Purely Commentary Dispute Over Supreme Court 'Jewish Seat' By asserting that there should not be either a "Jewish seat" or a Catholic, Protestant, Negro or any other specific "seat" on the United States Supreme Court—even, as he put it, a "Wasp scat," former Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas followed the line adopted by former Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg and by practically all national Jewish organizations. But there has been a difference of opinion and some have held that since there has been a tradition for a Jewish judge on the high court since Louis D. Brandeis' rise to that post in 1916— there were even two Jewish judges on that bench when Felix Frank- furter and Benjamin Sardozo served together for about three years— that the policy should not be abandoned. Several of the advocates of the so-called "Jewish seat" have pointed out that Jews have so much to offer on the high court that the nation should not be penalized by the failure to have a judge from Jewish ranks. Undoubtedly the most impressive contribution to the discussion appeared in an essay by Nathan Lewin, a graduate of Yeshiva College and Harvard Law School who served in several capacities in the U.S. Department of Justice, in Jewish Life, the magazine of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. Under the intriguing title "The Vanish- ing Jew in the Federal Establishment," Lewin reviews the services that have been rendered by Jewish justices, calls attention to President Nixon's announcement with pride that he felt obliged to disregard "ethnic considerations" in selecting a successor to Fortas and declares that there is "bitter and sweet irony in Goldberg's position that there is no such thing as a "Jewish seat" on the bench. It is on the latter score that Lewin, referring to Nixon's selection of Haynsworth as his choice to succeed Fortas, makes a point that challenges Goldberg, stating: It is hardly a secret that Goldberg was given Justice Frank- furter's place when the latter retired after suffering a stroke in 1962 precisely because it was the "Jewish seat." Had the vacancy been other than Frankfurther's President Kennedy's more likely choice would have been Archibald Cox, then solicitor general, Inded, Goldberg was passed over—reportedly much to his distress —when, earlier in the same Supreme Court, Justice Charles Whittaker resigned and Byron White was appointed to take his place. And one cannot help but believe that Lyndon Johnson was well aware of Goldberg's religion when he exercised his noted power of persuasion to have Goldberg trade his Associate Justice- ship for the job of Ambassador to the UN. In thus freeing the "Jew- ish seat," Mr. Johnson was creating a place of honor for his Jewish friend of many years—whom he was prepared to make Chief Justice of the United States—Abe Fortas. Former Justice-and-Ambassador Goldberg's public assent to a non-Jewish nomination, is, however, more than historic irony. It is also a graphic demonstration of the uneasy and demeaning self- abnegation which Jewish success has produced in this country. For it is unlikely that there are many white men in the United States who could have felt more strongly than Arthur Goldberg that the nomination of a Negro to the Supreme Court was long overdue well before Thurgood Marshall became a Justice. Goldberg undoubtedly welcomed Marshall's nomination—and not because it was a non- discriminatory selection based on merit. The selection of a black man for the Supreme Court was symbolic of the nation's awakening recognition of the Black community. Nor has anyone ever thought it reprehensible for a President to structure the Supreme Court so that it reflects the diversity of America; indeed, the fact that many of the Court's decisions turn largely on issues of policy and not on pure logic is a strong argument for deliberate distribution of its members so that they constitute a cross-section of the country's population. Why then, if it is permissible to seek a Southerner, a Negro, a "law-and-order man," or Republican, is it not proper to pick a Jew? Is religious and national identification more irrelevant than skin color or than the state of one's birth? The Lewin argument does not end here. His contention is that Jews are leaving their posts in the Federal government—which accounts for the title of his essay, "The Vanishing Jew in the Federal Establish- ment." He goes from department to department to show how the num- ber of Jewish employes, especially in the top echelon, is vanishing. His analyses raise so many Jewish questions as well as other issues involved in the political tranformations in this country that they must be studied and considered seriously. What he alludes to many have serious effects on the Jewish position in the years ahead, especially since—as we have indicated on several occasions—the Jew is con- stantly becoming more and more the minority while the Negroes are gaining more and more of a dominant role. Not that this is a fault, except that very often numerical strength eliminates consideration of skills and merit and gives prior positions to the vote-providers than to the brain trusters. Thus, in his outline of existing conditions and the new political domination by a Republican administration, Lewin, in his article on - the vanishing" Jewish factor in the Federal government, wrote as follows: The President is an honorable man, and surely no one accuses him of overt anti-Semitism. Nor is it likely that John Mitchell, raised in New York City law practice, and Robert Finch, who will need Jewish support for future political efforts in California, are deliberately keeping Jews out of policy-making positions. (Indeed, Attorney General Mitchell did keep on a Jewish executive assist- ant who had worked for Ramsey Clark, notwithstanding the custom