Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
120354515
label
Affirmative Action
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
120354515
contentType
document
title
Affirmative Action
citationUrl
collections
Records of the Office of the Public Liaison (Clinton Administration)
Alexis Herman's Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
120354515
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
otherTitles
42-t-5721346-20120741F-Seg1-001-007-2017
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
913a23a6cff75eaf
ocrText
FOIA Number: 2012-0741-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Public Liaison
Series/Staff Member:
Alexis Herman/Ruby Moy
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
5263
FolderID:
Folder Title:
Affirmative Action
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
S
29
7
2
3
February 16, 1995
Affirmative Action
[General Points]
Deep commitment to racial progress is part of who I am and the life I've lived.
Affirmative action has contributed to that progress. It is not, however, a perfect tool --
and no thoughtful person would say that it is.
But here's the problem: In recent decades the nation has seen too many periods when
politicians used race as a wedge issue to divide Americans. Now we hear some
politicians sharpening that wedge yet again. Devising a strategy of code word and
division.
Instead, I will pursue a strategy of healing and progress.
Underneath the generalities, these are tough issues. We do need an honest debate about
what works and what doesn't. The noisy people who want that debate to be about how
to rollback our hard-won progress are dead wrong, and they don't understand this
nation's character.
I want a discussion about how to move forward instead of backward. You can't keep
race out of politics. But my belief has always been that you win not by dividing people
by race or otherwise, but by pulling people together.
That's what I'm trying my best to do.
1
February 16, 1995
Affirmative Action
[Policy Framework]
"Affirmative action" means lots of different things, and comes in many forms. We can't
have a decent discussion in sweeping generalities and old code words. But a few things
are clear:
Despite progress, discrimination still exists, and we shouldn't forget that.
Some measures called "affirmative action" are just too extreme -- the best
examples are rigid quotas or numerical straight jackets when there's been no
proof of specific wrongdoing.
But other approaches, if narrowly tailored, can make sense. There's a right way,
and there's a wrong way. We need a discussion to define the differences.
The hard debate isn't about remedies for specific acts of discrimination. The hard issues
arise when we move beyond that because we care about being inclusive. We can't turn back just
because it's hard, because inclusiveness is an important goal:
First, inclusion is a means of empowering individuals to realize their full potential
and thus contribute to the well-being of their families and communities.
Second, inclusiveness benefits America as a whole, because our lives are richer
as a result of social diversity, and because our communities and our economy are
stronger when all of us are full participants -- carrying both a full load of
responsibilities, and a full complement of opportunities.
2
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 9, 1995
MEMORANDM FOR LEON PANETTA, GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, MAGGIE
WILLIAMS, HAROLD ICKES, SKILA HARRIS
FROM:
Alexis Herman
your
SUBJECT:
Invitees to Dinner on Affirmative Action
The purpose of this dinner is to bring in a cross-section of leaders in preparation for the
President's speech to give him an opportunity to (1) test his assumptions about affirmative
action, and (2) to create a universe of spokespersons externally to support his strategy.
Attached is the list of people I am proposing that we invite to the dinner on Monday night.
Using recommendations from the Vice President, I have tried to find people who represent a
cross-section of the following four categories:
Opinion leaders who are knowledgeable on this issue, whom the press will call and
who have a constituency following.
Opinion leaders who are well-grounded on this issue and whom the press will call,
but who do not have a constituency.
Individuals who are well-grounded on this issue and who have a constituency to
mobilize in support of the President's strategy, but who are not generally visible in the
press.
Individuals who are knowledgeable on the issues, but who do not have a constituency
following and who are not prominent in the press.
Please review this list and let me know your comments by 9am so that we can proceed with
the invitations.
Thank you.
MAR 06 '95 04:33PM BSR 415 284 6404
P.1
FAX TRANSMISSION
March 6, 1995
Mr. Michael Lux
Office of Public Liaison
The White House
Washington, D. C.
BSR
Dear Mike:
For reasons that are altogether understandable, I keep trading phone calls with George
and Alexis. I was hoping I might prevail upon your good offices to learn whether they
Business for
would like me to follow-up on our discussions and bring a delegation of
Social
representatives from BSR member companies to Washington to meet with one or both
Responsibility
of them at the White House.
My understanding is that this would be an opportunity for delegation members to
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
express their views about affirmative action, suggest ways their companies and other
CO-COAIRS
businesses might be helpful and offer their reactions to ideas and strategies you may
Robert Duan
Levi Strause & Company
have under consideration.
Arnold Histt
The Stride Rith Foundation
Heten MIIN
The Body Shop
The group would be six to ten people counting myself, but we could make it whatever
size you wish.
Debbie Aguirro
Tierre Pacifica Corp.
Chuck Blitz
Marvin Bills Real Estate Co.
I have assumed we would try to do this within the next few weeks, but timing is
Ben Cohen
Ben & Jerry's Homemade
flexible for us though participants would vary based on their availability. So far the
Sharon Cohon
Reebok international Ltd.
following people have expressed a wish to attend if possible:
Roa Graywinski
Shorchank Corporation
Alan Lassenfeld
Haebro. Inc.
Ashley Kerenblat
Toni Fey, Senior VP Marketing, Time Warner
Mortin MeLalworks
Gail Snowden, President, Bank of Boston Community Bank
Dominic Kulik
Take the Lead. Inc.
Harry Quadracc)
Judy Belk, VP Community Affairs, Levi Strauss & CO.
Ound/Graphice Inc.
David Robinson
Jim Coles, VP Public Affairs, Clorox
Freddle Mac
Mitch Roisky
Ken Frietas, VP Community Enterprises, Timberland
Amelgemsted Life Insurance
Company
Bob Miller, Senior VP of Marketing, Federal Express
Laura Scher
Working Assets Funding
Service
Gail Snowden
I've thought of adding a few smaller companies as well and substituting other large
the Bank of Boston/
First Community Bank
members such as Home Depot, Taco Bell, Reebok, Merck, etc.
Nam Upin
Aveda Corporation
Elle Williams
Aegin Systems
Late in the day on the 14th of March or the morning of the 15th is possible; the week
of the 21st would probably be better.
We'd be pleased to do this if it would be helpful to Alexis and or George.
1030 15th Street. N.W.
Suite 1010
Washington, D.C.
20005
Robert help. H- Dunn
Robert H. Dunn, President and CEO
Tel 202.842.5400
Fax 202.842.3135
-
printed on recycled paper
with sevelweed Inks
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
13-Mar-1995 05:56pm
TO:
Amanda Crumley
TO:
Heather Beckel
TO:
Rahm Emanuel
TO:
John B. Emerson
TO:
Janice A. Enright
FROM:
Thomas S. Epstein
Office of Political Affairs
SUBJECT: Willie Brown/affirmative action
FYI--Willie Brown met with the L.A. Times bureau in D.C. today.
He apparently told them if the President changed "one dot" of
existing law on affirmative action, he doesn't deserve
re-election.
