ing of hopelessness. They feel that their future is very murky indeed, and they have no confidence in it.

VIOLENCE WILL BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE

As I said a moment ago, I don't approve of their means because I think their violence will produce not the kind of reaction you are recommending but a counterrevolution. I think that is the reason why there is going to be a tendency toward a much more authoritarian repressive regime rather than the kind of solution which you are suggesting. This unfortunately is the way, I think, that the response will be. Do you agree with that?

Mr. CAVANAGH. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. I mentioned that; that that is the unfortunate part, as I view it, of what is going to happen, that we are going to have an increased amount of chaos and as a result we are going to see increased repression very possibly.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you seen a movie called “Z”?

Mr. CAVANAGH. I haven't seen it as yet, but I intend to see it though.

The CHAIRMAN. I saw it last week and it really is a chilling movie. This is along the lines of what you are discussing. The provocation of violence of students, Black Panthers or anyone else, is not only, of course, against the law and in every other way reprehensible, but saddest of all it is counterproductive. It will achieve the exact opposite, in my opinion, of what those people are seeking to achieve.

Mr. CAVANAGH. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. This is the most profound irony of all. In doing these things, which are against the law and which are in themselves harmful to the people concerned, not only to themselves but the victims, they promote the very opposite of what they profess to support. The way it seems to be moving inevitably along, is almost like a Greek tragedy. Isn't it?

SHOCK OF VIOLENCE IN DETROIT AND AT YALE UNIVERSITY

I was shocked about Detroit. I thought it the last place in the world that would be afflicted as it was because I thought it was the most affluent. The people were better paid; there were more highly paid workers; there were more of all the so-called good things of life available in Detroit than in nearly any other city in the world. I am not very well acquainted with Detroit. I know it mostly from hearsay and I think I have only been to Detroit once in my life. It is too big a city for me. It is hard for me to adjust to big cities, but I was shocked about it and now Yale

Mr. CAVANAGH. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN (continuing). Of all places. If there ever were fortunate or, what shall I say, favored or privileged undergraduates anywhere in the world, it would be at Yale. Wouldn't it? Do you know any place more so unless it is perhaps Princeton, N.J. Next to Princeton it would be Yale, wouldn't it?

Senator CASE. What about Arkansas?

The CHAIRMAN. You see, that is the difference. In Arkansas we have a relatively well-behaved community. The whole State is extraordinarily discriminating in their judgment of public matters. [Laughter.]

Senator CASE. I thought that was a peculiarity of New Jersey. The CHAIRMAN. We were talking about Yale when you came in. I didn't want you to feel I was not conscious of the dignity of Princeton. This is a shocking thing. It is very disturbing that this sort of thing happens, and that is comparable in this field to what happened in Detroit when you were mayor.

REASONS FOR RIOTS IN DETROIT AND NEW HAVEN

Mr. CAVANAGH. I think it is understandable when we think about it. When Detroit exploded, and then right on its heels New Haven, these were the two cities that many people referred to in the country as model cities is the area of race relations and sensitivity and per capita income and so on, but I think if we look back at history, rebellion, riot, revolution, whatever you might call it has generally sprung from at least those people that had their foot on the rung toward some higher aspirations or higher gains.

The CHAIRMAN. I thought yours were far above the first rung. I thought they were at the top of the ladder.

Mr. CAVANAGH. Well, I think many were, as you measure it, but I don't think our society was moving fast enough in the view of many people, and you find that most frequently in those areas or those communities in which gains had been made. But I think, as I frequently have said, all of the tired excuses that this country used when Watts exploded or Harlem, sort of went out the window, and I think cities like Detroit and New Haven and other cities that were supposed to have sensitive, sympathetic programs and some public officials that were supposed to be understanding of some of these things, and it really highlighted how little we have done in this country and how, in fact we have just been sort of nibbling at the periphery of all these problems and never really have attacked the root causes of them.

PROSPECTS FOR U.S. SOCIETY IN THE 1970'S

The CHAIRMAN. I have one or two other questions and then I will yield to the Senator from New Jersey. Since I have opened this up, there is an article by Dr. Philip Hauser, entitled "Whither Urban Society," which reads as follows. I will read a short excerpt for the record and ask for your comment, if any. It says:

In short, during the seventies, and, indeed, for some time beyond, the prospect is that our cities will grow blacker as our suburbs grow whiter; white racism will be increasingly met with black racism; the gap between the generations will increase; our political leaders, or more accurately, our politicians will continue to try to do business as usual as if America were unquestionably still a viable society; and social unrest will increase, not decrease. It is possible that during the seventies this nation may take a short cut to the resolution of increasing social unrest-by transforming America into a repressive society-one in which all dissent is suppressed and in which all the mass media will echo the sentiments

of those in power (so that even the current Vice President has no complaints on that score).

Would you think that is a reasonably accurate statement?