of recent Attorney Generals to treat that job as one calling for personal loyalty. Each of the Attorneys General since Herbert Brownell has moved in a new executive assistant upon taking office—even where there was no change in party affiliation.) The fact — which one can accept as true — that Jewish Re- publicans are harder to find than Jewish Democrats does not real- ly explain the great disparity in Jewish representatian between the Kennedy-Johnson Administration and the Nixon Administration. The poll-takers tell us that Republicans generally—regardless of religious persuasion—are harder to find in this country than Demo- crats. Yet Mr. Nixon is managing to find enough to fill the policy- making jobs he wants filled. And if he wanted Jewish Republicans, it would take little extra effort to enlist those so qualified for responsible jobs in executive departments. From my own personal observation and informal polls taken among friends and associates, I can only conclude that—at least outside of New York City—the Jewish vote for Nixon in the 1968 election was far larger than the news commentators and analysts have allowed. 2—Friday, January 9, 1970 THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS The 'Jewish Seat' . . . Supporters pieefwesnd oifts Wi th V GPrincipleg asi :IrilfdfeFrortW By Philip Saphir Forecasts VOMOVitZ The very least that can be said with absolute confidence is that no effort is being made by Mr. Nixon or his associates to see to it that Jews—like Negroes or women—are represented at the visible policy-making level of the executive departments. This may reflect an unarticulated view that they were overrepresented in prior administrations; or it may be attributable to deliberate neglect— to a feeling that the Jewish constituency needs no special favors and can be left to advance on the individual merits of its repre- sentatives. Neither of the above premises is particularly surprising or re- prehensible, and the Jewish community in the United States can probably live with both. Neither, however, fully explains the very substantial reduction in Jewish visibility—nor does it explain an- other aspect of this phenomenon: The President has, notwithstanding the absence of Jewish Cabinet, sub-Cabinet and sub-sub-Cabinet officials, surrounded himself with a good number of White House advisers who are Jewish. The best-known, of course, are Henry Kissinger, Arthur Burns, and Leonard Garment. Kissinger's views are said to carry more weight than those of the Secretary of State; Burns is reputed to have the power to overrule the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of HEW (and even to do vigorous battle with the autonomous Federal Reserve Board); and Garment has the Presi- dent's ear on civil rights matters and other domestic policy goals . Why are these highly qualified and very capable men kept close to the President for advice, but no Jews appointed to the Cabinct or to important sub-Cabinet jobs? And why no Jew on the Supreme Court? One can't help concluding that there is a certain disquieting similarity between the record of the Nixon Administration on the appointment of Jews to "visible" posts in the governmental hier- archy and the attitude which prevailed for many years (and has still not been totally eradicated) on New York's Wall Street—in the law firms, banking institutions, insurance companies and brok- erage houses. Long after American Jews had firmly established themselves in the arts, in trade and in a variety of professions, (including, of course, law) the Wall Street establishment remained an almost impregnable barrier. Jewish partners in Wall Street law firms were so few in number just a decade ago that they could—like Jewish major-league ballplayers—be ticked off by name by aficionados. It was in my time in law school, for example (still less than 10 years ago), that the single Jewish partner of a lead- ing Wall Street firm (which had about 50 partners) died in an air- plane that went down in the East River. And it was a subject of caustic humor among nearly all of my Jewish classmates that this sank the firm's chances of attracting the Jewish Law Review editors; it no longer could point discreetly at the Jew who had "made it." The point of it all was that the firms wanted the young Jewish lawyers who had demonstrated talent and ability but not to put them in the front array—in the showcase, as it were. The very same firm (which now has several Jewish partners) did cite the tragically submerged one as proof that it had erected no "bar" to Jewish advancement, but somehow I and my Jewish classmates were told by its representatives more often and pointedly than others that if, after several years, the firm decided that our ad- vancement to partnership was not possible, we could be "well- placed" with other small (read "Jewish") firms in New York. The short of the matter is that the pattern in Wall Street— which is followed by banks and insurance companies as well—was (and still is, to some degree) to "use" the "Jewish brains" in the backrooms, to rely upon young Jewish lawyers as drones but never (or hardly ever) to dress them in royal garb and give them access to the royal courtyard. The leaders of the bar have always been perfectly prepared to seek the advice of Jewish attorneys and to pay them well as consultants. But it was viewed as folly or (worse yet) boorish indiscretion to stick one of them in the front ranks. There was a tacit understanding that, unlike children, Jews were made to be heard but not, if one could help it, to be seen. Things are beginning to change—though not as much in banking and insurance circles as in the law. The American Bar Associa- tion has even gone so far as to elect a Jewish president—a highly respected and very capable Philadelphia lawyer who has spent an extraordinary amount of time