MAR-11-95 SAT 8:26
4159670511
P.01
FAX TRANSMISSION
To:
Mr. George Stephanopolis
FAX No.: (202) 456-6703
FROM:
REBELLA GORDON, PRESIDENT, IMMIGRANT COACITION RIGHTS
FAX No.: (415) 282-3947
ADDRESS: 347 DOLORES ST., #210
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94110
Dear Mr. Stephanopolis,
This communication addresses you in your capacity as director of President Clinton's review of federal
affirmative action practices. Many of us here in California and around the country are very concerned
that the President understand he must not abandon the decades-long struggle for equal justice for all
Americans.
Now is not the moment to give up on affirmative action. Sadly, a look at employment, housing, edu-
cation and other economic data makes it clear that there is still plenty of discrimination against women
and minorities in this country. Unfortunately, it remains true even today that all individuals do not
receive the same opportunities regardless of sex, race, color, or national origin. To ignore this fact and
deny businesses or public entities the legal right to take action where there are remaining vestiges of
discrimination condemns us to perpetuate unequal opportunity.
We are confident that your review will tell you what we already know! affirmative action programs
have been among the most effective tools in combatting discrimination in employment and education.
But that battle is not over yet. It's vital that the President and his Administration continue to stand firm
in support of equal opportunity for all Americans. Thank you,
Yours sincerely,
Mhen And
P.S. All of California cares about this ssue. Don't let
your party be fooled into abandming its loyal base!
Chevalier Law Firm
310-530-1483
3/11/95
4:03 PM
1/2
Chevalier Law Firm
18 Encanto Drive
Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274-4215
Telephone: (310) 530-0582 Telecopier: (310) 530-1483
e-mail [email protected]
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL
DATE:
March 11, 1995
TO:
Doug Sosnik
George Stephanopolis
CC:
The Hon. Barbara Boxer
The Hon. Dianne Feinstein
The Hon. Jane Harman
Betsy Myers
FROM:
Kathleen T. Schwallie
MESSAGE: I am writing on behalf of the National Association of Women Business
Owners as co-chairperson of its Procurement Special Interest Group. We are
confident that upon completing his review of federal affirmative action programs,
the President will conclude that goals programs which remediate for discrimination
against women-owned firms have succeeded, and that only by retaining these
programs and enhancing them can women contractors make further gains.
In 1993, only 1.8% of federal government contracts were awarded to women
owned businesses despite the fact that they comprise approximately 30% of all
businesses in this country. The taxpayers are not receiving the best value for their
tax dollars when many of this country's most efficient and innovative firms-
-
women-owned firms--do not have the opportunity to compete. And that is all they
want is to compete - not to be given preferential treatment.
NAWBO supports the continuation of all goals programs for women-owned
businesses. Replacing goals programs with others based on "need" will not ensure
we have a gender-blind procurement system. NAWBO does not support set-aside
programs.
This Administration has taken an important step forward to reform these
programs by pursuing the use of certification of women-owned businesses, rather
than self-certification. In the future, only those businesses which are truly owned
and controlled by women will benefit from goals programs.
The President must not retreat on enforcement of equal opportunity laws. His
leadership on this issue will be pivotal to their continued success.
Number of pages, including this transmittal sheet: 1
From: To: George Stephanopoulos
Date: 3/12/95 Time: 10:47:59
Page 1 of 2
A& E Telecommunications Agency
TO: _George
Stephanopoulos
FAX;_202-456-6703
DATE: _3/12/95
Number of Pages: 2
including Cover Page ( Call 908-238-7006 if all not received)
FROM: _Eileen McKyton
FAX: 1-908-238-9852
PHONE:
1-908-238-7006
REMARKS:
To: Alexis
Fr:GS
FYL
P.O. Box 117, Spotswood, N.J. 08884 Telephone 908-238-7006,
1-800-205-9966, Fax 908-238-9852
From: To: George Stephanopoulos
Date: 3/12/95 Time: 10:48:50
Page 2 of 2
A&E Telecommunications Agency
March 11, 1995
George Stephanopoulos
Senior Advisor on Police and Strategy
Dear Mr. Stephanopoulos,
I am a white female small business owner, and I am writing to ask that the President not support affirmative action as it
exists today. I do not believe in discrimination and affirmative action perpetrates discrimination. I do support something like
blind procurement.
My own personal reasons are some of the horror stories 1 have heard resulting from affirmative action that have resulted in
both discrimination and reverse discrimination:
One large company gives personnel 8 list of not just qualifications but also age, sex and race of the employee that
must be hired to All a position.
One company doing business under the set aside program could not obtain more business from the contractor, not
because they did a poor job, but because If they were to use that particular company for other tobs their set aside percentage
would be increased the next year.
I was at a meeting with 9 other women preparing to run as delegates for the White House Conference on Small Business and
we were in total agreement against affirmative action as it now exists. We concluded that it not only builds resentment
between sex and race, but people believe us to be less qualified thinking that we got the job because of affirmative action so
they dismiss us as being less than qualified or capable even though we are.
We only want an equal opportunity to reach the heights that we are capable of reaching!
Sincerely,
Eileen McKyton
cc: Doug Sosnik, White House Political Director
P.O. Box 117, Spotswood, NJ. 08884 Telephone 908-238-7006 1-800-205-9966 Fax 908-238-9852
Date: 03/15/95 Time: 19:37
Liberals, Women Press Clinton to Hold Fast on Affirmative Action
WASHINGTON (AP) Raising their voices in the stormy debate over
affirmative action, liberal Democrats and women's advocates pressed
President Clinton on Wednesday to resist political pressure to
retreat.
''We will not be eliminated from this debate," said Eleanor
Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority.
In White House meetings, Capitol Hill speeches and a march
across Pennsylvania Avenue, traditional allies of Clinton and his
party intensified their lobbying as the president neared the end of
his review of federal programs that favor minorities.
It threatens to become a key issue in the 1996 campaign, with
Clinton needing support from the liberal wing of his party even as
he casts himself as a centrist Democrat not beholden to the left.
Some of his visitors walked away confident that Clinton will not
roll back. But he also faced skepticism and frustration from some
old political friends, showing how difficult the issue has become.
' 'He indicated clearly that as it now stands that there is
insufficient basis for abolishment of affirmative action, said
Willie Brown, speaker of the California Legislature, after a
private meeting with Clinton.
And Patricia Ireland, president of the National Organization for
Women, said White House officials assured women's advocates that
Clinton supported affirmative action programs based on gender.
But Maxine Waters, D-Calif., said minorities and women will no
longer stand with Clinton or his party if affirmative action is
abandoned.
'No party is so important that we will belong to it if it
undermines us on this issue. No president is so important that we
will belong to him if he undermines us on this issue, she said.
And Ireland said, ''I am disturbed that we don't have a clear,
firm statement already. She added, 'Words are cheap and words
are easy inside a closed conference room.
In announcing his review last month, Clinton promised to
emphasize "'need-based'" programs, raising fears that some based on
race or gender could be sacrificed.
Promising that Clinton will not turn his back on affirmative
action, White House press secretary Mike McCurry had a firm
response Wednesday for critics of the president's review.
'`Ask them, 'What is a greater concern to you: Newt Gingrich and
those in the Republican majority who would like to roll back
affirmative action or the president of the United States who is
trying in a sensible way to have a national conversation on this
issue which results in good, common sense policy, McCurry said.
On Capitol Hill, Republicans pressed Clinton from the other end
of the political spectrum. Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole accused
the Justice Department of fostering reverse discrimination in its
legal opinions.
