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
323152949
label
U.S. Civil Rights Members' Swearing-In 5/17/90 [OA 6898] [1]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
323152949
contentType
document
title
U.S. Civil Rights Members' Swearing-In 5/17/90 [OA 6898] [1]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13719-005
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Speech Backup Chronological Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
323152949
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
12f89066fc2f78cb
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
S; 1999-0285-F
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Speech File Backup Files
Subseries:
Chron File, 1989-1993
OA/ID Number:
13719
Folder ID Number:
13719-005
Folder Title:
U.S. Civil Rights Members' Swearing-in 5/17/90 [OA 6898] [1]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
26
20
5
7
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Cavagor
Secretary ADD. Sullivan
X
Connowna
delete Regional Directore
Document Originally
Attached to
Following Page
Final Copy to check
(Lange/Cawley)
May 16, 1990
3:30 p.m.
[AFFIRM.DOC]
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: NATIONAL COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
THE ROSE GARDEN
Cavazos: 732 3043
THURSDAY, MAY 17, 1990
Thornburgh:
10:00 A.M.
Civil Rights Comm:
Thank you all. Attorney General Thornburgh. Chairman
(Nary Boltimore)
Fletcher, Commissioners Buckley, Ramirez, and Redenbaugh
[RED-in-bao]; Wilfredo Gonzalez, Regional Directors and State
Advisory Committee Chairpersons:
Connie Svlliv New Cavazos uran Newinan
It's an honor to have you here today. We meet at a very
hopeful moment worldwide. A time when the thundering cry for
freedom is being heard and answered from Panama to Johannesburg
to Warsaw. Around the world, peoples warring against tyranny,
citizens struggling against state control, economies weary of
bureaucratic central planning, all are looking to America as
reason for hope -- the bright star by which to chart their course
to freedom.
So it's all the more crucial now that we look carefully to
the kind of country we are -- to the state of democracy here in
the land of liberty. We are called upon to ensure that this
democracy means opportunity, for all who call it home. 11
Few have worked harder to deliver the promise of democracy,
to make an enduring dream a living reality, than the men and
women assembled here today -- and particularly, these men and
women behind me.
From its earliest origins, the Commission on Civil Rights
has been an independent, bipartisan voice for justice. The
2
Commissioners, the Directors, the Advisory Committees, all share
a cultural diversity, and an intellectual and moral conviction,
that are truly America's best. These men and women have earned
our admiration. Today, they deserve our thanks.
Joining a new Chairman, and my friend of many years, Art
Fletcher, are two outstanding additions: Carl Anderson and
Russell Redenbaugh [RED-in-bao]. I know Bob Dole shares my
admiration for Russell -- a man of impressive credentials -- who
knows, as all Americans should know, that physical disability
will not be a barrier to service in this Administration. That's
Howard
why I remain firmly committed to the landmark "Americans with
Jack
X7766
Novote
Disabilities Act" to help ensure equal rights and opportunities
Mary qabriel
LeqisHff
for these Americans. Today I'd like to announce a new member of
7766 the Civil Rights Commission: Mr. Charles Pei Wang [PAY WAING] --
President of the China Institute in America, and an outstanding
new addition.
Over the last few days I've met to discuss pending civil
rights legislation with leaders representing America's rich
tapestry of cultural, religious, and ethnic diversity. I got, as
I knew I would, a great deal of sound advice. These leaders,
this Commission, the Congress, and this Administration, all share
a common conviction for equal opportunity. It's a responsibility
I have always taken very seriously -- especially now, when our
most vital export to the world is democracy.
We must make sure that we as a nation lead by example. We
must see that true affirmative action is not reduced to an empty
FHA am. 1988
entercement
3
slogan -- and that this principle has real, living meaning, for
all Americans. We will leave nothing to chance, and no stone
unturned, as we work to advance America's civil rights agenda.
emp of
This nation's progress against prejudice -- from the 1964
tenants
-
Civil Rights Act, to the Voting Rights Act, to the Fair Housing
ownership
and Age Discrimination in Employment Acts -- it has all hinged on
the principle that no one in this country should be excluded from
opportunity. So, we're committed to enacting new measures --
eary Andres
christ-
like the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, the HOPE initiative, and
our fair housing laws and
HUD5-5005 155
revitalized enforcement of restrictions against employment bias.
This Administration seeks equal opportunity and equal
protection under the law for all Americans -- goals that I know
are shared by Senator Kennedy and Representative Hawkins. So
we've supported efforts to ensure an individual's ability to
challenge discriminatory seniority systems. We've also moved to
stiffen the penalties for racial discrimination in setting or
applying the terms and conditions of employment.
Today, as we work to ensure that America represents
democracy's highest expression, I want to begin by offering three
principles that must guide any amendments to our civil rights
laws.
These principles are firmly rooted in the spirit of our
current laws -- and after the extensive discussions we've had
this week, I think they're principles on which all of us --
including the leadership on the Hill -- can agree. So I will
enthusiastically support legislation that meets these principles.
4
First, civil rights legislation must operate to obliterate
consideration of race, color, religion, sex, nation of origin,
age, or disability from employment decisions. We seek civil
rights legislation that is more effective, not less. The focus
of employers in this country must be on providing equal
opportunity for all workers -- not on developing strategies to
avoid litigation. No one here today would want me to sign a bill
whose unintended consequences are quotas -- because quotas
violate the most basic principles of our civil rights tradition,
and the promise of democracy.
The surest, most insidious symptom of the perpetuation of
injustice was well understood by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Nearly 30 years ago he knew, as Americans of all walks of life
know today, that quotas are wrong. He wrote, in fact, that
"tokenism can now be seen not only as a useless goal, but as a
genuine menace. It is a palliative which relieves emotional
distress, but leaves the disease and its ravages unaffected."
We want to eradicate the disease. And America's minority
communities deserve more than symptomatic relief. They deserve
systematic solutions -- strategies that transcend statistics.
We should empower and ennoble our minority communities. We
should seek systematic change that allows every American to
excel. During my meetings this week, I invited the civil rights
leadership to work with me to craft a bill, in the spirit of our
record of civil rights legislation, that moves us toward this
5
goal. I am confident that this can be done. I want to sign a
civil rights bill; I cannot sign a quota bill.
