CHANGING MORALITY: THE TWO AMERICAS A TIME-Louis Harris Poll

IN 1969, Americans are more concerned than ever before about the problems of morals and ethics. The concern ranges over the whole spectrum of society, from student violence and changing sex habits to venality among public officials and conflicts of interest in the business world. In his latest survey for TIME, Louis Harris has undertaken a study of moral attitudes among Americans in an effort to illuminate the changing U.S. moral climate. The results produce ample evidence that, despite considerable indignation at what they believe to be unjust, Americans in general are far more permissive about morals than they were only a few years ago.

Harris finds three catalysts for the "chemistry of change" that has affected the U.S. moral climate. Americans--especially black Americans--are increasingly alienated from traditional values and systems. At the same time, more people have come to share a greater compassion for the problems of others. Finally, affluence, a more mobile society and higher educational levels have combined to create an openness toward moral experimentation that, as Harris notes, has "never before been dreamed of in any society in the world's history."

This change in morality is most prominently approved by those in the upper reaches of achievement: professional men and women, the college-educated, the prosperous citizens of suburbia. They are joined by young people under 30 and, in many instances, by the blacks. The moral conservatives, those who still cling tightly to the old verities, are mainly to be found among those over 50 and in the lower-income, less-educated sectors, especially in small towns. In the matter of morality, there are virtually two Americas.

Men and women, young and old, professionals and laborers, whites and blacks, Christians and Jews, all agree by lopsided majorities that morality in the U.S. has declined over the past ten years. Nationwide, 67% of Harris' sampling of 1,600 representative Americans take that view, while only 11% believe that mora1 standards have risen. Those who feel that morality has improved point to increased concern for racial and social justice and to widespread revulsion against the war in Viet Nam. The majority that finds a decline in standards attributes the trend more than anything else to increased emphasis on sex, crime and violence in newspapers, magazines, books, TV and films. Another often cited cause is that "people are more materialistic."

sb

"Perhaps the most dramatic evidence in the entire poll on how rapidly American morality is changing," says the survey, "is the rise--and the admission of that rise--in what would surely have been considered highly serious moral infractions only a short time ago." The number of people who say that they know someone who commits adultery has risen from 24% to 36% since 1964; 15% now--v. 10% then--virtually admit to instances of adultery in their own family. In other areas, 13% know someone whose child uses marijuana, 59% know someone who drinks too much, 22% know someone who gambles too much, and 11%--or one out of every nine Americans--know someone who is a homosexual. In each instance, that "someone" is frequently a member of the respondent's own family; of the 55% who said that they knew someone with marital troubles, more than half also replied that the party involved was "close to me."

When it comes to judging themselves rather than others, substantial minorities of Americans admit to committing either illegal or immoral acts, many of which they tend to take for granted. For instance, 30% nationwide admit to having cheated on an examination; 19% admit to having taken advantage of a cashier's error (32% of the young); 16% say that they have taken an employer's supplies or equipment without his permission; 13% have ignored parking tickets (20% of the college-educated); 12% have walked out of a store with something they didn't pay for (23% of the young); and 10% have failed to return borrowed library books (18% of the young).

One striking finding is that most Americans regard the violation of traditional morality as a lesser wrong than the attempt to disguise such violation with hypocrisy. The survey confirmed this indictment by posing situations in which respondents had to pass comparative judgment on various types of miscreants, "respectable" and otherwise. Common criminals, militants and the sexually promiscuous almost always came out better across the entire Harris sample than the prototypical Establishment figure who violates a trust. Examples:

> A politician who takes bribes is worse than an adulterer (54% to 32%).

> A manufacturer of unsafe automobiles is worse than a mugger (68% to 22%).

> A policeman who takes money from a prostitute is worse than the prostitute (81% to 8%).

> A white grocer who sells bad meat to a Negro customer is worse than a Negro rioter (63% to 22%).

> A psychiatrist who improperly commits an old person to a mental hospital is worse than a draft dodger who fakes a physical defect (65% to 20%).

> A prosecutor who railroads an innocent man is worse than an armed robber (78% to 10%).

> A doctor who refuses a house call to someone who is seriously ill is worse than a homosexual (71% to 18%).

> A businessman who illegally fixes prices is worse than a burglar (54% to 28%).

> A landlord who will not repair a firetrap is worse than a campus demonstrator (65% to 23%).

> A rich man who uses loopholes to pay little or no income tax is worse than a welfare chiseler (60% to 22%).

These answers suggest that the widely bruited public antipathy to nonconformists has been exaggerated. Says Harris: "Analysis of this list leaves little doubt that immoral acts committed by Establishment figures are viewed as much worse, by and large, than anti-Establishment figures who have caused all the recent flurries of public indignation. The results strongly suggest that the central theme of the young in protest against hypocrisy and double standards has more going for it in terms of potential public support than might have previously been imagined."

sb

Americans still readily invoke the conventional catalogue of moral precepts: 93% rate the Golden Rule as very important, and a large majority say that they turn to it for guidance when confronted with a moral dilemma. The statement that "nothing is more important than family love and respect" draws the approval of 90%, and "hard work pays off" has the assent of 79%. Similarly, 77% say that they turn for moral guidance to the values their parents taught them, and 73% look to "the religious rules I was raised on."