'`The bottom line is that the president's affirmative action
review cannot have credibility if the affirmative action policies
of his own administration are fundamentally flawed, Dole said.
The issue dominated meetings Clinton conducted Wednesday with
California's state lawmakers and a group of liberal Democratic
House members. White House aides George Stephanopoulos and Alexis
Herman also met with a coalition of woman's groups that marched
three blocks to the White House to raise their concerns.
Brown said that Clinton suggested in his meeting that the
California ballot issue to abandon all state affirmative action
plans is ''not a good idea. According to Brown, Clinton said he
might advocate changes in some programs but it should not be viewed
as a retreat from his overall support.
Clinton's evening meeting with liberal Democrats was interrupted
after more than an hour when lawmakers scurried for a House vote.
Rep. Charles Rangel, a black lawmaker from New York, said after the
meeting, ''I feel pretty good about where we are.
In a series of gatherings at small dinners and formal White
House meetings over the past few weeks, Clinton has sought advice
from a wide range of politicians, advocates and academics. Aides
said he may reveal his plans as early as next week in a major
policy speech.
They say Clinton has not given any hints about what he will do,
other than his general commitment to improve any unfair programs.
A participant in a Monday night dinner meeting with Clinton said
the president expressed concern that Republicans would try to
incite voters with the issue in 1996. Aides say Clinton hopes to
make a case in the speech that affirmative action programs, when
operated correctly, benefit all Americans.
While the president wrestles with the topic, he is at the center
of a tug-of-war between liberal Democrats fighting to preserve
programs and conservative Democrats aligned with Republicans to
argue that affirmative action irks middle-class voters,
particularly white males.
APNP-03-15-95 1942EST
Bolu Dale
NEWS
U.S. SENATOR FOR KANSAS
FROM:
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Clarkson Hine
Wednesday, March 15, 1995
(202) 224-5358
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
DOLE TO INTRODUCE LEGISLATION TO REMOVE PREFERENCES
FROM FEDERAL LAW AND TO PROMOTE COLOR-BLIND IDEAL
To his credit, President Clinton has initiated a long-overdue
"review" of all federal affirmative action laws.
After nearly thirty years of governmsnt-sanctioned quotas,
timetables, set-asides, and other racial preferences, the American
people sense all too clearly that the race-counting game has gone
too far. The President is responding to these pressures, and his
review could not have come at a more propitious time.
Administration Must Review Own Misguided Policies
But first things first. As the President conducts his review,
he should also revisit some of the misguided "affirmative action"
policies of his own administration.
For starters, he should take a few moments to read the Justice
Department's brief in the Piscataway Board of Education case, which
is now pending before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
In Piscatavay, the Justice Department has taken the position
that, when an employer is laying off employees, an individual
American can legally be fired from her job because of her race.
That's right: our nation's top law enforcement agency says that
it's perfectly legal, as a way to achieve workforce diversity, to
tell a person that she can no longer keep her job because she
happens to have the wrong skin color.
This is an insidious position one that goes beyond current
law and one that the President should emphatically reject.
The bottom line is that the President's affirmative action
review cannot have credibility 1f the "affirmative action" policies
of his own administration are fundamentally flawed. Correcting
these policies, not reviewing old ones, should be the president's
first priority.
Fight Illegal Discrimination, Don't Abandon Color-Blind Ideal
with that said, let's remember that to raise questions about
affirmative action is not to challenge our anti-discrimination
laws. Discrimination is illegal. Those who discriminate ought to
be punished. And those who are individual victims of illegal
discrimination have every right to receive the remedial relief they
deserve.
Unfortunately, America is not the color-blind society we would
all like it to be. Discrimination continues to be an undeniable
part of American life.
But fighting discrimination should never become an excuse for
abandoning the color-blind ideal. Expanding opportunity should
never be used to justify dividing Americans by race, by gender, by
ethnic background.
Race-preferential policies, no matter how well-intentioned,
demean individual accomplishment. Thev ionore individual
total value of its contracts each year to minority-owned and
female-owned firms on the theory that these firms are
"presumptively" disadvantaged.
Repeal Section 8 (a) Program, Unless Hearings Prove Otherwise
As a follow-up to the C.R.S. report, I have written to my
colleagues, Senators Bond and Kassebaum, requesting hearings on the
most prominent programs identified in the report-the Small
Business Administration's section 8 (a) program and Executive Order
11246, which has been interpreted to require federal contractors to
adopt "timetables" and "goals" in minority- and female-hiring.
These hearings, I expect, will demonstrate that there are
other, more equitable ways to expand opportunity, without resorting
to policies that grant preferences to individuals simply because
they happen to be members of certain groups.
And unless the hearings produce some powerful evidence to the
contrary, it is my judgment that the section 8 (a) program should be
repealed outright.
The hearings also provide us with the opportunity to
rediscover the original purpose of Executive Order 11246.
As signed by President Johnson, the Executive Order required
government contractors to agree "not to discriminate against any
employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color,
or national origin (And) to take affirmative action to ensure
that applicants are employed without regard to their race, creed,
color, or national origin."
In other words. Executive Order 11246 defined affirmative
action to mean "non-discrimination." There was no mention of
timetables or goals. No mention of racial preferences. These
concepts were later grafted onto the Executive Order not by
Congress, but by regulation, the work of federal bureaucrate.
At a minimum, we should restore the original purpose of
Executive Order 11246: to ensure that federal contractors do not
discriminate. However, if the Executive Order continues to be
used, and misused, as a hammer to force contractors to adopt race-
based hiring practices, then it, too, should be repealed.
Legislation to Achieve Color-Blind Ideal
In fact, I intend to introduce legislation later this year
that will force the federal government to live up to the color-
blind ideal by prohibiting it from granting preferential treatment
to any person, simply because of his or her membership in a certain
favored group.
OF course, the government should fight discrimination where it
exists but, at the same time, it should be color-blind, race-
neutral, both in theory and in practice.
Debate: What Kind of Country DO we Want America To Be?
I am hopeful about America. And I an optimistic, as we head
into the 21st century, that the American experiment will continue
to be a model of self-government and a source of hope for millions
the world over.
But leadership also requires a sense of common purpose. We
cannot continue to lead. the world, if we are divided here at home.
Yes, we should celebrate our own differences. Yes, we should
take pride in our own rich ethnic heritage. It is a source of
great strength.
But, at the same time, we should not devalue the common bonds
that define us as Americans. Too often, we speak in terms of a
hyphenated identity: it's Italian-Americans, German-Americans,
African-Americans, Irish-Americans, and not just "Americans."
Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. probably put it best when he
warned, and I quote: "Instead of a nation composed of individuals
making their own unhampered choices, America increasingly sees
itself as composed of groups more or less ineradicable in their
ethnic character. The multiethnic dogma abandons historic
purposes, replacing assimilation by fragmentation, integration by
separatism. It belittles unum and glorifies pluribus. If
So, the coming debate over affirmative action will be much
more than just a debate over "reverse discrimination. It will be
a debate that forces us to answer a fundamental question: What
kind of country do we want America to be?
Do we work toward a color-blind society? A society that
judges people by their talents, their sense of honor, their hopes
and dreams as individuals? or do we continue down the path of
group rights, group entitlements judging people not by their
character or intellect, but by something irrelevant: the color of
their skin?
