Finally, I am sure, some one will remark that I have left out entirely the racial organizations which abound in any immigrant community, and the foreignlanguage press. About this latter I will say nothing, except to hope that at some time during these meetings we may hear something about the work of the Foreign Language Information Service, which, in my estimation, constitutes the most effective single use of this medium that we have, and to point out that in New York City neither the social agencies nor other community institutions are using it to reach their constituency to anywhere near the extent that they might if they understood its peculiarities or the various special methods of getting publicity in it.

The subject of the most effective utilization of, and cooperation with, racial organizations is such a large one that I am almost tempted to say nothing about it at all. The general principle that these societies contribute the most natural pathway for the immigrant to travel in his gradual adjustment to America is sound. On the other hand, most racial societies are in no sense organized concretely with the purpose of helping the immigrant in his personal adjustments. In some the result, at least, is quite the contrary. All too often the leadership which rises to the top in the organization of the racial groups is not at all the sort of sincere and socially minded leadership which is essential from the point of view from which I am speaking.

Any community program must, however, in its direction and in the formulation of its policies, include full representation and participation by its important racial group. Any program which does not, not only smacks of paternalism, but fails in appreciation of the whole spirit and point of view which is essential to success. Cooperation between native-born and foreign-born must be at the forefront of any community policy—and this can only come with the public recognition of joint responsibility.

But it never does to forget that effective cooperation is a very practical matter, and that the task of working with any one of the numerous racial societies in a community is in essence the same kind of task as that of working with an organized group anywhere. The less talk there is about cooperation as such-the more effort to discuss practical and concrete activities which both the racial organization and the community organization can do together, and then do them as effectively as possible—the more cooperation will there be, and the more vital the end toward which joint action is directed, the more fundamental the cooperation. Participation in a Fourth of July celebration or memorial exercises of a sort is good, but hardly fundamental. On the other hand, to establish, either within or without the public schools, classes in Italian for Italian children might well bring about the keenest sort of natural cooperative relation with the Italian group. And it cannot be too strongly emphasized that mere paper cooperation is useless. Programs, leadership, thorough knowledge of both the group and the problem in hand-all of the things which make for sound cooperative activity in any field are even more essential here.

In no field of social or educational work do we find more basic difficulties than in this broad field of work with immigrants. The individuals and institutions in the community who are concerned with it go back not only to widely different, but frequently definitely antagonistic, religious, racial, and economic roots. The opportunities for prejudice and bias to dominate or entirely negate a constructive program in any community are enormous. The human problems are vast. Both the sentimentalist and the unscrupulous can make out of them a colorful appeal which may grip the imagination and be equally destructive to permanent accomplishment. The crying need is for standards of work and measurement, for methods which will stand the test of experimentation, for objectives and ends which are sufficiently definite to make realization practical and observable. It is a field which needs, in short, the acid tests of modern social work, and it is, I am optimistic enough to believe, beginning to get it.

THE IMMIGRANT IN INDUSTRY

Samuel Levin, Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers
of America, Chicago

A realistic estimate of the rôle the immigrant plays in industry is not possible unless we establish the exact status of the immigrant in American industry. It may feed our sentimental and emotional parts to go on speaking about the immigrant as an incidental element in American industry and therefore deserving of special care. Unfortunately, facts have a capacity for disregarding emotions and intention.

From 1820 to 1924, in the course of a century, 35,344,703 people came into the United States. In 1820 the total population of the United States was about ten million. Today it is 113,000,000. The increase in population in the course of the century was very largely the result of immigration. One must remember that immigration almost exclusively consists of adults. We see that what we consider the people of the United States are really foreigners, by and large. The original Yankee seems to be an imported product, made "somewhere in Europe."

In the last twenty-four years, from 1901 to 1924, nearly 17,000,000 people came to the United States. All these people, after they left Ellis Island or other ports, landed in industry. American industry is manned very largely by immigrants.

The United States Census for 1920 shows the following percentage of workers foreign-born or of foreign or mixed parentage in the leading industries and manufactures: in all manufacturing and mechanical industries, 50.9 per cent; in iron and steel, 56.7 per cent; in other metals, 65.3 per cent; in textiles, 59.1 per cent; in clothing, 69.1 per cent; in cigar and tobacco, 51.3 per cent; in chemical and allied industries, 51.6 per cent; in food, 50.1 per cent; in coal mining, 50.6 per cent; in iron mining, 76.4 per cent.

The immigrants constitute the larger half of wage-earning Americans. This is the case in the most important industries. To speak of immigrants in industry, therefore, really amounts to speaking of workers in industry, so that my problem of analyzing the what-to-do's and how-to-do's with reference to the industrial workers of foreign origin becomes in essence a problem of discussing the industrial worker generally. To be sure, there is still almost one-half of the total number of industrial workers who are natives. But this does not change matters. The immigrants and the natives constitute about equal parts of the category which we call "worker," and no policy calculated to take care of one particular half of the working population is likely to prove anything but fallacious. The totality of the working force in industry must be considered. They are neither Americans nor immigrants. They are working people.

If we, then, substitute the worker for the immigrant, our problem at large really amounts to a problem concerning itself about the status of the worker in industry, the worker who is largely either a foreigner or of foreign or mixed parentage or a native. My personal experience with workers has been almost exclusively with foreigners. But I fail to see that problems of industry change their nature because confronted with workers born elsewhere, outside of the United States. If you meet the problem of the worker in industry successfully you have met also the problem of the immigrant in industry.