Mr. CAVANAGH. I know Dr. Hauser well. I was there when he made that address. It was before a convention, I think, of the National

League of Cities in San Diego, and certainly much of what I have said today, I think, echoes what Dr. Hauser has said and that is the reason why our society will be as he describes it during the seventies, because nothing of consequence really has happened or changed the conditions which gave rise to so many of those things during the sixties. So I would agree.

The CHAIRMAN. I end this current series. I will put that whole article in the record, Mr. Reporter, together with two other articles on this subject. I would also like to place in the record a letter from the president of the City Council of Philadelphia enclosing City Council Resolution No. 224 concerning Vietnam.

(The information referred to follows.)

CITIES IN THE SEVENTIES 46TH ANNUAL CONGRESS OF CITIES, DECEMBER 1-5,

1969, SAN DIEGO, CALIF.

WHITHER URBAN SOCIETY?

(by Dr. Philip M. Hauser)

Philip M. Hauser is Professor of Sociology and Director of the Population Research Center and Chicago Community Inventory at the University of Chicago. In the past, he has served as Chairman of the Department of Sociology at the University of Chicago; acting Director and Deputy Director of the U.S. Bureau of the Census; U.S. Representative to the Population Commission of the United Nations; Assistant to the Secretary of Commerce and Director of the office of Program Planning, U.S. Department of Commerce; and Statistical Advisor to the governments of the Union of Burma and Thailand. He is the author of numerous publications on population, housing, and urbanization.

The urban crisis will worsen during the 1970s and, short of major reordering of of national priorities and great increases in urban expenditures, will probably grow increasingly severe until the end of the century. This is likely to be true in respect of virtually all urban problems-physical, personal, social, economic, and governmental. There is as yet no indication that this nation will do very much to bring under control during the seventies the acute and chronic problems which plague our cities which threaten the viability of American society.

It may be anticipated, therefore, that during the seventies air and water pollution will continue to threaten health and life; housing supply and quality will remain inadequate; slums will continue to be centers of physical rot and social pathology; air and surface traffic will continue to congest urban areas and the commuters' crisis will not abate; urban design will continue to fall far short of meeting requirements; crime and delinquency will continue at high levels; organized crime will continue to thrive with virtually the same immunity it has enjoyed for half a century; drug addiction and alcoholism will continue to serve as avenues for escape for increasing numbers of people unable to cope; the revolt of youth will not only continue but, in all likelihood, will escalate at both extremes-the hippies who seek escape and the activists who seek confrontation; the revolt of the blacks will also escalate as the gap between what they desire and what they have continues to grow; the public schools will transform the United States into a case society stratified by race and economic status as they continue to fail to provide the poor and minority groups with adequate education; poverty will continue to remind this most affluent of all nations that it has grave systemic disorders; tax reform is likely to continue to be a promise rather than a reality; welfare provisions will continue to be inadequate and constitute a continuous source of irritation both to welfare recipients and to taxpayers; payments will still be made to massive agricultural enterprises for not growing crops; consumer protection will remain inadequate as “caveat

emptor" lingers as a relic of the past; the House of Representatives and the state legislatures will remain malapportioned through continued use of the gerrymander despite the "one-man one-vote" rule; the dead hand of the South will continue its reactionary grip on the Federal legislative process by reason of the combination of the one-party system and seniority rules; the "New Federalism" will demonstrate the continued disinterest of state governments in urban problems and demonstrate again that state governments are more adept, more calloused, more subject to special interest pressures and more corrupt than the Federal government; military expenditures will remain at astronomical levels and may continue to increase even if we manage to become disengaged from the Vietnam horror.

Perhaps closest to home to this audience is the prospect that the need for public services in cities will continue to increase and revenues will continue to be inadequate to the needs.

In short, during the seventies, and, indeed, for some time beyond, the prospect is that our cities will grow blacker as our suburbs grow whiter; white racism will be increasingly met with black racism; the gap between the generations will increase; our political leaders, or more accurately, our politicians will continue to try to do business as usual as if America were unquestionably still a viable society; and social unrest will increase, not decrease. It is possible that during the seventies this nation may take a short cut to the resolution of increasing social unrest by transforming America into a repressive society-one in which all dissent is suppressed and in which all the mass media will echo the sentiments of those in power (so that even the current Vice President has no complaints on that score).

The urban crisis which afflicts this nation is the product of the gap that exists between the 20th century technological and demographic world we have created and the 19th and prior century ideologies, values and institutions which we have inherited. The United States is the world's most dramatic example of four developments which have transformed this nation from an agrarian society to an urban and metropolitan order-from the "little community" to the "mass society." These developments are the population explosion, the population implosion, the population displosion and the accelerating tempo of technological change. The population explosion refers to the remarkable acceleration in the rate of population growth. The population implosion refers to the increasing concentration of people on relatively small portions of the earth's surface-better known as urbanization. The population displosion refers to the increasing diversity of peoples who share not only the same geographic area but, also, the same life space social, economic and political activities. The acceleration of technological change requires no elaboration in this age in which men have now twice walked on the moon.