America has always been a melting pot. But it should never
become a place where race and ethnicity exclusively define who we
are, how we think, and what we are supposed to believe.
###
Draft: February 5. 1995 (revid)
\data\ailirm.2
Affirmative Action
I. The Need
A. Political
There is no generally understood core set of civil rights policies identified with New
Democrats. The corollary is that Clinton's civil rights "definition" is hazy. The political
challenge is to provide the intellectual content, and then a message and communication
strategy to match.
Civil rights liberals. including most Blacks, assume Bill Clinton is "sympathetic" to the
traditional aspirations. but have nagging anxiety about whether this sympathy equates to
reliable support for efforts to reverse the Reagan Era retrenchments, or even reliable support
for current legal doctrines and public policies, such as business set-asides. Civil rights
conservatives assume Clinton is generally liberal in his racial sentiments, and then divide into
two camps: the cynics expect pandering to the Democratic base in as disguised a way as
possible, but conservatives looking for a reason to support the President hope they will see
significant cracks in the orthodoxy.
In truth, many civil rights liberals may also hope for a crack in the orthodoxy -- at least in
the expression of the orthodoxy -- because they fear that the old approaches and the old
language have stalled our progress and produced a crisis in persuasion.
Finally, there is a strong measure of weariness among civil rights liberals. After a difficult
decade of wedge politics, and after the frightening deployment of Federal resources on the
opposite side of the barricades in several key litigation and policy battles, there is a deep
hunger for a politics of healing, grounded in moral vision rather than electoral calculus.
Beneath that hunger is an even deeper need among civil rights liberals and among minorities
-- a need to know "Is the cause safe? Are we safe?"
I Notes:
This essay is written with reference to issues of race-based affirmative action, with specific concern for
the political issues related to the African American community.
This essay does not represent Clinton Administration policy, nor the policy of any office. agency or
official.
1
B. Substantive
The Administration faces several policy issues that we should address within a thoughtful
(conceptual and political) framework. rather than piecemeal. The broad categories of
immediate importance include:
The permissible reach of judicial remedies in school and employment cases. especially
when de jure discrimination and disparate treatment have ended, and the remedy seeks
to address lingering effects embedded in a web of economic and social joint causation.
The reach of voluntary affirmative action in employment and higher education, when
such measures benefit individuals who are not themselves identified victims of specified
acts of discrimination.
The use of set-asides to enhance business opportunities.
The upcoming California ballot initiative which, in the view of civil rights traditionalists,
uses "color blindness" and anti-discrimination rhetoric to eviscerate affirmative measures
by the State.
II. Basic Policy Framework
A. Moral Costs
Preferences have a moral cost, and therefore (i) must be justified and (ii) must be narrowly
tailored, in means and duration, to fit that justification.
1. There is an important ethical distinction between preferences adopted as a remedy for past
discrimination or exclusion, and those adopted to further other important ends such as
diversity. The former purposes, being remedial in nature, generally carry more weight.
They have, however, a factual predicate of wrongdoing and specific injury which makes
them more difficult to use as justification for a racial preference.
2. There is an important doctrinal distinction between preferences adopted by a court for
adjudicated remedial purposes, and those adopted voluntarily by governments or private
persons.
Voluntary government actions deserve special scrutiny because, as the product of a
political process, there is the familiar risk of majority tyranny. The Croson requirement
of legislative findings is a valuable safeguard. provided it is not interpreted to require
findings comparable in detail and specificity to what would be required in court to prove
intentional discrimination against a specified individual. It is, in essence, a requirement
of deliberation which forces a political legislature to think and weigh carefully. This is
2
a valuable check on state power. though not an absolute one.
Voluntary government actions also deserve scrutiny because as wrong as it is when we
injure one another. it is even worse when we are injured by our government. We
therefore have a heightened collective duty to prevent abuses at the hand of government.
Voluntary private actions deserve scrutiny (but not generally as much as governmental
action) because of the risk that even well-intentioned private action will do unnecessary
and unwarranted injury to the interests of non-beneficiaries. Private action may not
fairly balance the ethical costs and benefits.
B. Defining Affirmative Action and Preferences
1. Varied Tools.
Affirmative action is a family of tools -- a range of measures which in practice stretches
from low-intensity outreach. all the way to court-ordered goals and timetables and, in very
rare cases, quotas.
Quotas are and should be rarely employed, and never outside the court-approved
remedial context. Voluntary quotas, public or private, should be prohibited.
Set-asides are a form of affirmative action. If they establish a rigid numerical test,
they are quotas.
2. Merit.
Affirmative action, when used properly, is consistent with merit. There are very rare
instances when, in a court-ordered remedy, some aspects of merit have to take a back seat
to righting a wrong. But these instances are and must be rare.
When people design their affirmative action, they should make every effort to define
a preference narrowly as a criterion for pulling someone into a pool for further
consideration or, when the ultimate hiring or other decision is made, as a tie-breaking
factor among comparably qualified individuals.
"Comparably qualified" means just that. Qualifications that are sham devices to
exclude mean nothing. Qualifications that are not reasonably related to the work or
other tasks involved mean nothing. And when the "merits" are vague. the selection
process highly subjective, and the history suggests exclusion, then it is especially
important to be inclusive in defining what "qualified" actually means.
3
Merit is important; indeed, it is an American value. It is one of the principles that
distinguish us from other societies and cultures. now and historically, where life,
liberty and happiness were contingent on heredity. caste and privilege.
But we should also recognize that in many areas of our social and economic life, we
look for "qualified" people or firms. and then use something other than merit to make
the ultimate decision. We often make final decisions among the qualified randomly,
or based on convenience, familiarity, or instinct. This is natural and fine. assuming
the selection isn't tainted with prejudice. But we shouldn't confuse these nonformal
ways of selecting among comparably qualified individuals with rigorous systems of
pure merit. They are not. And modifying such "fuzzy" systems to include narrowly
tailored affirmative action is just not as ethically objectionable as interfering with
selection mechanisms truly based on merit.
C. Narrowly Tailoring Preferences: Preferences Have Costs
Because preferences are not costless in ethical or moral terms, any preference or
affirmative action measure should be tailored to minimize the injury (actual or perceived)
to the interests of non-beneficiaries. We must be especially concerned with legally
cognizable interests, but not with those interests alone. And we must be especially
concerned with non-beneficiaries who have not in any way benefited personally from
patterns of exclusion.
1. "Tailoring" means:
Clarify what the objective is. That is, state the intended result in terms of removing
any vestiges of exclusion or securing the benefits of inclusion. This means being
clear about what the evidence is that leads us to believe there is a problem in the first
place -- typically a gross imbalance, viewed in the totality of the circumstances.²
Understand the interests at stake, on all sides.
Try to state what constitutes acceptable progress and success. When will the
preference have served its purpose and no longer be needed?
Consider the range of measures in increasing order of intrusiveness. One way of
listing these is:
(i) review selection criteria to eliminate those not justified under true principles
of merit;
(ii) broad outreach and recruiting;
2 This tracks a formulation developed by the Department of Education. during the Clinton Administration,
to test the legality of minority scholarship programs.