Second, civil rights legislation must reflect fundamental
principles of fairness that apply throughout our legal system:
individuals who believe their rights have been violated are
entitled to their day in court, and an accuser must shoulder the
burden of proof. In every case involving a civil rights dispute,
constitutional protections of due process must be preserved.
And third, Federal law should provide an adequate deterrent
to sexual or religious harassment, or harassment on the basis of
disability in the workplace, and should ensure a speedy end to
such discriminatory practices. In improving the remedies,
however, our civil rights laws should not be turned into a
bonanza for lawyers, encouraging litigation at the expense of
conciliation, mediation, or settlement.
Let me add that Congress should subject itself to the same
requirements it prescribes for others. In 1972, the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 was justly applied to executive agencies and state
and local governments. Congress, however, is not yet covered.
This inconsistency must be remedied, to give Congressional
employees and applicants the full protection of the law. The
Congress should join the Executive Branch in setting an example
for private employers.
We seek strategies that work -- putting power where it
belongs: in the hands of people. And that means new ideas, like
giving poor parents the power of an alternative, and choice in
6
where to send their kids to school -- so that all can have access
to the best. It means more tenant control and ownership of
public housing. Tax credits for child care, to give parents more
flexibility and choice. And policies that underwrite prosperity,
by encouraging capital flow to businesses in poor neighborhoods.
The door is open wider now than it has ever been -- and
together we can open it still wider. Today, an expanding economy
is working in the service of civil rights. Let's not set back
the clock. Let us look past the differences that divide us, to
the shared principles and better natures we have within us.
To the Civil Rights leadership assembled here today: I have
offered you my hand, and my word, that together we will make
America "open and equal to all." This administration is
committed to action that is truly affirmative -- positive action,
in every sense -- to strike down all barriers to advancement, of
every kind, for all people. We will tolerate no barriers, no
bias, no inside tracks, no two-tiered systems, no glass ceilings,
and no rungless ladders. 11
who
Now is the time to extend a hand to all that struggle on the
other side -- and to devote our energies to a broader agenda of
empowerment, that all might join in this new age of freedom.
Thank you, and God bless you all.
# # #
ADA vote call gack Howard Jack Howard
X7766
Hope (fair Housing inst atives: a difference
THE WHITE HOUSE
Gary Andres
(Lange/Cawley)
X7766
WASHINGTON
May 16, 1990
8:50 a.m.
Acknowledgements
[AFFIRM.DOC]
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: NATIONAL COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
THE ROSE GARDEN
THURSDAY, MAY 17, 1990
10:00 A.M.
Thank you all. Attorney General Thornburgh, Secretary
Marrymore
Cavazos; Chairman Fletcher, Commissioners Buckley, Ramirez, and
Wilfredo
Redenbauch; Willie Gonzalez, Regional Directors and State
Advisory Committee Members
chairpersons
It's an honor to have you here today. We meet at a very
hopeful moment worldwide. A time when the thundering cry for
freedom is being heard and answered from Panama to Johannesburg
to Warsaw. Around the world, peoples warring against tyranny,
citizens struggling against state control, economies weary of
bureaucratic central planning, all are looking to America as
reason for hope -- the bright star by which to chart their course
to freedom.
So it's all the more crucial now that we look carefully to
the kind of country we are -- to the state of democracy here in
the land of liberty. Whatever the nations of the world decide
about their futures, we are called upon to ensure that this
democracy means opportunity, for all who call it home. 11
Few have worked harder to deliver the promise of democracy,
to make an enduring dream a living reality, than the men and
women assembled here today -- and particularly, these men and
women behind me.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
From its earliest origins, the Commission on Civil Rights
has been an independent, bipartisan voice for justice. The
Commissioners, the Directors, the Advisory Committees, all share
a cultural diversity, and an intellectual and moral conviction,
that are truly America's best. These men and women have earned
our admiration. Today, they deserve our thanks.
Joining a new Chairman, and my friend of many years, Art
Fletcher, are two outstanding additions: Carl Anderson and
Russell Redenbauch. I know Bob Dole shares my admiration for
Russell -- a man of impressive credentials -- who knows, as all
Americans should know, that physical disability will not be a
barrier to service in this Administration. That's why I remain
firmly committed to the landmark "Americans with Disabilities
Act" to help ensure equal rights and opportunities for these
Americans.
Over the last few days I've met to discuss pending civil
rights legislation with leaders representing America's rich
tapestry of cultural, religious, and ethnic diversity. I got, as
I knew I would, a great deal of sound advice. These leaders,
this Commission, the Congress, and this Administration, all share
a common conviction for equal opportunity. It's a responsibility
I have always taken very seriously -- especially now, when our
most vital export to the world is democracy.
We must make sure that we as a nation lead by example. We
must see that true affirmative action is not reduced to an empty
slogan -- and that this principle has real, living meaning, for
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
all Americans. We will leave nothing to chance, and no stone
unturned, as we work to advance America's civil rights agenda.
This nation's progress against prejudice -- from the 1964
Civil Rights Act, to the Voting Rights Act, to the Fair Housing
and Age Discrimination in Employment Acts -- it has all hinged on
the principle that no one in this country should be excluded from
opportunity.
So, we're committed to enacting new measures -- like the
HOPE initiative, and revitalized enforcement of restrictions
Hate Crimes Statistics Act, our fair housing initiatives, the Gary Anares X7766
against employment bias.
This Administration seeks equal opportunity and equal
protection under the law for all Americans -- goals that I know
are shared by Senator Kennedy and Representative Hawkins. So
we've supported efforts to ensure an individual's ability to
challenge discriminatory seniority systems. We've also moved to
stiffen the penalties for racial discrimination in setting or
applying the terms and conditions of employment.
Today, as we work to ensure that America represents
democracy's highest expression, I want to begin by offering three
principles that must guide any amendments to our civil rights
laws.
These principles are firmly rooted in the spirit of our
current laws -- and after the extensive discussions we've had
this week, I think they're principles on which we all of us --
including the leadership on the Hill -- can agree. So I will
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
enthusiastically support legislation that meets these principles.
