recruitment area." In practice this means, for example, at the start of the 19731974 school year (employment period August-December 1973), that the white male faculty had increased by 214 persons while the combined female and minority category had registered an increase of 238, i.e. more than one preferred category person hired for every candidate from the category of "others.”

At the University of Michigan, the Affirmative Action plan invoked in the fall of 1973 provided that in all employment categories 777 new positions projected for the coming three year period should be filled by 698 additional minority members and 105 non-minority women for a net loss of 26 non-minority men. No matter how flexibly one interprets these goals, the stated targets are a reduction in non-minority employment (-26) compared to a colossal increase (803) in the preferred categories. In the case of new academic personnel, the projected three year increments are +101 for minorities, +54 for non-minority women and +61 for non-minority men-a total of +216 new openings. This should be compared with an additional position activity of 290 covering attrition and turnover, for which "the University will continue to hire large numbers of non-minority men as well as women and minorities over three years." (University Record, October 8, 1973.)

It is worth noting that these and many other goal-timetable projections in this one inch thick Affirmative Action Document (for which according to President Flemming the "cost of compiling the information would astound members of this commmittee," -testimony of August 12, 1974), have been compiled despite the cautionary warning in another part of this astonishingly expensive document that:

"Both limited availability and keen competition for minorities makes it highly improbable that this percentage can be realized. In the current market minorities do not constitute one in five applicants for institutional positions."

Thus, it is clear that the yearly goals grossly exceed the proportions of minorities and women on the labor market, in programs not only approved by HEW, but extracted (as at Michigan) after long and arduous negotiations. This, despite assertions by HEW officials that the goals are merely supposed to reflect, in each year's new hires, the existing availability proportions.

Commitments to goals of the type listed above lead inevitably to consequences of a most deplorable nature. Discriminatory actions of the type most of us thought had been pushed into the disrespected underground of human consciousness, emerged suddenly with ugliness and vigor. In order to fulfill the required goals within a stated period of time, and, in the words of Columbia's President McGill, to "get the government off our back," departmental chairmen and other administrators began to write and mail announcements and letters like this:

Dear Mr. Pittman: The recommendation for your appointment to the Department of Psychology at Prince George's Community College was disapproved by the Board of Trustees on August 15, 1972. The basis for disapproval was primarily that the position presently vacant in that department requires certain qualifications regarding the overall profile of the institution and department as well as educational qualifications of the individual involved.

The disapproval in no way reflects upon your professional preparation or specific background in the area of Clinical Psychology. The decision was based primarily on the needs of the department in accord with its profile and qualifications.

Sincerely,

ELMER J. KUHN, Dean.

Similar was the experience of Richard J. Larschan, a prospective teacher of English who looked for a job at Connecticut College in New London:

"It is quite true that we have an opening here and that I have examined your dossier. It is very impressive indeed, and I wish I could invite you to come for an interview. At present, however, the department is interested in the appointment of a woman so we are concentrating on interviews of this kind.

"I appreciate very much your interest in the College, and I know that with your excellent qualifications you will find a position of your choice. Naturally, I shall keep you in mind should any changes occur.

"Best wishes to you for success." Sincerely yours,

G. J. WILLAUER, Jr., Chairman.

Likewise, the chairman of the Sociology Department of a university in Florida wrote to a prospective appointee in February of 1972:

"Since I last corresponded with you regarding the possibility of a position in this Department, decisions have been made by the top administration of the University that have created some awkwardness in our recruiting efforts.

"The decision I refer to is that all unfilled positions in the University must be filled by black or females. Since I have no information regarding your racial identification, it will only be possible to consider you for a position in the event that you are black.

"I might add that we have received letters from your references and have been enthusiastic about your candidacy."

Sometimes, the applicant didn't have to bother. On April 18, 1972 a Sonoma State College Administrator wrote to a placement officer at Berkeley:

"I was intrigued by the description you gave of Mr. Michael Goldberg and very much appreciate your efforts on his behalf. Your letter says much about you as well as about him.

"Mr. Goldberg has not contacted me and I fear that were he to do so we would have no more than a pleasant conversation, for we are pledged to the affirmative action policy in our hiring this year."

Similar restrictive announcements are coming from all kinds of colleges, big and small, East and West:

"Sacramento State College is currently engaged in an affirmative Action Program, the goal of which is to recruit, hire, and promote ethnic and women candidates until they comprise the same proportion of our faculty as they do of the general population."