and effort on the Association's activi- ties. But traditions and attitudes die hard—hardest, surely, among those like Messrs. Nixon, Mitchell, Rogers, Kennedy (the Secretary of the Treasury), Stans, et al, who have spent their adult lives surrounded by these attitudes, and who may well owe their per- sonal success to the values which give rise to them. The role of the behind-the-scenes adviser to those who rule is, of course, not a new one for the Jew. Many celebrated figures throughout our history have served in this capacity. But recent na- tional Administrations in the United States—including, I think, those of Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt and particularly the Kennedy-Johnson Administration—have seen the emergence of the "visible" Jew in the Federal establishment. As one who was in the Johnson Administration in its last years, I can testify to the fact that power and its emoluments were assigned, without the slightest hesitation, to Jews. In this area, as in other matters in the broad spectrum of "civil rights," what the present administration has done to date can only be characterized as a step backwards. What Nathan Lewin has written may not be indisputable. It is subject to review and is debatable. But it provides enough challenges for consideration to be taken very seriously. The fact is that for a time young Jews aspired to rise in government posts. This may be changing very drastically, just as previous other Jewish professional intentions have changed, especially since many Jews have turned to the sciences, to mathematics and physics and the new atomic explora- tions. There has been a change also in the previous trend among Jews to pursue teaching as a profession. The Negro-Jewish situation in New York even contributed towards an exodus from that field of endeavor and drew many Jews away from a labor of love: teaching. It has nearly destroyed a generation's devotion to the field of learning. Now we have the political problem, the question involving Jewish participation in government. If there is to be a turning away from it, it will be another deplorable occurrence. True: young Jews will find other avenues of pursuit, just as our non-Jewish neighbors fmd a way, jointly with us or whatever the trends may be in certain "ethnic" and other quarters, to become rooted in some calling or other. But that does not reduce the urgency of a situation outlined by the writer in the Orthodox Jewish Life Magazine. Nathan Lewin's theme deserves very serious study. Two 'Lean Years' TEL AVIV (JTA)—At least two "lean years" for the Israeli econ- omy was predicted by Joseph Sa- pir, the new trade and industry minister, in an address to the Is- rael Manufacturers Association. He declared also that the decline in Israel's dollar reserves "can- not be arrested immediately" but he added that Israel must be alert that "they do not drop below the safety line. Our aim must be to restore reserves to the safe level by 1972." He renewed a proposal which he made frequently in previous years that the government sell to private owners abroad some of its enterprises. He also indicated that the treasury would give more long-term loans from the development budget to industry. In a related development, the alignment committee on economics agreed that wage policies for the coming year will be decided by a group to be named by the commit- tee. Views on wage levels were reported to range from those of the Manufacturers Association whose members are willing to grant pay increases of around 5 per cent to those of the leftist Mapam, which is demanding in- creases ranging from 10 to 15 per cent. Officials said the issue must be decided by Thursday when the semi-annual consumers price index is published. The index is the basis for cost-of-living allowance adjust- ments now added to all salaries in Israel. The issue of retaining the automatic linkage is one of the problems which will be considered, the officials added. Meanwhile, the Central Bureau of Statistics reported that Israel's trade deficit increased during 1969 because of an excess demand over output. Internal demands for all purposes, including government outlays and investment rose by 14 per cent, offsetting a slight per capita edge of production over consumption. Private consumption per capita increased 9 per cent in 1969 while per capita output rose by 9.5 per cent. ADL Survey Finds 29 States Improved Civil Rights Laws NEW YORK (JTA)—A year-end survey by the Anti-Defamation League of Bnai Brith disclosed that 29 states adopted laws im- proving the protection of civil rights during 1969. The results of the survey were published in "Law," an ADL pub- lication. The number of states passing protective laws was down 13 since 1967, the last year in which nearly all legislatures met for general business. This was attributed to the fact that "most states in which one can realistically expect enactment of such laws have already taken action," the publication said. A majority of the laws passed in 1969 strengthened existing legisla- tion against discrimination. The survey found, however , that fair housing legislation still lags well behind existing enact- ments against other types of dis- crimination. Five states—Dela- ware, Idaho, Nebraska, New Mexico and Washington—passed fair housing laws in 1969 bring- ing the total up to 26 states. There are 37 states with laws against discrimination in employ- ment and 38 that have laws against discrimination in places of public accommodation. The report noted that Indiana, Minnesota and New York added to their fair housing laws last year a prohibition against "blockbust- ing." A similar law was enacted by Illinois which still has no fair housing law. Maine was reported to be the first state to pass a law dealing with discrimination by private clubs which hold state liquor licenses.