First, civil rights legislation must operate to obliterate
consideration of race, color, religion, sex, nation of origin,
age, or disability from employment decisions. [[ Some provisions
of the Kennedy-Hawkins bill, with the best of intentions, still
have an unintended consequence: they encourage employers to make
decisions on the basis of these irrelevant characteristics to
avoid costly litigation. In spite of recent amendments, the bill
encourages employers to base hiring decisions on the very
considerations our civil rights laws direct them to ignore. ]]
We seek civil rights legislation that is more effective, not
less. The focus of employers in this country must be on
providing equal opportunity for all workers -- not on developing
strategies to avoid litigation. No one here today would want me
to sign a bill whose unintended consequences are quotas --
because quotas violate the most basic principles of our civil
rights tradition, and the promise of democracy.
The surest, most insidious symptom of the perpetuation of
injustice was well understood by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Nearly 30 years ago he knew, as Americans of all walks of life
know today, that quotas are wrong. He wrote, in fact, that
"tokenism can now be seen not only as a useless goal, but as a
genuine menace. It is a palliative which relieves emotional
distress, but leaves the disease and its ravages unaffected."
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
We want to eradicate the disease. And America's minority
communities deserve more than symptomatic relief. They deserve
systematic solutions -- strategies that transcend statistics.
We should empower and ennoble our minority communities. We
should seek systematic change that allows every American to
excel. During my meetings this week, I invited the civil rights
leadership to work with me to craft a bill, in the spirit of our
record of civil rights legislation, that moves us toward this
goal.
Second, civil rights legislation must reflect fundamental
principles of fairness that apply throughout our legal system:
individuals who believe their rights have been violated are
entitled to their day in court, and an accuser must shoulder the
burden of proof. In every case involving a civil rights dispute,
constitutional protections of due process must be preserved.
And third, Federal law should provide an adequate deterrent
to sexual or religious harassment, or harassment on the basis of
disability in the workplace, and should ensure a speedy end to
such discriminatory practices. In improving the remedies,
however, our civil rights laws should not be turned into a
bonanza for lawyers, encouraging litigation at the expense of
conciliation, mediation, or settlement.
Let me add that Congress should subject itself to the same
requirements it prescribes for others. In 1972, the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 was justly applied to executive agencies and state
and local governments. Congress, however, is not yet covered.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
This inconsistency must be remedied, to give Congressional
employees and applicants the full protection of the law. The
Congress should join the Executive Branch in setting an example
for private employers.
We seek strategies that work -- putting power where it
belongs: in the hands of people. And that means new ideas, like
giving poor parents the power of an alternative, and choice in
where to send their kids to school -- so that all can have access
to the best. It means more tenant control and ownership of
public housing. Tax credits for child care, to give parents more
flexibility and choice. And policies that underwrite prosperity,
by encouraging capital flow to businesses in poor neighborhoods.
The door is open wider now than it has ever been -- and
together we can open it still wider. Today, an expanding economy
is working in the service of civil rights. Let's not set back
the clock. Let us look past the differences that divide us, to
the shared principles and better natures we have within us.
To the Civil Rights leadership assembled here today: I have
offered you my hand, and my word, that together we will make
America "open and equal to all." This administration is
committed to action that is truly affirmative -- positive action,
in every sense -- to strike down all barriers to advancement, of
every kind, for all people. We will tolerate no barriers, no
bias, no inside tracks, no two-tiered systems, no glass ceilings,
and no rungless ladders.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Now is the time to extend a hand to all that struggle on the
other side -- and to devote our energies to a broader agenda of
empowerment, that all might join in this new age of freedom.
Thank you, and God bless you all.
NBC
Michael Jackson
-acknowledgements
time
place
-p.2
Mark
p.T- Panama city
P.3-
p.4 1962
p
6 Fletcher chair
GE 30B (1/87)
Document Originally
Attached to
Following Page
Rm 23
Staffed
(Lange/Cawley)
May 14, 1990
5:00 P.M.
[AFFIRM.DOC]
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: NATIONAL COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
[ 450 OEOB ]
THURSDAY, MAY 17, 1990
[ TIME ]
Thank you all. Arthur Fletcher, Mary Frances Berry, Esther
Gonzalez-Arroyo Buckley, Blandina Cardenas Ramirez, Russell
Redenbauch; Dick Thornburg, Secretary Cavazos; Regional directors
and State Advisory Committee Members
It's an honor to have you here today. We meet on an
Encyc. Britannica
auspicious day -- the anniversary of the landmark Brown V. Board
of Education decision. And we meet at a very hopeful moment
worldwide. A time when the thundering cry for freedom is being
city
heard and answered from Panama to Johannesburg to Warsaw.
Around the world, people wary of state control, economies
weary of bureaucratic central planning, all are looking to
America as reason for hope -- the bright star to follow as they
chart their course to freedom.
So it's all the more crucial now, that we look carefully to
the kind of country we are -- to the state of democracy here in
the land of its birth. Whatever the nations of the world decide
about their futures, We are called upon to ensure that this
democracy means opportunity, for all who call it home.
No one in America -- no one -- has worked harder to deliver
the promise of democracy, to make an enduring dream a living
reality, than the men and women in this room today.
From its earliest origins, the Commission on Civil Rights
Commission
Fact sheet
2
Commission
has been an independent, bipartisan voice for justice. The
Fact sheet
Commissioners, Directors, and volunteers who serve on Advisory
Committees, all share an intellectual caliber, a moral
conviction, and a cultural diversity that are truly America's
best. These men and women have earned our admiration. Today,
they deserve our thanks.
Over the last few days I've met with leaders representing
NPOST
P.A-1
America's rich tapestry of cultural, religious, and ethnic
diversity. I got, as I knew I would, a great deal of sound
advice -- and as I imagined I would, just a little constructive
criticism. But these leaders, this Commission, and this
Administration, all share a common conviction for equal
opportunity. It's a responsibility I have always taken very
seriously -- and it's especially serious now, when our most vital
export to the world is democracy.
We must make sure that we as a nation lead by example. We
must see that affirmative action is not reduced to a slogan --
and that the principle of equal opportunity has real, living
meaning, for all Americans.