What is the problem of the worker in industry from the larger viewpoint of industry as a part of the total of national economy? It is the status of the worker in industry, his relationship to his job, his feeling of citizenship or of subjection in the industry he is engaged in. The open-shop drivers may consider themselves first-rate Americans, and it is possible that a number of them will trace their ancestry way back to the Mayflower. If Americanism should really imply what it ought to, namely, a policy of serving the interests of the nation as a whole and industry, which is the backbone of a nation, then open-shoppism is the most un-American procedure.

We are concerned about industrial development, industrial efficiency, the elimination of waste, and managerial incompetence. A management well supplied with cheap labor is the kind of management you will always find lacking in foresight, in constructiveness, and in ability to forge ahead. When labor is well paid and working under conditions of healthy normalcy, management is bound to turn to mechanical improvement, to improvement of salesmanship and marketing methods. A non-organized industry is a backward industry. A well-organized industry is an industry with an eye to the last device of scientific management.

We speak of promoting a higher citizenship, and we turn to the immigrant as the object of our special cares, but we find many backward groups in the population of the United States who are not of the highest quality of citizenship, but they are natives. They are not organized. They are what the heart of the open-shopper desires.

The clothing industry is an immigrant-manned industry. Will anybody question the veracity of my statement that our working people have shown the utmost care for the welfare of the industry? The workers of the clothing industry practically eliminated sweat shops and the contracting evil. They have not only created this industry in the United States, but have brought it to the front of American industrial progress.

This is not a matter of displaying a preference for the foreign worker, not an immigrant-superiority complex. I merely wish to emphasize the fact that the origin of the worker has got little to do with the solution of the status of the worker in industry. The status of the worker in industry, not his grandfather, ought to be our prime concern.

If you ask me, as manager of a large labor union and as one who has had considerable experience with industry, both from the angle of the worker and of industry as a whole, what is the most important point to be considered in a study of personnel, management, and human relations in the industry, I should answer: unless industry abandons old traditions and habits of feudalism and paternalism, unless industry becomes a truly democratic republic, healthy growth will be retarded.

Labor unions have been concerning themselves with questions of hours and wages only. Few of them care to bother about management. Only a few unions have expressed a desire to take a responsible part in the solution of the general problems that come before industry. Management, obsessed with feudalistic traditions, resists the inevitable shift in that direction. Of course, industry has prospered none the less. But if you study the rate of progress made by specific industries, you find that the way of industrial progress is becoming an ever increasingly difficult uphill journey. In a world of keen competition, national and international, no industry can survive which will not take cognizance of the necessity of cooperation. The condition of separation between owners and producers and the divorce between the producing and the managing end exclude a healthy, harmonious relationship which is the foundation of all family building, the industrial family included.

Labor unions, not company unions-free, unhampered, and enlightened labor unions-must have open sway if we wish to assure the industrial progress to which our country, with its rich resources and keen and alert industrial working force, is justly entitled.

Miss Julia Lathrop, formerly of the children's bureau of the Department of Labor, in a recent speech, said:

There are 5,500,000 illiterates in the United States. Fifty-eight per cent are white, and 28 per cent are native-born. If we continue to reduce illiteracy at the same ratio attained between 1910 and 1920, it will take forty years to eliminate it. Foreign-born parents have reduced illiteracy among their children to eight-tenths of 1 per cent. If we reduce illiteracy among our children at the same rate attained between 1910 and 1920, it will take us thirty years to reduce it as low as already attained by foreign-born parents.

XI. PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS AND EDUCATION

IS SOCIAL WORK PROFESSIONAL? A RE-EXAMINATION
OF THE QUESTION

William Hodson, President, American Association
of Social Workers, New York

At the Baltimore Conference, in 1915, Abraham Flexner presented a paper which answered the question, “Is Social Work a Profession?" in the negative. Not an arbitrary and final negative, but a tentative one based upon his conception of the state of social work at that time and with recognition of the possibility, perhaps the probability, of an emerging professional status. Ten years have elapsed since this interesting discussion took place, and the question naturally arises whether the trend of events in social work during the interval tends to modify Mr. Flexner's premises or conclusions. It is quite true that a decade is a brief span in the history of any human institution, and certainly no ten-year period in the development of the recognized professions would definitely mark the emergence of any of them from inchoate content and service to professional grade. In each instance there has been a long, slow growth, as would be expected when that growth was dependent upon the advancement of the sciences themselves.

Mr. Flexner suggests seven tests of professional status, which he states somewhat as follows:

First, the service of one engaged in a profession must be of an intellectual character rather than routine physical acts. The use of the brain, rather than the well-trained hand, to secure the desired results is essential. But along with mental effort must go a wholly personal and individual responsibility for achieving those results. The physician must not only know the scientific principles which concern the diagnosis and treatment of disease; he must exercise his judgment in applying those principles to the patient before him. The conduct of the case is his responsibility, and he will he held to account for the manner in which that exclusive duty is discharged.

Second, the raw materials of a profession are drawn from science and learning. The laboratory, the seminar, the textbook and other forms of specialized literature supply the content for the practice of law, medicine, or the ministry.

Third, this material must be mastered and applied to produce definite and practical results. The task of the professional man is concrete and clearly defined; he deals with the sick or those seeking to establish their legal rights, or he ministers to the spiritual needs of his congregation.