to br'ng a greater measure
of dignity Into the lives of all our older citi-
zens.
We have dedicated ourselves to create here
in Connecticut the great society of which
President Johnson has so eloquently spoken.
Together we are deterndned to press forward
on this path of progress and to enlist the
support. of the people of Connecticut in the
great national effort which President John-
son has mobilized.
It will be the privilege of this convention
to give the President of the United States
an ally in the campaign battles ahead-a
man who has stood Shoulder to shoulder
with Lyndon Johnson since the early days
of the New Deal-a men on whom the Pres-
ident looks as a valued friend and trusted
adviser.
This man has established a public record
of unsurpassed distin:tion In a career of
Government service which began more than
30 years ago. The breadth of his experience
and the depth of his unique preparation for
high elective office is -inmatched.
As director of the national youth admin-
istration program In Connecticut, he estab-
lished programs here to provide education
and job opportunities for youth which be-
came the model for action in other States.
Tireless In his zeal for justice. he has bene-
fited by his experience as special agent for the
FBI and his service as assistant to the U.S.
Attorney General. In this capacity, he
helped to establish. and was appointed as-
sistant chief of the Justice Department's first
Civil rights section. and pioneered in the
Federal prosecution of civil rights violations.
In World War II he was a keyman In the
Justice Dl-partment's counterespionage and
countersabotage operations.
He represented the Government of the
United States as executive trial counsel, at
the direct request of Supreme Court Justice
Robert H. Jackson, in the Nazi war crimes
trials at Nuremberg In 1945-48.
In this capacity he made a lasting con-
tribution to world law by demonstrating
beyond reasonable dispute the legal enforci-
bility of internationally accepted moral
standards.
The qualities of leadership which he dem-
onstrated in two terms as a Congressman
won national respect: and these same qual-
ities have been richly developed during his
first term of service as U.S. Senator.
He has strongly supported and effectively
advocated. In committee and on the floor of
the Senate, the entire range of domestic
programs which Presidents Kennedy and
Johnson have sponsored.
He Is a recognized leader In the battle
for the civil rights bill, for medicare, for
increased Federal aid to education, and for
the several measures which make up Pres-
ident Johnson's antipoverty program.
His personal battle for progressive meas-
ures to combat juvenile delinquency and to
establish more effective Federal regulation
of traffic In narcotics and deadly weapons
has won for him the acclaim of the entire
Nation. And In the field of foreign affairs,
he has coupled enthusiastic support for U.S.
assistance to the free nations with unremit-
ting vigilance against Communist aggression
and subversion.
He has shown in countless actions that
he recognizes the war for expanded freedom
and opportunity at home, like the war in
defense of freedom abroad, is a basically
moral question.
He has proven himself a true champion
of freedom and a determined foe of tyranny,
His inspired vision and unceasing efforts
in defense of liberty and justice at home
and throughout the world have richly jus-
tified the confidence of the people of the
State of Connecticut.
All of you who know this man as I do,
know hint as a man of warmth, a man
of heart, a man of compassion, a man dedi-
cated to his country-:a man of courage.
I have the high honor to place before
this convention for nomination and reelec-
tion as U.S. Senator from Connecticut, the
name of the Honorable TnoMAs J. DODD.
REMARKS 07 SENATOR Tuosaas J. DODD IN Ac-
cxpriN'G RENOMINATION As DEMOCRATIC
CANDIDATE FOR U.S. SENATOR. BUSHNELI,
MEMORIAL HALL, HARTFORD, CONN., JUNE
6, 1964
My friends, this is the third time I have
spoken to you from this rostrum following
nomination by our party as Democratic can-
didate for the U.S. Senate. and my heart is
filled, not only with thoughts of today, but
of the yesterdays that we have been through
together.
Such an occasion presents a challenge, an
opportunity, and a responsibility that no
man can experience without mingled feel-
ings of pride and humility, joy and anxiety.
I accept your nomination. I thank you
for the chance you have given me to serve
you once more.
I pledge to do my best to make the com-
ing campaign not a sham battle of personali-
ties and epithets, but a real contest of ideas
and ideals, a contest that will end in vic-
tory-victory for our party and for the causes
we uphold.
An election campaign provides an oppor-
tunity, if we will but take it, for defining
and redefining our policies and the philos-
ophy which underlies them. This we have
done today, and will continue to do in the
weeks and months ahead.
Politics necessarily reflects a view of life
and an attitude toward people. Our views
and attitudes have been on the public rec-
ord for a very long time.
For the Democratic Party is our oldest
political party. It goes back to the earliest
days of our Country. It has had many op-
ponents, and It has prevailed over them all.
Some of those opponents have held a rather
dim view of the average man and have
taken up as their mission the narrow task
of protecting the privileges and advancing
the well-being of an exclusive group. They
have tried to draw a protective line around
the special interests of this group, but for
the great mass of men their message has
been "No trespassing,"
Other opponents of the Democratic Party
historically have taken a negative, hostile
attitude toward the problems of people.
From the earliest days they have looked upon
men as too backward to be allowed to vote;
too irresponsible to be allowed to band to-
gether In labor unions; too lazy to be trusted
with Government benefits; too greedy to be
given a voice in the management of our nat-
ural resources. They have opposed prac-
tically every program which aimed at help-
ing people with problems too big for them
to solve by themselves. They have been
completely unmoved by the crushing bur-
dens borne by humble souls, and totally im-
pervious to the currents of change. To them,
life has appeared, not as a quest for per-
sonal fulfillment, but as some sort of en-
durance contest.
To most men and women their message
has been. "Sink or swim."
Other opponents of our party have taken
a negative attitude about Government It-
self. They have always professed to be full
of sympathy about the dilemmas facing our
people, but they have claimed that gov-
ernment, and especially the Federal Gov-
ernment, is helpless to do anything about
them.
Child labor? "Oh, it's a shame," they
said, "But we can't do anything about it.
That's the responsibility of the family."
Sweatshops? "Well, that is the employers'
business," they said.
Breadlines? "That is the concern of pri-
vate charities."
Slums? "That Is purely a local matter."
Civil rights? "Why, that is up to the
States."
Medical care for the aged? "There is no
real need for It. Most of these old people
own houses or property they can sell to pay
their hospitals bills," they said.`
And so it goes. All that this group has
ever had to say to the people is, "Let George
do it."
This negative, hostile, helpless attitude is
still very much with us today, and it is a
major factor in the coming campaign. If you
doubt this, just read what our friend from
our neighboring State of New York, Governor
Rockefeller, has to say about the group that
has just taken control of the Republican
Party.
We of the Democratic Party, of course,
have made mistakes but they have been the
mistakes of those who were fighting to solve
our Nation's problems, not to sweep them
under the rug.
From Its first campaign under Thomas
Jefferson In the year 1800 to its latest cam-
paign under John F. Kennedy, In 1960, our
party has been optimistic about the nature
of men, compassionate toward their prob-
Approved For Release 2005/01/27 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200190017-0