To the Civil Rights leadership assembled here today: I
have
elackson
offered you my hand, and my word, that together we will make
America "open and equal to all." Today, I want to explore in
greater depth our commitment to equal opportunity.
To begin with, this administration is committed to action
that is truly affirmative -- positive action, in every sense --
to strike down all barriers to advancement, of every kind, for
3
all people. We will tolerate no barriers, no bias, no inside
tracks, no two-tiered systems, no glass ceilings, and no rungless
ladders.
\\
Now, let me tell you what we're against.
\\
We're against any action or lack of action that would
perpetuate or exacerbate injustice. And I know the leadership in
the Congress shares this conviction.
This nation's progress against prejudice -- from the 1964
/
Points
Draft; Civil Rights Act, to the Voting Rights Act, to the Fair Housing
Marianne
Mcgettigan
Act, to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act -- it has all
hinged on the principle that no one in this country should be
excluded from opportunity.
That's why I remain firmly committed to the enactment this
mericans w/
Disabilities
year of landmark legislation to extend protections to those
Remarks
Americans with disabilities. \\ And we re committed to new
Points Draft - measures, like the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, fair housing
digettigan initiatives, and revitalized enforcement of restrictions against
employment bias.
Many of this Administration's proposals, in fact, share
common goals with the legislation being offered by Senator
Kennedy and Representative Hawkins -- goals of equal opportunity
and equal protection under the law. So we ve supported efforts
to ensure an individual's ability to challenge discriminatory
4POiNs Draft
- seniority systems. We ve also moved to stiffen the penalties for
Megettigan
racial discrimination in setting or applying the terms and
conditions of employment.
Today, as we work to ensure that America represents
4
democracy's highest expression, I want to offer four principles
that ought to guide any amendments to our civil rights laws.
These principles are firmly rooted in the spirit of our
current laws -- and after the extensive discussions we've had
this week, I think they're principles on which we all of us --
including the leadership on the Hill -- can agree. So I will
enthusiastically support legislation that meets these principles.
4
Points
Praft
- First, civil rights legislation must operate to obliterate
Mcgettigan
consideration of race, color, religion, sex, nation of origin,
age, or disability from employment decisions. As you know, Title
VII encourages hiring on the basis of ability and qualifications,
not race or religion.
Some provisions of the Kennedy-Hawkins bill, with the best
of intentions, still have an unintended consequence: they
encourage employers to make decisions on the basis of these
irrelevant characteristics. In spite of recent amendments, the
bill encourages employers to base hiring decisions on the very
considerations our civil rights laws direct them to ignore.
So we seek civil rights legislation that is more effective,
not less. Because the focus of employers in this country must be
on providing equal opportunity for all workers -- not on
developing strategies for avoiding litigation -- strategies that
are likely to result in quota schemes violating the most basic
principles of our civil rights tradition, and the promise of
democracy.
The surest, most insidious symptom of the perpetuation of
5
varly 30 years ago
injustice was well understood by Martin Luther King in 1962. He
knew then, as Americans of all walks of life know today, that
3old Design quotas are wrong. He wrote, in fact, that "tokenism can now be
for A Now South p113
Annual Rpt. seen not only as a useless goal, but as a genuine menace. It is
n State of civil
a palliative which relieves emotional distress, but leaves the
lights by Pr.King
for Nation
disease and its ravages unaffected."
We want to eradicate the disease. And America's minority
communities deserve more than symptomatic relief. They deserve
systematic solutions -- through strategies that transcend
statistics and quotas.
Rather than perpetuate the demoralizing stigma of
preferential distinctions, we should empower and ennoble our
minority communities. Rather than sowing the seeds of self-
doubt and questions of competence in anyone's heart, we should
seek systematic change that allows every American to excel.
And I'm confident the leadership will work with me to craft a
bill, in the spirit of our record of civil rights legislation,
that moves us toward this goal.
Second, civil rights legislation must reflect fundamental
4 Points Proft
Mcgettigan
principles of fairness: individuals who believe their rights
have been violated are entitled to their day in court, and an
accused is innocent until proven quilty. In every case of civil
rights dispute, constitutional protections must be preserved.
Third, Congress must subject itself to the same requirements
it prescribes for others. In 1972, the Civil Rights Act of 1964
was justly applied to executive agencies and state and local
6
governments. Congress, however, is not yet covered. This
inconsistency must be remedied, to give Congressional employees
and applicants the full protection of the law. These people,
too, are entitled to their rights, and the Congress should join
the Executive Branch in setting an example for private employers.
And fourth, Federal law should provide an adequate deterrent
to sexual or religious harassment on the basis of disability in
the workplace, and ensure a speedy end to such discriminatory
practices. In improving the remedies, however, our civil rights
laws should not be turned into a bonanza for lawyers, encouraging
litigation at the expense of conciliation, mediation, or
settlement. Ultimately, cooperation will serve the interests of
all parties far better than litigious conflicts.
W.Post
ChailArthur Fletcher said recently, "I'm looking for a more
5-14-90
P.A12
comprehensive response. You can't go a quarter-mile in this time
in our nation's history when the full mile is needed." I agree.
A moment ago, I spoke of my conviction that America's minority
communities deserve more than symptomatic relief. I believe they
deserve systematic solutions -- an agenda of change that
transcends statistics and quotas.
We seek strategies that work -- putting power where it
belongs: in the hands of people. And that means new ideas, like
school vouchers to give poor parents the power of an alternative,
and choice in where to send their kids -- so that all can have
access to the best. It means more tenant control and ownership of
public housing. Tax credits for child care without restrictions
7
of any kind, to give parents more flexibility and choice. And
policies that underwrite prosperity, by encouraging capital flow
to build more businesses in poor neighborhoods.
Affirmative action and equal opportunity must be more than
issues of social responsibility, and more than matters of legal
compulsion. Because as labor markets tighten, people of every
walk of life, of every kind, all will be in growing demand in
this new decade. All will be needed. In any field, those who
know how to apply sources of talent once left untapped; who know
how to recruit, how to train, re-train, and retain talent; how to
educate, how to motivate, and promote -- those with that
knowledge will prosper.