4
(iii) targeted. group-specific outreach and recruiting;
(iv) pulling qualified minorities into the pool of "finalists";
(v) soft goals or targets:
(vi) quotas.
Select the least intrusive measure that holds reasonable promise of effectiveness.
2. This emphasis on least intrusive methods is fundamental, but potentially controversial in
two respects. It is fundamental because it acknowledges that there is an ethical cost to
racial preferences. and that we must judge in a given instance whether that cost justifies
the progress that will result. By tailoring preferences to the least intrusive method, we
minimize the ethical cost, and hopefully the divisiveness and social costs as well.
Effectiveness is, of course, not an absolute. There is no running away from the balancing
implied by this formulation. But facing that difficulty within a framework that attempts
to respect the needs and aspirations of all concerned, is the best way out of the mess we
are in.
This approach is potentially controversial because, first, it makes clear to conservatives that
there will be circumstances and not rare ones -- when tailored race-conscious measures
are desirable. But, second, the approach makes clear to liberals that they do not have a
monopoly on virtue: that public policies and private practices must reflect ethical
sensitivity both to the intended beneficiaries of preferences and to the unintended
consequences for others.
III. Communications Framework: Curative and Remedial V. Aspirational and Empowering
A. An Edge for Pointed Clarity
To communicate the contrasts between our approach and those of the divisive Right and
Old Left, we must sharp draw lines:
Discrimination still exists. Agencies must clearly communicate research and
enforcement data demonstrating that old-fashioned discrimination is alive and too
well. Evidence produced by "testers" -- matched pairs of minority and majority job
applicants, for example -- is especially compelling.
Some voluntary and remedfal measures are too extreme. We should point to
examples that are unnecessarily intrusive, burdensome or injurious. And we should
describe better alternatives
Some specific measures that have been sharply criticized were, in fact, fully justified
by the particular circumstances. Administration officials should explain a few of
these pointedly, defending the appropriate use of tough medicine.
5
B. Curative and Remedial V. Aspirational and Empowering
As much as anything else. civic discourse on civil rights needs a language of healing rather
than division. Beyond the more narrowly justifiable matters of blame-based cure and
remedy, we pursue affirmative action and diversity to empower the individual beneficiaries
and because we have aspirations as a nation to build strength through inclusiveness. These
are alternatives to the language of blame, guilt and reparations.
There is more to affirmative action than providing a remedy to a proven incident of
discrimination involving a victim and a perpetrator -- the remedial context. There is also
the more general problem of addressing the lingering social and economic effects of past
wrongs. These are manifest as contributing factors to the disadvantage suffered by many
individually, and disproportionately by African Americans in the aggregate. This is the
curative context.
But these are not enough. Both remedy and cure are terms that invoke the moral categories
of victims and perpetrators, of innocence and fault. They invoke the analytical framework
of cause and effect. of damages and reparations. As such, the terms are not politically
effective when too many in the public simply do not believe in the predicate of wrongdoing,
or feel that the preference benefits individuals whose own link to the wrongdoing is too
remote to justify the preference. Indeed, the terms are inherently divisive, precisely because
they invoke the language of blame. This does not mean that this framework is invalid or that
we should scrap it. But we have to recognize the limits to its usefulness.
An alternative framework stresses the affirmative value of inclusiveness. First, inclusion is
a means of empowering individuals to realize their full potential and thus contribute to the
well-being of their families and communities. Second, inclusiveness benefits America as a
whole, because our lives are richer as a result of social diversity, and because our
communities and our economy are stronger when all of us are full participants -- carrying
both a full load of responsibilities, and a full complement of opportunities. These are
unifying themes of empowerment and aspiration.
C. Reacting V. Leading
From a political standpoint, there is an enormous difference between providing necessary
reactions to the legislative or litigation developments thrust upon us, versus leading in a way
that:
sets the agenda for public discourse, rather than conveying the misimpression that
New Democrats are politically timid about engaging in a debate on the issues;
proclaims commitment and purpose by using edges, in a non-combative way, to make
fundamental purposes clear -- identifying some measures we are for. and some we
are against;
6
in content. communicates to civil rights traditionalists that New Democrats have not
abandoned the Democratic commitment to continuing racial progress -- meaning both
racial harmony and steady, tangible progress in eliminating discrimination and its
lingering consequences;
communicates to civil rights conservatives and revisionists that New Democrats are
prepared to abandon. and even criticize, private and governmental techniques that are
too divisive and intrusive for the results they produce; and
strategically mixes narrowcasting to key constituencies and voter blocs, with
broadcasting to the Nation as a whole. Reliance exclusively on narrowcasting sends
a message that the commitment is a politically contingent one, rather than the product
of a deeply rooted value.
D. Litigation V. Policy
Perhaps because civil rights discussions are heavily populated with lawyers, they quickly
become debates over recent and pending litigation. We debate policy choices within the
framework of contested legal doctrines, and even mistakenly believe that most key policy
decisions are about what to write in briefs and how to amend a civil rights or set-aside
statute. This legalistic conception is a dangerously limited one.
Purging the lingering effects of past racial wrongs must go beyond rights-based litigation and
legislation to address directly the impediments to opportunity. For example, quality K-12
schools, combatting teen pregnancy, and the community security agenda must be seen by
civil rights traditionalists as absolutely critical measures for saving the next generation. (To
this list one might add voter registration and participation.) The Administration can make
that link, and a populist and forceful demand that we make progress on that social policy
agenda will translate for many as a demand for racial progress. Which it is.
Even within the narrower range of conventional civil rights measures, it is a mistake limit
policy debate to the questions presented in litigation. Research is a good example.
Government and foundation funding cutbacks, together with the growing "political
correctness" of conservative retreat on civil rights matters, jeopardize our intellectual capital.
There is too little understanding of effective techniques of outreach, recruitment, affirmative
action, conflict management, persuasion and so forth. There is too little basic data about the
extent and consequences of continuing discrimination in employment, housing, credit,
delivery of public services, etc. (The FY 1996 Budget includes several proposed investments
to help rebuild our capacity, including resources for the Civil Rights Division to use "testers"
for research and enforcement purposes, and added funding for the EEOC and the Civil
Rights Commission.)
7
E. Policy V. Pulpit
The legalistic perspective misses the point in a more fundamental way, because its focus is
on public policy rather than civic virtues and the private practices those virtues engender.
It is a cliche to note the President's role as First Preacher and Chief Teacher. That role is
often trivialized as First Lobbyist, and it can be dangerously inflated to that of Tiresome
Moralist. In between, however, is an honorable role that calls us to our better selves. and
recalls the Nation to its deeper meaning. The closing message of the State of the Union was
quite explicitly in this vein. The question is how to sustain it in general. and how to apply
it specifically in the civil rights arena.
We make the civil rights agenda the domain of political tacticians, career litigators and
governance mechanics. But that is the wrong field of battle. Almost without exception,
when Bill Clinton has spoken from his soul on civil rights matters he has communicated all
the qualities and themes needed to lift the national discourse from the trench warfare over
legal doctrine to the vastly more important plane of civic virtues.
It is also clear that communication on this higher plane can and should include a strong
personal element, with Bill Clinton speaking about his own experiences and those of his
family. His credibility as a leader, and his commitment to racial progress. are most firmly
reinforced when he speaks with conviction about how he has witnessed the rewards of
inclusiveness, and how he has come to know the scarring consequences of exclusion.