These developments in this nation may be quickly summarized.

First, the population explosion in the United States: In 1790, we were a nation of fewer than 4 million souls. By 1960, the census showed our populatilon to be approximately 180 million. When the nineteenth census is taken next April, it will record a U.S. population of approximately 205 million. Despite our decreasing birth rate since 1957, a second postwar baby boom is just around the corner which almost certainly will contribute to a population in this nation of more than 300 million by the year 2000. That is, we stand to add another 100 million people to our population in the next 30 years. During the seventies, the U.S. is likely to add some 30 to 35 million persons to give a total population of 235 to 240 million by 1980.

That, in a nutshell, is the population explosion.

Second the population implosion in the United States: In 1790, when our first census was taken, 95 percent of the American people lived in rural areas, on farms, or in towns having fewer than 2,500 people. There were only 24 urban places in the whole country, and only two of them, New York and Philadelphia, had populations in excess of 25,000.

In order to understand the current urban crisis we must realize that the United States did not become an urban nation-in the sense that more than half of our people lived in urban places-until as recently as 1920. When the 1970 census is taken, it will record the completion of the first half century of this nation as an urban society, and half a century is a short time in the life of a nation. Small wonder, from the temporal perspective alone, that we are afflicted with an urban crisis.

In 1960, the U.S. population was 70 percent urban and 63 percent metropolitan. Short of an unpredictable event-with thermonuclear war, all bets are off-it is likely that all of the 100 million people we are almost certain to add to our population by the end of the century will go into our urban areas. It is possible that 80 percent of them will go into our metropolitan areas-places with 50,000 or more inhabitants and the counties in which they are located. I feel free to predict with considerable certainty that this additional 100 million will swamp us before we can even solve our present problems.

Third, the population displosion in the United States: We are one of the most polyglot nations on earth. We have drawn our people from every corner of the globe. As recently as 1900, only 51 percent of the American people were native whites of native parentage. The remaining 49 percent were either foreign born, the children of immigrant parents, or members of the black and other races. By 1960, 30 percent of the American people still were either foreign born, the children of immigrant parents, or members of the black and other races.

The population displosion hit hard in the United States. We are in the midst of a black revolution, and certain basic facts help us to understand why. Although blacks have been here for three and a half centuries, they were not able to enter the mainstream of American civilization-that is, urbanism-until as recently as World War II.

As recently as 1910, 89 percent of the blacks in this nation lived in the South. That concentration had come down only two or three percentage points from the census taken before the Civil War in 1860. Only during World War I, when a manpower shortage caused a bottleneck in war production, did the internal migratory movements of blacks begin from the South to the North. This was greatly accelerated during World War II. By 1960, the concentration of blacks in the South had diminished to 60 percent. By now it is somewhere between 50 and 60 percent and certainly will drop to about 50 percent during the course of of the coming decade.

Two other figures reveal why the black revolution is part of the urban crisis. In 1910, 73 percent of all blacks lived in rural places, on farms or in towns having fewer than 2,500 people. In the course of half a century's, less than one lifetime, the blacks in the United States have been transformed from 73 percent rural to 73 percent urban and are now more highly urbanized than the white population. To gain a quick insight into why we have the kinds of problems that confront this nation, consider that as recently as 1960, 23 percent of all black adults in the United States, those 25 years of age and over, were still functionally illiterate. They had not had the opportunity to achieve education beyond the fifth grade and were unable to read a newspaper with ease. This was their part of the American heritage. This was their preparation for life in metropolitan America.

This situation cannot be compared-as it often is-to that of white immigrants who came to this country possessing only a strong back and lacking education, skills, or an ability to speak the language. When the major waves of white immigrants arrived on our shores, this nation was in the beginning process of building its physical plant, its railroads, and its highways. At that time, with a strong back it was possible to make a living. Blacks migrated to urban America where, with nothing but a strong back-and that was their heritage and it is no longer possible to make a living.

That is the population displosion in the United States.

As has been indicated above, the urban crisis may be viewed as the result of the gap between our 20th century technological and demographic world and our 19th and prior century ideologies, forms of government and procedures. Our outmoded tenets, values and institutions are paralyzing us in our efforts to deal with our problems. Insight into this situation is afforded by a concept a former professor of mine at the University of Chicago, William F. Ogburn, a gentleman from Georgia, introduced into the literature-namely the concept of "cultural lag." Professor Ogburn perceived that the different elements in our society and culture change at different rates so that some things "lag" behind others.

Let us consider first some concrete examples of cultural lag. Let us take as our first example the right to bear arms. The Constitution of the United States, drafted in an agrarian society, has many aspects which are as outmoded as the horse and buggy. For example, the Constitution provided that every citizen had the right to bear arms. This made considerable sense in 1790. Guns were necessary for protecting families from dangers of a frontier society and for getting a food supply. A gun also was a way to increase realty holdings, if there were Indians