This broader agenda must be part of a more comprehensive
effort of affirmative action. The interests of economics and
justice are coinciding now like never before. The door is open
wider now than it has ever been -- and we can open it still
wider.
So let us look past the superficial differences that divide
us, to the shared principles and better natures we have within
us. Now is the time to extend a hand to all that struggle on the
other side -- and to devote our energies to a broader agenda of
empowerment, that all might join in this new age of freedom.
Thank you, and God bless you all.
###
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01. Resume
Re: Charles Pei Wang. (1 pp.)
n.d.
(b)(6)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Speech File, Backup
Subseries:
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
U.S. Civil Rights Members' Swearing-In 5/17/90 [1]
Date Closed:
10/18/2004
OA/ID Number:
06898
FOIA/SYS Case #:
S
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
2004-2265-S
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
CHARLES PEI WANG
JOHNY DO ANNOUNCE
SUMMARY
Over 20 years of experience in human services.
Seventeen years in a management capacity.
Major accomplishments in program development and grantsmanship.
Comprehensive knowledge of social services.
Strong skills in employment and training, program conception
and Implementation.
Expertise Includes cultural affairs, health planning and affirmative action.
EXPERIENCE
Currently, China Institute in America, President
1982-Present
CHINESE-AMERICAN PLANNING COUNCIL, INC.
(1989-pusent)
480 Broadway, New York, NY
(New 40rk,Nu)
1989
Executive Director (1982-Prescht)
Manage the largest social service agency serving Chinese Americans in New York
City. Provided executive leadership during a period of budget growth from $4
million to $19 million annually. Work closely with Board of Directors; monitor
finance and administration for a total of 47 different programs and activities, such as
adult education, manpower training and placement, multi-social services,
culture and arts, day care, youth, family and senior citizen services.
Managing Director (1978-1982)
13 Elizabeth Street, New York, NY
Responsible for the agency's fiscal management and day to day operation of eight
day care programs, five employment training and placement programs, three multi-
social service programs, and culture and arts programs. Reported directly to the
Board of the agency.
Assistant Executive Director - Project Director (1975-1978)
Adult Education Center, 27-29 Division Street, New York, NY
Assisted the Executive Director to supervise eleven different program accounts.
Responsible for the day to day operation of the Adult Education center, a
comprehensive educational center providing ESL, GED, and job training instruction
and a CUNY-credited Chinatown Mini-university program leading to an A.A. or B.A.
degree.
Assistant Executive Director - Social Service Coordinator (1972-1975)
45 East Broadway, New York, NY
Assisted the Executive Director to supervise eleven different program accounts
including Youth, Drug Prevention, English Language, Day Care, Culture, Senior
Citizens, Housing, and Social Services.
Social Service Coordinator (1970-1972)
27-29 Division Street, New York, NY
In addition to the responsibilities as the Community Organization Coordinator,
served as the administrative assistant to the Executive Director of the agency.
O. WANG
Page 2
Community Organization Coordinator (1968-1970)
3 Pell Street, New York, NY
Responsible for planning and Implementing day care, day camp, and recreation
programs; oversaw tutoring services for elementary school children and ESL for
adults; managed manpower training, placement, and housing programs. Supervise
community workers and Immigration workers to carry out a multi-social service
program for newly-arrived Immigrants.
1968
CHILDVILLE, INC., Brooklyn, NY
Child Care Worker
Responsible for supervising six emotionally disturbed children in an institutional
setting and working under a psychiatrist and a psychiatric social worker to see that
these children return to normal living situations.
1967-1968
RIVERDALE CHILDREN'S ASSOCIATION, INC., New York, NY
Case Worker
Responsible for supervising 16 foster children in 10 foster homes and providing the
linkage among the children, their foster parents, and their real parents.
CONSULTING
January 1975
NEW YORK STATE COUNCIL ON THE ARTS, New York,NY
-June 1977
Panel Consultant
Reviewed, evaluated, and made recommendations for the funding of art service
organizations to the amount of two million dollars annually for the Art Service
Organization Division of the New York State Council on the Arts.
August 1973
U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS, New York, NY
-April 1974
Staff Consultant, Eastern Regional Office
Responsible for planning and implementing the first public hearing ever held by a
U.S. government agency in New York on Asian American concems.
CIVIC
U.S. Census Bureau Asian Advisory Board - Chairman
INVOLVEMENT
New York State Human Rights Department Advisory Committee - member
New York City Youth Board - Member
New York City Task Force on Human Services - Member
New York City Health Systems Agency Board - Secretary
New York City Mayor's Ethnic Advisory Council - Member
New York City Private Industry Council - Secretary
New York Council of Senior Citizen Centers - Board Member
New York City Partnership - Member
Pan American Airways Minority Advisory Board . Member
C. WANG
Page 3
EDUCATION
M.A., 1967
St. John's University, Jamaica, New York
Major: Asian History
B.A., 1964
National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan
Major: Chinese Language and Literature
POST GRADUATE
STUDIES
1968
Management Planning, St. John's University
School of Business Administration
1969-1970
Social Services, Columbia University
School of Social Work
1974-1976
New York City Manpower Resources, New School for Social Research Certificate
1972
Management of Community Organizations, New York Community Training Institute
1981
Management of Non-Profit Organizations
New York University, School of Public Administration
PROFESSIONAL
MEMBERSHIPS
American Management Association
Association of Teachers of Chinese Language and Culture
American Planning Association
Licensed Notary Public
AWARDS
1989
Who's Who in the East
1988
Movers Award, NY State NAACP
1986
Staten Island Medallion, Borough President of Staten Island
1985
Man of the Year Award
Organization of Chinese Americans Long Island Chapter
1982
Dynamic Achiever's Award
Organization of Chinese Americans - Westchester Chapter
1980
Distinguished Service Award
Federal Asian American Heritage Week Celebration Committee
PERSONAL DATA
Birth date: November 20, 1939
Citizenship: U.S. Citizen
Marital Status: Married, 1 child
REFERENCES
Available upon request.