F. Some Action Items
Translating the points above into concrete action items is difficult. Here are some
possibilities:
Work with California Democrats to formulate a Clinton-backed alternative ballot
proposition for California, and organize voters around it.
Plan three high-profile Presidential speeches over the next 9 months explicitly on the
civil rights agenda, delivered on the plain of values, virtues and aspirations. On
selected policy speeches in education, employment, the Middle Class Bill of Rights,
etc., occasionally add an explicit linkage to the civil rights "opportunity agenda."
Have certain cabinet officers reinforce the Presidential message above with parallel
speeches of their own. Have a media strategy of background interviews with
thoughtful essayists and opinion-makers.
Identify two or three programs or practices -- Federal or State -- that overstep the
bounds. For example, a minority set-aside that is too rigid or not narrowly drawn.
Identify a civil rights agency to strengthen with a high-visibility initiative. For
8
example: new resources at EEOC to eliminate the backlog, or new resources at the
Civil Rights Commission to rebuild a respectable research capability.
Develop an initiative with a coalition of religious leaders. including broadcasters.
IV. Conclusion
From the perspective of civil rights liberals, the Reagan-Bush years were a period of
unnerving and even frightening behavior by the White House, the Department of Justice. and
the Congress. At times hostile. at times begrudgingly benign, the political branches have
reminded anxious minorities that politics is a game designed for the majority. Compounding
the anxiety, the Judiciary has similarly moved rightward, in accord with the Framers' design.
The lesson is that even those doctrinal gains rooted in Constitutional interpretation are
evidently contingent on politics as well, albeit with a lag.
The divisive quality of racial politics was largely quiescent on the national political stage
after George Wallace's 1968 bid and until the activist revisionism of Meese and Reynolds
ushered in what civil rights liberals understood to be an era of peril. They now ask whether
that era is over, and what will come next.
9
DLC
Democratic Leadership Council
April 11, 1995
Dear DLC Friend:
Few issues threaten the Democratic coalition as affirmative action does now. Sensing the
perfect wedge issue for 1996, the Republicans are determined to use it to divide and
conquer.
I am sending along the latest edition of The New Democrat with the hope that it sheds
light on how Democrats should respond. In all, there are 13 articles on affirmative action,
and I would like to call your attention to two in particular: First, the historical overview
of affirmative action by Seymour Martin Lipset, senior scholar at the Progressive Policy
Institute, and, second, the essay by PPI President Will Marshall proposing a course of
action to build a new consensus on civil rights.
There are no silver bullets inside. This issue is far too difficult for that. But we hope you
will find the magazine a thoughtful and useful voice in the national conversation
President Clinton has initiated on affirmative action.
We've included some extra copies for your colleagues and friends. If you need additional,
complimentary copies, or have any questions, please call Jay Sumner at (202) 546-0007.
Sincerely,
Chd Alet
Chuck Alston
Communications Director, DLC
Editor-in-Chief, The New Democrat
518 C Street, NE
Washington. DC 20002
202-546-0007
Fax: 202-544-5002
TV
1/31/97
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a publication.
Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose
of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or
visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.
ROSS*K. BAKER ON PHIL GRAMM
RICHARD NIXON, STILL UP TO HIS OLD TRICKS
THE NEW
IOCRAT
VOLUME SEVEN, NUMBER
MAY/JUNE 1995
$3.00
Seymour Martin Lipset
Joel Kotkin
Will Marshall
beyond
Carol M. Swain
Jim Sleeper
Charles Moskos
Diane Ravitch
Glenn C. Loury
Hugh B. Price
Paul Starr
Thomas E. Wood
David E Hayes-Bautista
Gregory Rodriguez
Clinton Presidential Records
Digital Records Marker
This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative
marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff.
This marker identifies the place of a publication.
Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose
of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or
visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room.
ROSS K BAKER ON PHIL GRAMM
RICHARD NIXON, STILL UP TO HIS OLD TRICKS
THE NEW
OCRAT
VOLUME SEVEN-NUMBER
MAY/JUNE 1995
$3.00
Seymour Martin Lipset
Joel Kotkin
Will Marshall
Carol M. Swain
Jim Sleeper
Charles Moskos
Diane Ravitch
Glenn C. Loury
Hugh B. Price
Paul Starr
Thomas.E. E Wood
David E Hayes-Bautista
Gregory Rodriguez
STUDY SHOWS NO WIDESPREAD REVERSE BIAS CLAIMS
A report prepared by Rutgers Law Professor Alfred W. Blumrosen for
the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs shows there is no
widespread abuse of affirmative action programs in employment. It also
shows there are only a small number of reported reverse discrimination
cases by white males -- a high proportion of which have been dismissed by
federal courts.
Based on an analysis of reported federal district and appeals court decisions,
Professor Blumrosen found that reverse discrimination cases accounted for
between 1 and 3% of some 3,000 reported employment discrimination cases
between 1990 and 1994.
The study was based on an analysis of both individualized claims and
broader challenges to affirmative action programs, which were either
voluntarily undertaken or adopted because of a court order or consent decree.
Many of the reverse discrimination claims were brought by disappointed job
applicants, who were found by the courts to be less qualified for the job than
the chosen female or minority applicant.
None of the cases challenging affirmative action programs involved
application of Executive Order 11246.
peas
3-23-95
(DLR)
(No. 56)
AA - 1
BNA
Leading the News
Affirmative Action
"This research suggests that the problem of 're-
verse discrimination' is not widespread; and that
NO 'WIDESPREAD ABUSE' IN JOB CASES,
where it exists, the courts have given relief," he
FEW REVERSE BIAS CLAIMS, STUDY SAYS
wrote.
An internal report prepared for the Labor De-
Blumrosen analyzed both individualized claims
partment by a prominent employment law professor
of reverse discrimination and broader challenges to
concludes that there is "no widespread abuse" of
affirmative action programs, which were either vol-
affirmative action programs in employment and
untarily undertaken or adopted because of a court
that there are only a small number of reported
order or consent decree. Of the challenges to affir-
reverse discrimination cases by white males-a
mative action programs, 12 upheld the programs
high proportion of which have been dismissed by
and six either invalidated them or called for a re-
federal courts.
examination in light of current conditions.
Reverse discrimination cases accounted for be-
None of the cases challenging affirmative action
tween 1 percent and 3 percent of some 3,000
programs involved application of Executive Order
reported employment discrimination cases between
11246-the affirmative action order covering feder-
1990 and 1994, according to the study prepared by
al contractors that is administered by OFCCP-or
Alfred W. Blumrosen, 2 law professor at Rutgers
the Labor Department regulations implementing
University, for the department's Office of Federal
that order. Blumrosen attributed the absence of
Contract Compliance Programs. "Nothing in these
litigation under the executive order to the param-
cases would justify dismantling the existing struc-
eters of the program: goals are agreed to between
ture of equal employment opportunity programs,
OFCCP and the contractor; the obligation is to use
he concluded.
"good faith efforts" to meet the goal; and the
A draft of the study. which has not been released
contractor "is not required or encouraged to hire
by the Labor Department, was obtained by BNA.
unqualified personnel."