"The Department of Philosophy at the University of Washington is seeking qualified women and minority candidates for faculty position at all levels beginning Fall Quarter 1973

"All of the California State Colleges have been requested to implement a program of active recruitment of qualified faculty of minority background, especially Negro and Mexican-American.

"Since I am unable to determine this type of information from the resumes you have sent me, I should very much appreciate it if you could indicate which of your 1972 candidates are either Negro or Mexican-American."

"Your prompt response to my letter of May 12 with four candidates, all of whom seem qualified for our vacancy, is greatly appreciated. Since there is no indication that any of them belongs to one of the minority groups listed, I will be unable to contact them at present. My instructions are to exhaust every opportunity for recruiting a qualified person from among a minority group, including women. If this attempt is fully documented, I will then be given permission to seek the best qualified person available regardless of race, color, or creed which has always been our practice in the past. If I get this 'green light,' I would certainly be interested in two of your candidates and would contact them to see if they were still available."

Particularly heartbreaking, has been the case of Martin S. Goldman, a native of Philadelphia whom this body may have an opportunity to hear first hand. Having worked in predominantly black schools, he learned about deficiencies in existing curricula. Like many others of his generation, he proceeded to translate his understanding into action. Faced with a choice of possible specialties, he put heavy emphasis on courses in black history. His intent was to teach at some college or university, and his first experiences looked promising.

In April of 1971, the University of Michigan, Dearborn Campus invited him out for an interview for a position in Afro-American and urban history. He flew out to Dearborn and after giving a paper was offered a one-year half-time appointment on the spot by the Dean of Liberal Arts and the Chairman of the Department. He told them that he had not yet begun research on his thesis and would very much appreciate it if they would hold the offer open for the following year. (He had only passed his Ph.D. orals the day before the interview.) They said they would try, but of course could make no promises. The next year he received a note telling him how impressed they were and that he was still the top candidate for the spot. In the spring of 1972, the Chairman called and said that because of budget problems no position was funded but that Mr. Goldman would be considered for that year. A call to the Chairman, Dr. Donald Proctor, broke the news, however, that a new dean had been installed and that he had passed down the word to hire blacks. Though still very impressed with Goldman's

3.

work, said Proctor, the department would have to follow the dean's orders-a bitter disappointment for someone whose hopes had been kept high for almost two years.

Little did Mr. Goldman know at the time that this refusal was only a beginning. Over the ensuing years, he tried unsuccessfully to knock on the door of more than 100 U.S. universities and colleges of every size and in every geographic area, only to find them shut tight. Like many other young persons who selected the same scholarly area, he was subjected to every type of discriminatory treatment that may be found in the book. After many unsuccessful years of search, Mr. Goldman has given up on finding a teaching job. Donald Avery, also specializing in the Afro-American aspects of American history, was finally lucky and landed satisfactory teaching job. Not so fortunate was Paul Lammermeier who had to settle for a job of short-order cook in a pancake house in Mentor, Ohio.

Of a more recent vintage is the rejection letter received by Dr. Arthur Nisbet from the University of North Carolina at Asheville. It is dated June 2 of this year and reads in part:

"It is with considerable regret that I have to let you know that we are not offering you the position in our department. As you know, there is considerable pressure from HEW to hire members of minority groups. We have offered the place to Mrs. Grams, the one who was here just a few days before you arrived. "We all felt that, of all the candidates we had checked into, you and Mrs. Grams were at the top of the list. You have had more experience in teaching and already have your doctoral degree in hand. Her teaching is rather limited, and she will not get her degree until sometime this fall. Yet, under the circumstances, it was thought wise to offer her the position".