Charles P. Wang
Executive Director
Chinese-American Planning Council
Management Skills
Over 20 years experience in human services management and has helped build
the largest, most comprehensive service agency for Asian-Americans in the country.
The agency is cited by United Way - New York City as one of the six best-managed
human service agencies for 1988.
Involvement in Employment and Training
Testified an a training program expert before Congressman Augustus F.
Hawkins' sub-committee on CETA legislation.
Served as Chairman of the Adult Committee of the Employment and Training
Planning Council of New York City which is the policy-making body for the
implementation of program funding under CETA for New York City.
Also served as a member of the Executive Committee, chaired by the
Commissioner of New York City Department of Employment. Helped write the annual
maste plan for New York City.
Currently serves as Secretary of Private Industry Council of New York City and
has been member of the Executive Committee since JTPA legislation cam into being.
Responsible for the administration of one of the most successful employment
and training programs with the highest placement rate in the City of New York. In
addition. the Adolescent Vocational Exploration program has been made a model for the
entire State of New York. Thus, has thorough knowledge of JTPA legislation and policy.
and hands-on administration of actual programmatic operations.
Campaign Activities
Has been active as an advisor to various local and national Chinese Republican
organizations, such as Chinese Republican Assembly. headed by Dr. John Tsu, and
Chinatown Republican Club, headed by Peter Ng. Had helped with the Bush-Quayle
National Campaign by encouraging citizens to vote, fundraising and assisting in many
local races such as in the U.S. Congress and the State Legislature.
Rep Hamiliton Sish
Bill goodling
Beeky Anaerson Legis aff
Bob Dale
MOTTOD Document Originally
Orrin Harh
Thursday
940
WASHINGTON
THE WHITE house
Following Page
Attached to
Jake garw
3
slogan -- and that this principle of striking down all barriers
to advancement has real, living meaning, for all Americans. We
will leave nothing to chance, and no stone unturned, as we work
to advance America's civil rights agenda.
This nation's progress against prejudice -- from the 1964
Civil Rights Act, to the Voting Rights Act, to the Fair Housing
and Age Discrimination in Employment Acts -- it has all hinged on
the principle that no one in this country should be excluded from
opportunity. So, we're committed to enacting new measures --
like the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, the HOPE initiative, and
revitalized enforcement of restrictions against employment bias.
This Administration seeks equal opportunity and equal
protection under the law for all Americans -- goals that I know
are shared by Senator Kennedy and Representative Hawkins. So
we've supported efforts to ensure an individual's ability to
challenge discriminatory seniority systems. We've also moved to
stiffen the penalties for racial discrimination in setting or
applying the terms and conditions of employment.
Today, as we work to ensure that America represents
democracy's highest expression, I want to begin by offering three
principles that must guide any amendments to our civil rights
laws.
These principles are firmly rooted in the spirit of our
current laws -- and after the extensive discussions we've had
this week, I think they're principles on which all of us --
including the leadership on the Hill -- can agree. So I will
4
enthusiastically support legislation that meets these principles.
First, civil rights legislation must operate to obliterate
factousuch.as
or
consideration of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age
or-disabilit from employment decisions. We seek civil rights
legislation that is more effective, not less. The focus of
employers in this country must be on providing equal opportunity
for all workers -- not on developing strategies to avoid
litigation. No one here today would want me to sign a bill whose
unintended consequences are quotas -- because quotas are wrong.
They violate the most basic principles of our civil rights
tradition, and the promise of democracy.
America's minority communities deserve more than
symptomatic relief. We want to eradicate the disease. And that
will require systematic solutions -- strategies that transcend
statistics.
We should empower and ennoble our minority communities. We
should seek systematic change that allows every American to
excel. During my meetings this week, I invited the civil rights
leadership to work with me to craft a bill that moves us toward
this goal. I am confident that this can be done. I want to sign
a civil rights bill; but I cannot sign a quota bill.
Second, civil rights legislation must reflect fundamental
principles of fairness that apply throughout our legal system
individuals who believe their rights have been violated are
their day in court
entitled to due process, and an accused is innocent until proven
5
guilty. In every case involving a civil rights dispute,
constitutional protections of due process must be preserved.
And third, Federal law should provide an adequate deterrent
race,
against harassment in the workplace based on sex, religion, or
disability, as-well as-race -- and should ensure a speedy end to
such discriminatory practices. Our civil rights laws, however,
should not be turned into a bonanza for lawyers, encouraging
litigation at the expense of conciliation, mediation, or
settlement.
Let me add that Congress should live by the same
requirements it prescribes for others. In 1972, the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 was justly applied to executive agencies and state
and local governments. Congress, however, is not yet covered.
This inconsistency must be remedied, to give Congressional
employees and applicants the full protection of the law. The
Congress should join the Executive Branch in setting an example
for private employers.
We seek strategies that work -- putting power where it
belongs: in the hands of people. And that means new ideas, like
giving poor parents the power of an alternative, and choice in
where to send their kids to school -- so that all can have access
to the best. It means more tenant control and ownership of
public housing. Tax credits for child care, to give parents more
flexibility and choice. And policies that underwrite prosperity,
by encouraging capital flow to businesses in poor neighborhoods.
The door is open wider now than it has ever been -- and
Call Bert
on Denny
Smith
Sunday 5/20-
Ratable w/ Denny
Is Civil
Rights indoors?!
(Lange/Cawley)
5.17.90
May 16, 1990
8:15a.m.
8:45 p.m.
[AFFIRM.DOC]
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
THE ROSE GARDEN
THURSDAY, MAY 17, 1990
10:00 A.M.
X
they X6d31 mcBee
Thank you all. Attorney X General Thornburgh, Secretaries
X
X
X
X
Cavazos and Sullivan. Director Newman. Chairman Fletcher,
X
Commissioners Buckley, Ramirez, and Redenbaugh [RED-in-bao];
X
X
X.
X
Wilfredo Gonzalez, and State Advisory Committee Chairpersons:
It's an honor to have you here today. We meet at a very
hopeful moment worldwide. A time when the thundering cry for
freedom is being heard and answered from Panama to Johannesburg
to Warsaw. Around the world, peoples warring against tyranny,
citizens struggling against state control, economies weary of
bureaucratic central planning, all are looking to America as
reason for hope -- the bright star by which to chart their course
to freedom.