Federal agencies currently are compiling data on
"An affirmative action plan applied as intended
affirmative action programs for an ongoing White
by OFCCP regulations will not provide a basis for
House review. Bernard Anderson, assistant secre-
'reverse discrimination' suits," he concluded.
tary of labor for employment standards, said earlier
this month that he expected information submitted
'Significant Minority, Female Improvement'
by the department to show that programs adminis-
tered by OFCCP under Executive Order 11246
Citing earlier research he has compiled on the
have made a "major difference" in expanding em-
subject (122 DLR C-1, 6/28/94), Blumrosen wrote
ployment opportunities for women and minorities
that ongoing EEO programs have produced "sig-
and should be continued (53 DLR AA-1, 3/20/95).
nificant improvements" in the occupational position
A Labor Department official declined to com-
of women and minorities since the 1960s.
ment on the report, other than to say it is a draft
"My estimate is that more than five million
that has not been reviewed. It reportedly is one of
people of color and six million women are in higher
several that Blumrosen has prepared under a DOL
occupational categories today than they would be if
contract. Blumrosen was out of the country and
we still distributed people through the labor force
unavailable for comment.
the way we did in the sixties," he wrote.
"One fascinating aspect of these statistics is that
'No Widespread Abuse'
affirmative action apparently continued through
the Reagan-Bush period of intense opposition to
Based on an analysis of reported federal district
affirmative action and broad interpretation of [Ti-
and appeals court decisions between mid-1990 and
tle VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act," Blumrosen
1994, Blumrosen concluded that there was "no
observed. "These figures tend to confirm my sug-
widespread abuse of affirmative action programs in
gestion based on earlier statistics that 'affirmative
employment" and that many of the individual re-
action has deep roots in the industrial relations
verse discrimination claims were brought by "dis-
system'."
appointed" job applicants, who were found by the
Although "improvement and simplification" of
courts to be less qualified for the job than the
the federal EEO programs "is desirable," he con-
chosen female or minority applicant.
cluded, "nothing in these cases would justify dis-
Copyright O 1995 by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC., Washington, D.C. 20037
0418-2693/95/$0+$1.00
AA - 2
(No. 56)
LEADING THE NEWS
(DLR)
3-23-95
mantling the existing structure of equal
role in defending the merits of affirmative action. He
employment opportunity programs."
said he intended to reassert his views on the subject
(Text of the reverse discrimination study appears
with Clinton aide George Stephanapoulous.
in Section E.)
"At this point, EEOC and OFCCP are not even
in the debate," he said. "Fear and foolishness is
-By Nancy Montwieler
prevailing over fact. Evidence is not part of the
debate."
Affirmative Action
Citing the Labor Department's recently released
EEOC, OFCCP NEED MORE VISIBLE ROLE
Glass Ceiling Report as evidence of the barriers
IN CIVIL RIGHTS DEBATE, JACKSON ASSERTS
that still prevent minorities and women from ad-
vancing to higher-paying jobs, Jackson said more
The federal government's leading fair employ-
"substantive data" must be brought into the de-
ment agencies-the Equal Employment Opportuni-
bate. "That data's not out there," he said. "If most
ty Commission and the Labor Department's Office
Americans knew about it, they would be for affir-
of Federal Contract Compliance Programs-should
mative action as a conservative remedy."
become more visible players in the affirmative
Casellas and Vice-Chairman Paul Igasaki said
action debate, the Rev. Jesse Jackson asserted
they had provided Jackson with data on EEOC
March 22, following a meeting with EEOC Chair-
charges and litigation and that he was "impressed
man Gilbert Casellas.
by the statistics."
EEOC and OFCCP officials "are not in the
EEOC has been providing similar information to
inner circle" of Clinton administration discussions
the White House for its ongoing review of affirma-
on the issue, Jackson charged, and their absence
tive action programs, Casellas said, and has been
has had an impact in drawing the direction of the
"involved to a degree" in the review.
debate toward politics and away from substance.
"The public debate [over affirmative action] is
During a meeting with President Clinton earlier
based on a lot of misinformation," Casellas said.
this month, Jackson said he had "made it clear" that
"My role has been to provide fact to counter some
the enforcement agencies should be taking a greater
of that fiction and misinformation."
End of Section
Copyright © 1995 by THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC., Washington, D.C. 20037
0418-2693/95/$0+$1.00
APR-18-95 TUE 13:43
P.01
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Chief Financial Officer
Assistant Secretary for Administration
STATES -
Washington, D.C. 20230
FAX COVER SHEET
APR 18
Date: 4/18/95
Alexis HERMAN
To:
Fax Number:
456-2983
From:
GLORiA GUTIERREZ Dept g Commen
Fax Number: 202/482-3592
Telephone Number: 202/482-4951
Total number of pages including cover: 4
FYI - a friend of
Jomis did This work -
thought you might Slain be interested
APR-18-95 TUE 13:43
P. 02
From: George H. Fisher To: Tom Bloom
Date: 4/18/95 Time: 08:21:44
Page 2 of 4
George Fisher-Associates-
human resource consultants
FOR RELEASE APRIL 20, 1995
The data below is based on Survey results through April 17. 1995. Corporations included in the survey were give
until April 17, 1995 to respond. Final tabulation will be available by 8am EDT April 20, 1995.
consept AA
CORPORATE AMERICA SUPPORTS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
93% Support Reg
The results of a survey of Fortune 250 and Financial 100 employers released today by Mark R. Fisher & Associates,
Farmington, Michigan reveals that 93 percent of these major employers support the concept of Affirmative Action set
forth in Executive Order 11246 and its Implementing regulations. Nonetheless, 70 percent believe the regulations
are in need of revision.
Mark Fisher stated that "The survey was taken to bring the perspective of Corporate America to this national
discussion on Affirmative Action. These employers developed the basic regulations governing Affirmative Action and
are the ones who are audited to see if their plans are being Implemented. In other words they know what they are
talking about."
Unfust
Never
The survey reveals that 86 percent of our nations largest employers assert that they have never hired an "unqualified
8670
person" due to Affirmative Action Goals and Timetables while 91 percent of these employers assert that they have
turn
never promoted an "unqualified person" due to Affirmative Action Goals and Timetables. The results are in stark
91%
contrast to politicians and talk radio hosts who charge that Affirmative Action should be abolished because it has
promo
resulted in substantial numbers of qualified candidates being passed over so unqualified persons can be selected,
Princed
Quatas
Contrary to the assertions of Affirmative Action antagonists only 9 percent of these major employers equate the
990=to
"goals and timetables" required by Affirmative Action as absolute quotas" which must be achieved.
git
The survey reveals that 59 percent of these major employers believe the Federal Government should simplify the
59%
5mgl
methodology used for establishing "goals and timetables" and 8 percent believe that "goals and timetables" should
retar
be retained as is" while 33 percent believe "goals and timetables" should be abolished.
820
briend
3370
The survey also reveals that 55 percent of these major employers include Affirmative Action Plans as part of their
Sensitive
basic business strategy such as human resource planning. According to the survey 81 percent of these employers
believe that their Affirmative Action Plans has raised the sensitivity of management to the whole concept of Equal
Roised
Employment Opportunity. In addition 68 percent of Americas major employers state that their Affirmative Action Plans
2/7
have focused their attention on minorities and women who might have otherwise been overlooked but who were
selected and are contributing to business success.