Thus Affirmative Action regulations of the Federal Government have rekindled massive discrimination, officially approved. This was belatedly recognized even by HEW officials themselves, as can be seen from an interview given by HEW's "ombudsman," Samuel Solomon, on April 30, 1973. According to published reports, he said he had compeleted investigations of 12 complaints (out of more than 70 filed) and had found evidence of reverse discrimination in each. In addition, he is quoted as saying, "I've been out on the campus trail in recent weeks and I'm getting the impression that most institutions are engaging in some form of discrimination against white males." Some schools, he said, were employing "ill-advised recruiting devices." In advertising faculty or staff jobs they identified them as "affirmative action positions," which, accordng to Solomon, "has become a code phrase for minorities or women only." Solomon said one institution he investigated had a formula of hiring one woman or minority applicant for every three white males. Another paid minority faculty members more money than whites who had the same ability and experience. The New York Post, commenting on Solomon's statements, said:

"Many of America's colleges and universities are engaging in 'reverse discrimination,' favoring women and minority candidates for faculty and staff jobs over equally qualified or better qualified white males."

The present situation seems quite bleak. Particulary revealing is a study covering the field of Sociology which was carried out by Dr. Edgar Borgatta, distinguished professor of Queens College, City University of New York. He polled chairmen and male and female members of department of Sociology all over the country with results which cannot be simply set aside. The first question,

"... During the last three years, have you (has your department) receive any communication from your administration to the effect that positions would be made available (added, replaced or not deleted in the budget) if an acceptable candidate from a minority group could be found?"

Elicited a "yes" reply from 37% of chairmen, 39% of female staff and 35% of male staff. The second question read:

"During the last three years, has any candidate been sought out preferentially (non-competitively) because of sex, race, national origin, or other arbitrary characteristics (assuming, of course, the person was presumed to have acceptable qualifications as a sociologist)?"

It would seem clear that an answer of "yes" to this question would be a candid statement of attempted preferential hiring. 40% of polled chairmen answered in the affirmative, and so did 42% of their female and 47% of their male staff. The third question was quite straightforward:

"... During the last three years, have you (has your department) received any communication from your administration, formally, to seek out and give preference to candidates of minority groups in filling positions, i.e., not treat one or more of the positions as open to all comers on a competitive basis?"

23 percent of the chairmen answered "yes" with 24 percent and 38 percent being the respective numbers for female and male. Next inquiry was about other institutions:

"During the last three years, have you (or has the staff member in charge of answering requests about your students and faculty who are entering the market) received any requests which explicitly or implicitly indicate that preference in filling a position will be given (noncompetitively) to a person of minority group status?"

The "yes" anwers were 57 percent, 26 percent, and 38 percent for the respective categories. The chairmen's answers should be considered more reliable since they are mostly recipients of the requests in question. Finally, Dr. Borgatta asked:

"In your opinion, which of the statements below represents the interpretation of Affirmative Action on your campus according to actual procedures (and the explicit or implicit support of your administration)?

"1. Affirmative Action requires special attention to finding some minority group candidates, with the objective of preferentially hiring them if the (minimum acceptable) standard of the department of the school can be satisfied.

"2. Affirmative Action requires special attention to finding minority group members in the recruitment process so that they can be evaluated with other candidates, but preference in selection is to be given to some minority group members among candidates who are acceptable to the department and school if this is the only way to add minority group members to the department.

"3. Affirmative Action requires that attention be given to locating all possible candidates for a position, including those of minority group status, but once the inclusive recruitment base is established only the factors related to academic potential and excellence are to be used."

The first alternative answer was indicated by 15 percent of the chairmen, 13 percent of female staff and 27 percent of male staff. Respective numbers for the second alternative were 23 percent, 42 percent, and 32 percent; i.e., 38 percent of chairmen, 55 percent of female staff, and 56 percent of male staff believe that Affirmative Action means some kind of preferential, i.e., discriminatory treatment. Thus, in the same issue of ASA Footnotes (December 1973) in which another author bitterly complained about essentially nil results of Affirmative Action in the field of Sociology, Dr. Borgatta could not escape the conclusion that:

"In summary, with whatever limitations this abbreviated research may have, it is doubtful that any conclusion can be reached other than that in a large proportion of academic institutions Affirmative Action has meant giving preference to women and minorities, and, in the words of Bernice Sandler, violating the very laws and regulations they are seeking to observe. In corroboration of the findings of this study, another report recently appeared with findings that 35 percent of responding chairmen from a broader sample of institutions indicated that their departments had formally determined a priority list for the hiring of women and minorities (Lorch 1973)"