So it's all the more crucial now that we look carefully to
the kind of country we are -- to the state of democracy here in
the land of liberty. We are called upon to ensure that this
democracy means opportunity, for all who call it home. 11
Few have worked harder to deliver the promise of democracy,
to make an enduring dream a living reality, than the men and
women assembled here today -- and particularly, these men and
women behind me.
From its earliest origins, the Commission on Civil Rights
has been an independent, bipartisan voice for justice. The
2
Commissioners, the Directors, the Advisory Committees, all share
a cultural diversity, and an intellectual and moral conviction,
that are truly America's best. These men and women have earned
our admiration. Today, they deserve our thanks.
Joining a new Chairman, and my friend of many years, Art
Fletcher, are two outstanding additions: Carl Anderson and
Russell Redenbaugh [RED-in-bao]. I know Bob Dole shares my
admiration for Russell -- a man of impressive credentials -- who
knows, as all Americans should know, that physical disability
will not be a barrier to service in this Administration. That's
why I remain firmly committed to the landmark "Americans with
Disabilities Act" to help ensure equal rights and opportunities
for these Americans. Today I'd like to announce a new member of
the Civil Rights Commission: Mr. Charles Pei Wang [PAY WAING] --
President of the China Institute in America, and an outstanding
new addition.
Over the last few days I've met to discuss pending civil
rights legislation with leaders representing America's rich
tapestry of cultural, religious, and ethnic diversity. I got, as
I knew I would, a great deal of sound advice. These leaders,
this Commission, the Congress, and this Administration, all share
a common conviction for equal opportunity. It's a responsibility
I have always taken very seriously -- especially now, when our
most vital export to the world is democracy.
We must make sure that we as a nation lead by example. We
must see that true affirmative action is not reduced to an empty
3
slogan -- and that this principle of striking down all barriers
to advancement has real, living meaning, for all Americans. We
will leave nothing to chance, and no stone unturned, as we work
to advance America's civil rights agenda.
This nation's progress against prejudice -- from the 1964
Civil Rights Act, to the Voting Rights Act, to the Fair Housing
and Age Discrimination in Employment Acts -- it has all hinged on
the principle that no one in this country should be excluded from
opportunity. So, we're committed to enacting new measures --
like the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, the HOPE initiative, and
Jhan
Rousing
revitalized enforcement of restrictions against employment bias.
This Administration seeks equal opportunity and equal
protection under the law for all Americans -- goals that I know
are shared by Senator Kennedy and Representative Hawkins. So
we've supported efforts to ensure an individual's ability to
challenge discriminatory seniority systems. We've also moved to
stiffen the penalties for racial discrimination in setting or
applying the terms and conditions of employment.
Today, as we work to ensure that America represents
democracy's highest expression, I want to begin by offering three
principles that must guide any amendments to our civil rights
laws.
These principles are firmly rooted in the spirit of our
current laws -- and after the extensive discussions we've had
this week, I think they're principles on which all of us --
including the leadership on the Hill -- can agree. So I will
4
enthusiastically support legislation that meets these principles.
First, civil rights legislation must operate to obliterate
consideration of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age
or disability from employment decisions. We seek civil rights
legislation that is more effective, not less. The focus of
employers in this country must be on providing equal opportunity
for all workers -- not on developing strategies to avoid
litigation. No one here today would want me to sign a bill whose
unintended consequences are quotas -- because quotas violate the
most basic principles of our civil rights tradition, and the
promise of democracy.
The surest, most insidious symptom of the perpetuation of
injustice was well understood by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Nearly 30 years ago he knew, as Americans of all walks of life
know today, that quotas are wrong. He wrote, in fact, that
"tokenism can now be seen not only as a useless goal, but as a
genuine menace. It is a palliative which relieves emotional
distress, but leaves the disease and its ravages unaffected."
We want to eradicate the disease. And America's minority
communities deserve more than symptomatic relief. They deserve
systematic solutions -- strategies that transcend statistics.
We should empower and ennoble our minority communities. We
should seek systematic change that allows every American to
excel. During my meetings this week, I invited the civil rights
leadership to work with me to craft a bill, in the spirit of our
record of civil rights legislation, that moves us toward this
5
goal. I am confident that this can be done. I want to sign a
civil rights bill; I cannot sign a quota bill.
Second, civil rights legislation must reflect fundamental
principles of fairness that apply throughout our legal system:
individuals who believe their rights have been violated are
entitled to their day in court, and an accused is innocent until
proven guilty. In every case involving a civil rights dispute,
constitutional protections of due process must be preserved.
And third, Federal law should provide an adequate deterrent
against harassment in the workplace based on sex, religion, or
disability, as well as race -- and should ensure a speedy end to
such discriminatory practices. Our civil rights laws, however,
should not be turned into a bonanza for lawyers, encouraging
litigation at the expense of conciliation, mediation, or
settlement.
Let me add that Congress should live by to the same
requirements it prescribes for others. In 1972, the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 was justly applied to executive agencies and state
and local governments. Congress, however, is not yet covered.
This inconsistency must be remedied, to give Congressional
employees and applicants the full protection of the law. The
Congress should join the Executive Branch in setting an example
for private employers.
We seek strategies that work -- putting power where it-
belongs: in the hands of people. And that means new ideas, like
giving poor parents the power of an alternative, and choice in
6
where to send their kids to school -- so that all can have access
to the best. It means more tenant control and ownership of
public housing. Tax credits for child care, to give parents more
flexibility and choice. And policies that underwrite prosperity,
by encouraging capital flow to businesses in poor neighborhoods.
The door is open wider now than it has ever been -- and
together we can open it still wider. Today, an expanding economy
is working in the service of civil rights. Let's not set back
the clock. Let us look past the differences that divide us, to
the shared principles and better natures we have within us.