OBE/WBE
Concerning the Affirmative Action setasides required by various local, state or federal agencies for minority or female
owned businesses 43 percent of these major employers believe the regulations should be revised while 25 percent
43% rense
the setasides should remain unchanged and 32 percent believe setasides should be abolished.
2570
3290
January 1994 all of these employers have been notified by either a local, state or federal agency that an
allegation of some type (race, sex, age, or handicap) of discrimination has been filed against them. During the same
period 50 percent of these employers have had a law suit filed against them in either a state or federal court alleging
that they have committed some type of discrimination.
George Fisher, President of George Fisher Associates, Human Resource Consultants, Marine City, Michigan. who
commissioned the survey in early April explained that, "The results of the survey should not surprise anyone who
700 S. Water St
Marine City, MI 48039
810/765-8416
Fax: 810/765-9874
APR-18-95 TUE 13:44
P. 03
From: George H. Fisher 10: 10m bloom
Date: 4/18/95 Time: 08:23:14
Page 3 of 4
Page: 2
April 18, 1995
knows that the current regulations are actually the brainchild of the National Alliance of Businessmen who developed
them at the behest of President Johnson in the mid 1960's. With this in mind It is disturbing to observe opponents
of Affinnative Action attempting to revise history by asserting that Affirmative Action has ravaged a "phantom tradition
of mentocracy." The old cliché, "It's not what you know but whom you know that counts" captures the essence of the
American way of personnel actions before the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
Fisher, who has a twenty seven year career in Civil Rights which includes the Steel Industry Consent Decree and
the Harris Trust Settlement, observed that, "Affirmative Action has become the scape goat for those selecting officials
who refuse to take responsibility for their decisions. They find it easier to attribute their selection to Affirmative Action
rather than advising those who were not selected that there was someone else who was just as good or better suited
for opportunity. Perhaps the classic example of such scape goating is the Alan Baake case where the Medical School
admissions official refused to tell Baake that he was never in the selection pool because of his age and instead
blamed his nonselection on the Medical Schools Attirmative Action Program. Major universities have always had
various methods of categorizing applicants for admission prior to Affirmative Action. They counted the children of
Alumni separately from other applicants. They counted applicants by geographical distribution. Universities were
interested in having as diverse a student body JC poceible. Affirmative Action was just another subdivision of Unit
method of evaluating applicants. The admission officials' scape goating worked out well for Baake. However, it
triggored the trashing of the phrase "Affirmative Action" by divisive voices who have persuaded many average
Americans to now believe that "Affirmative Action" means "no white men need apply". it is interesting to note that
these divisive voice have utterly failed to brain wash those who preside over Corporate America. Nonetheless, the
phrase "Affirmative Action" has been so maligned among folks on the street that it may be damaged beyond repair.
I'm not sure that the political energy required to try to rehabilitate the blemished phrase would be worth the effort."
Fisher further analyzed the results of the survey, "The affirmative action advocacy groups and their friends should
be heartened by the fact that the vast majority of these major employers in the survey support the "concept of
Affirmative Action." However, they should take heed that a substantial majority maintain that the regulations are
in need of significant revision. The current regulations were developed to deal with the job structure of large
manufacturing employers as they existed in the early 1960's. Trying to adapt those regulations to the employment
opportunities that exist in the late 1990's is unwieldy at best. Employers have dramatically changed their way of doing
business over the last 30 years. One of those changes has been the ever evolving profession of the Human Resource
professional which was largely brought about by the Affirmative Action Regulations. It is time to revisit the Affirmative
Action regulations but that revisiting should not be conducted by Federal Agencies."
In closing Fisher stated, "I'm appalled by political candidates who imply that it is unAmerican to count persons by
race and gender. Person counting did not start with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rather it is as American as Apple pie.
We have been counting persons since the signing of the constitution where it says that Negroes shall be counted as
3/5 of a person. This country has been counting persons by race and gender ever since."
For information on the above release please contact Mark R. Fisher& Associates at 810/473-
0389
APR-18-95 TUE 13:45
P. 04
From: George H. Fisher To: Tom Bloom
Date: 4/18/95 Time: 08:24:41
Page 4 of 4
Page 3
April 18. 1995
George H. Fisher
Prior to forming George Fisher Associates he had a distinguished career as a senior government manager in
the field of contract compliance with the Departments of Defense (Director of Operations, Chicago), Treasury
(Regional Manager, Chicago) and Labor (District Director Grand Rapids, MI and Portland, OR). He began his
government career as both an investigator and conciliator with the Michigan Civil Rights Commission. His career
accompli::hments includes The Steel Consent Decree. The Harris Bank Settlement and the computerization of Dol
District Offices are unparalleled in the history of contract compliance.
He has lectured and conducted seminars on Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action and Civil Rights at
Northwestern University, the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Grand Valley State
University, Portland State University, the University of Oregon us well us numerous community colleges.
During his career he hasdone EEO- Affirmative Action problem solving with manufactures such as: General
Motors, Ford. Chrysler, Nike, US Steel. Inland Steel, Bethlehem Steel, Weyerhauser Paper; financial
institutions such as: First Chicago Bank Harris Trust, First Wisconsin, Mercantile Bank, First Interstate
Bank, Continental Bank, Michigan National Bank, Old Kent Bank: high tech firms such as Intel, Mentor
Craphies: trade associations such as the American Bankers Association, the Michigan, Illinois, Missouri,
Wisconsin and Oregon Bankers Associations, the American Association for Affirmative Action, the National
Urban League, the American Management Association, the National Association of Bank Women,
Underground Contractors Association, the Association of General Contractors, the National Electrical
Contractors Association, and units of government which included the State of Illinois, the State of Michigan.
the State of Oregon, and the State of Idaho.
He formed George Fisher Associates (GFA) to provide Senior Corporate Management with an informed,
objective evaluation of Human Resource Programs. GFA will either assure senior management that their HR
efforts fulfill Equal Employment and Government compliance obligations, promote employee morale, contribute
to enthusiastic public perception and a positive bottom line or offer strategies to strengthen, enhance or correct
them.
George Fisher was raised in Detroit, Michigan. He received a B.A. in Social Science from Capital University,
Columbus, Chio and a Master of Divinity in History from Trinity Theological Seminary, Columbus, Ohio.
Date: 03/15/95 Time: 23:51
Women's Groups Raising Voices In Affirmative Action Debate
Women's Groups Raising Voices In Affirmative Action Debate
(Washington) -- A number of women's groups are calling for ''no
retreat'' on affirmative action programs.
Women's leaders from a wide range of organizations held a news
conference today to demonstrate their solidarity. Afterward, they
held a march to the White House for a meeting on the issue with
officials there.
President Clinton is nearing a decision on his review of
affirmative action programs. He may reveal his intentions in a
speech as early as next week.
The representatives of the women's groups claim that affirmative
action programs are still needed to eliminate discrimination based
on sex.
The president of the Feminist Majority, Eleanor Smeal, says the
groups intend to wake up a ''sleeping giant" -- America's working
woman.
(SOUND: 1:32 pes)
APNP-03-15-95 2355EST