Book length studies of affirmative action have discussed extensively the staggering yet unneeded financial burden on institutions of higher learning precisely at a time when such funds spent on education could have improved the educational and employment prospects for precisely those categories of persons in need of help. Likewise, they discuss the heavy bureaucratization of the process of higher education as a result of federal interference. Not so long ago, during an impromptu comment made at the New School for Social Research, W. Theodore DeBary, Vice President for Academic Affairs at Columbia University, highlighted as significant success of his negotiations with HEW officials the fending off of a "parallel affirmative action bureaucracy" initially demanded by HEW. Other institutions were not that lucky. Presently, the situation has "advanced" to the point where affirmative action officers converge in Washington to receive from pertinent officials the update on constantly evolving maze of rules.1

1 Recently after publicizing his "Letter to College and University Presidents." Mr. Peter Holmes, Director of OCR, assured the meeting of the National Association of Affirmative Action officers that his memorandum is "not intended and does not have the effect of changing one iota of either the legal requirement or the policy of the Executive Order" (of course as interpreted in Order No. 4).

No one likes to be pushed around, and if this happens, most of us do not like to have such humiliation publicly exposed. School officials are no exception to this rule. Thus it is often difficult to obtain evidence about the self-righteous, abrupt, preachy and even arrogant behavior of government officials towards college administrators under duress. CANI succeeded in piecing together some illuminating instances of this kind.

For example, New Mexico State University was one among several public institutions which promulgated with pride, back in 1970 and 1971, their Equal Employment or Affirmative Action programs. This was followed by successive compliance review visits by officials from the Dallas Regional Office for Civil Rights of the HEW. Things went from bad to worse until in the Fall of 1972, President of the University, Gerald W. Thomas felt compelled to protest:

"I am concerned that the reports always point to deficiencies and problems and never recognize the special efforts being made by the University to move ahead in a positive manner.

"I am concerned about the implication of statements such as, 'The only women in the College of Agriculture are in Home Economics, and there are no women in the Engineering College.' This statement is misleading in that it implies that qualified women with advanced degrees are 'available' in all fields. The problems here are not discriminatory in nature, but problems of availability of qualified people. Furthermore, Agricultural Extension was not included in the survey. "I am concerned that, in order to correct the historic problems associated with past generations, we cannot give proper consideration to many highly qualified male applicants from the majority culture.

"I am concerned when the Office of Contract Compliance of HEW feels that it must use threats and coercion to force 'quotas' rather than to set goals and objectives as specified by Congress. For example, the following is a quote from our current review:

'A detailed response to our findings and the revised affirmative action plan (inclusive of goals and time tables) must be submitted to our office within 30 days. The award of a substantial contract of over 2 million dollars is pending our approval. In view of this fact we are sure you will want to act as expeditiously as possible by making adequate commitments.' (italics added)" And,

"I am concerned about the lost time and effort and the tremendous expense associated with the investigation and review merely because we were not given advance information about the nature of the investigation or the time span of the study. We were told by members of the review team that the universities 'could not be trusted with advance notices' because they would 'change their records.' This statement is a reflection on all Institutions of Higher Education in this Nation and cannot foster the cooperation needed to correct our historic problems of discrimination."

The San Francisco OCR-HEW regional office was so insistent on a naive interpretation of numbers and on its demand that "University [of Arizona] must submit written commitments to this office within thirty (30) calendar days, indicating in detail how each of the above deficiencies will be corrected, along with numerical goals and timetables for completion;" that University of Arizona's President, Richard A. Harvill, felt compelled to write a long didactic reply which explained among other things the actual employment picture:

"On page 5 of your letter a number of specific departments are listed with no female faculty. Unfortunately, degree data for the time span 1948-1968 were not available by subject matter. Data were available, however, for 1960 through 1968 giving by subject matter the number of doctorates awarded to women. On the basis of these data, it is evident that in over half of the departments listed there are not enough women doctorate holders available to justify the listing of these departments as deficient. In Agronomy, for example, over the nine years period examined, only six Ph.D.'s were obtained by women; two were obtained in the same time span in Meteorology; eight, in Watershed Management. Even doubling this degree output to estimate the number of degrees granted over a twenty year span does not provide a sufficient pool of females to justify the inclusion of these departments on the list. As a matter of fact, over half of the departments listed had less than fifty female doctorates available from which the recruit during the period 1960 to 1968. Even doubling these amounts to simulate a longer time span hardly provides an adequate supply of women faculty for the hundreds of departments needing such personnel among the twenty-four hundred institu