Still, individualism has not lost its hold on the American psyche. In a moral crisis, most people say that they depend on their conscience to be their guide rather than on any external authority. Among whites, 45% believe that a man should depend on himself and not ask for favors; 53% of blacks agree. Yet 66% of the blacks questioned by Harris' interviewers contended that '"it helps to know people" in getting ahead, while only 33% of the whites thought so. Again, "If you don't look out for yourself, nobody else will" is a statement accepted by 75% of the Negroes but only by 47% of the whites. Increasingly, following one's own bent openly and unapologetically has become a criterion of moral conduct.

As Harris observes, one mark of alienation is to doubt the conventional values of established morality, and many in the poll considered certain acts justified that have been overwhelmingly considered immoral in the past, Of those surveyed, 30% believe that the use of physical violence is justified in certain circumstances; that figure is 38% among those under 30 and 35% among white-collar workers. Overall, 29% also feel that unjust laws may be ignored, a figure that rises to 39% among those under 30 and to 38% among professional people, Divorce is sanctioned by 72% (84% among professionals), telling lies in certain circumstances by 59%, suicide by 12%, and ignoring a victim's cry for help--presumably to avoid the dangers of involvement--by 22%. On the other hand, Americans continue to favor capital punishment, 48% to 38%; the figure is 58% among men but falls to 40% among women.

The signs of changing morality are clearest when it comes to sex. By no means do a majority endorse a sexual revolution: 76% want pornography outlawed, and 72% believe that erotica robs sexual relations of beauty. Overwhelmingly, 66% to 5%, Americans think that sexual morality is more lax than ever, and they again pinpoint the news media as the principal reason. On the other hand, 16% think that Americans are not really more promiscuous but just talk a lot more about sex. Says Naomi Brock, a South Gate, Calif, housewife: "I suppose it's always been about the same. But it seems more open now, and taken for granted."

Nonetheless, substantial minorities --in some cases even majorities--hold views that reveal significant shifts in traditional attitudes toward sex. Again, it is the young, the bettereducated, the relatively affluent who reflect the most liberal views. One surprising fact is Harris' finding that 64% believe that abortions should not be a matter of law but should be left to the prospective parents and their doctor; even a 60% majority of Roman Catholics agree. Other results:

> 31% disagree with the idea that "the use of four-letter words makes sex dirty" (the figures rise to 42% of the under-30 group, 45% of the college-educated, 41% of those earning $10,000 and over, 46% of professionals),

>30% find nothing wrong with homosexual acts between consenting adults.

> 32% say that it is not immoral to show a nude in a movie,

>48% think that unmarried women have as much right to sexual fulfillment as unmarried men. Women remain more attached to the double standard than men. While 59% of the men interviewed thought that unmarried women should be as free sexually as bachelors, only 38% of the women agreed,

>38% do not consider women who use four-letter words to be immoral

> 54% say they believe that "frankness over sex is helping people to get over their inhibitions,"

In order to test people's response to a concrete situation involving sexual morality, the Harris interviewers put this hypothetical question; "Suppose you had a 20-year-old daughter who came home from college and told you that she had fallen in love with a young man and had sexual relations with him but isn't sure she wants to marry him. What would you do?" Only 2% would take the drastic action of disowning her. A huge majority, 90%, would talk it over with her at length and urge her to discontinue the sexual activity; 61% would "tell her how to protect herself in such a situation again." Still, a sign of how the old morality persists in the midst of change was the finding that 36% would insist that the girl marry the young man --if he was of good character.

Then the interviewers repeated the question, switching it to cover a 20-yearold son who is in love and sleeping with a girl. The responses were nearly identical, which indicates that most American parents are now willing to concede girls as much sexual freedom as boys. "The impact of the pill has been decisive indeed," Harris notes. He adds: "There is little doubt that America has come a long way toward both recognizing sexual practices in something less than forbidden terms and in acknowledging the growing liberality of sex behavior, especially among the young,"

If the U.S. has moved toward a new permissiveness in sex, however, no such tolerance has developed toward the use of drugs. Only those under 30 indicate any desire to legalize marijuana; otherwise, the denunciation of pot is overwhelming. In fact, 90% associate drug use with "moral corruption and decay"; 85% believe that smoking marijuana leads to use of stronger drugs; 74% believe it morally wrong; and 67% think it worse than drinking liquor.

Again, Harris' interviewers framed hypothetical situations. For example: "If you were a parent and had a son who came home from the Army and smoked marijuana, would you report him to the police or not?" By 42% to 40%, the answer was yes. On the other hand, in many categories there were big majorities against turning in the son: suburban residents, the under-30s, the college-educated, professional people, those earning over $10,000, westerners and Jews. Curiously, blacks would turn the son over to the police by a bigger margin than whites--42% to 38%, v. 42% to 41%, Those who would not turn in the son said that they would send him to a doctor or psychiatrist, or help him break the habit themselves.

Another question was posed: "What would you do if a son came home from the Army, bringing a supply of marijuana that he sold to his friends for $5,000 profit?" This hypothetical situation evoked a much sterner response: 73% would report him to the police, and only 14% would not. The answer of Leo Adams, a retired electrician of Rittman, Ohio, was representative: "If he smoked it himself, he's only hurting himself. This way he might give the habit to a lot of others--maybe even another son, if I had two."

Taking these mutations of American morality into consideration, Harris concludes that the TIME-Harris poll exposes a huge gulf between the old verities and life as it is actually lived by the American people today. Indeed, from the facts themselves, it is fair to conclude that the poll has captured a detailed portrait of American moral standards in a period of drastic change. That portrait is neither ugly nor entirely flattering, but it does show in bold relief the Janus-like face of a nation that is anxiously establishing new standards of morality while remaining reluctant to abandon completely the values of its forebears.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.