To the Civil Rights leadership assembled here today: I have
offered you my hand, and my word, that together we will make
America "open and equal to all." This administration is
committed to action that is truly affirmative -- positive action,
in every sense -- to strike down all barriers to advancement, of
every kind, for all people. We will tolerate no barriers, no
bias, no inside tracks, no two-tiered systems, no glass ceilings,
and no rungless ladders. 11
I'm willing to take the time to make sure that this is done
right -- because it's worth doing right. Now is the time to
extend a hand to all that are struggling -- and to devote our
energies to a broader agenda of empowerment, that all might join
in this new age of freedom.
Thank you, and God bless you all.
# # #
MAY 11 '90 21:53 FROM THE WHITE HOUSE #2
PAGE. 003
DRAFT
CLOSE HOLD
Dear Senator Mitchell:
Over the past three decades, our country has made enormous
strides in its fight against prejudice. That battle is not over,
but it is well underway. Much of the progress has been inspired
by civil rights legislation. From the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to
the Voting Rights Act, to the Fair Housing Act, and to the Age
Disorimination in Employment Act we have worked to make sure that
no person in this country is excluded from opportunities on the
basis of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, age,
ethnicity. I remain firmly committed to the enactment this year
of landmark legislation to extend these protections to those
Americans with disabilities.
By and large, the current framework of civil rights laws has
worked well. But problems beyond discrimination threaten the
hopes of many. Crime, drugs, inadequate education, the
disintegration of the family, and the collapse of various
neighborhoods -- all stand as barriers in the way of opportunity.
We, and Members of Congress, have proposed legislation to
To
continue tearing these barriers down. The Congress has acted on
some of it [drug bill]. It has yet to act on other parts. of it.
[crime bill, education programs, housing programs, welfare reform
programs jobs, enterprise zones}. The most urgent task, for
those committed to making sure that this country is a land of
opportunity for all, is to finish legislative action on these
initiatives. The civil rights record of the 101st Congress
cannot be considered complete until these measures are enacted.
Continued progress on civil rights also requires that our nation
firm in its commitment to root out invidious
socimination. Measures such as our fair housing initiatives,
newly enacted Hate Crimes Statistics Act, as well as the
crous enforcement of restrictions against employment bias,
this commitment. So too does the legislation that I
lieve -511 be the most important civil rights law in this
the Americans with Disabilities Act, which, for the first
time, will bring persons with disabilities into the mainstream of
Fame Team society.
8611
proposals that by Administration has made share SOME
COMBER
the leg ation being offered by Fenator
Fenned
Reprerentative hawkins. Believ no that all Americans
itled to their day in court, we have supported
efforms to Ansure individual's ability to challenge
systems. We have also moved to enhance
penalties
ation
in
setting
04
applying
e.cms and conditions C. expiryment. will consider other
riferris to 0 right. lave $0 10., 69 any changes that
we make are the fundamental principles upon
which our current Laws were built.
Photo Copy Preservation
MAY 11 '90 21:54 FROM THE WHITE HOUSE #2
PAGE 004
DRAFT
CLOSE HOLD
I'll
Accordingly, I will support legislation that helps guarantee
equal opportunity for all if it is consistent with the following
principles:
1. Civil rights legislation must operate to obliterate
consideration of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age
or disability from employment decisions.
Senator Hubert Humphrey, the great champion of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act, was eloquent in denouncing the idea that our society
should function on the basis of these irrelevant characteristics.
Supporting Title VII, he noted that:
"There is nothing in it that will give any power... to any
court to require hiring, firing or promotion of employees in
order to meet a racial 'quota' or to achieve a certain
racial balance
In fact, the very opposite is true.
Title VII prohibits discrimination. In effect, it says that
race, religion, and national origin are not to be used as
the basis for hiring and firing. Title VII is designed to
encourage hiring on the basis of ability and qualifications,
not race or religion."
In contrast with Senator Humphrey's goals and with the 1964 Civil
Rights Act, some provisions of the Kennedy-Hawkins bill would
have the unintended consequence of encouraging employers to make
decisions on the basis of these irrelevant characteristics.
Recent amendments notwithstanding, the Kennedy-Hawkins bill
continues to impose liability upon an employer whose workforce
does not statistically reflect the race, color, religion, sex or
national origin of the pool of available workers unless the
employer can prove in court the legitimacy of each employment
practice under onerous standards and evidentiary restrictions
with which few small employers could contend.
A
Statistical "imbalance" is not itself an evil; even in a perfect
world, where all employment criteria were truly neutral, it is
statistically improbable that the workforce of every employer
would mirror the pool of available workers. The focus of
employers in this country must be on providing equal opportunity
for all workers, not on developing strategies by which to avoid
litigation. Such strategies are likely to result in quota
schemes that violate the most basic principles and promise of our
society.
I also believe that we must have a way to eliminate subtle or
well concealed discrimination, as well as employment policies
based on misconceived stereotypes. When a particular employment
practice causes substantial disparities, the employer should
offer a credible presentation of how the practice is legitimately
related to the job or other business interest. This simple and
direct standard could advance our common aims without engendering
Photo Copy Preservation
MAY 11 '90 21:55 FROM THE WHITE HOUSE #2
PAGE. 005
DRAFT
CLOSE HOLD
3
floods of litigation or unintentionally creating incentives for
employers to base their decisions on the very considerations our
civil rights laws direct them to ignore.
2. Civil rights legislation must reflect fundamental principles
of fairness: individuals who believe their rights have been
violated are entitled to their day in court, and an accused is
innocent until proven guilty.
Torded
These principles speak for themselves. Constitutional
protections must be observed. Moreover, a plaintiff must be
required to show a causal connection between the alleged wrongful
act and the harm claimed.
3. Congress must subject itself to the same requirements it
prescribes for others.
In its original form, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not apply
to any government agencies. In 1972, it was applied to executive
agencies as well as state and local governments. Congress
however, is not yet covered. This anomaly should be remedied for
Congressional employees and applicants, giving them the full
protection of this legislation and other relevant portions of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. These individuals, too, are entitled
to their rights in court, and the Congress should be setting an
example for employers in the private sector.
4. Federal law should provide an adequate deterrence to sexual
or religious harassment or harassment on the basis of disability
in the workplace and ensure a speedy end to such discriminatory
practices.
In improving the remedies available, however, our civil rights
laws should not be turned into a bonanza for lawyers, encouraging
litigation at the expense of conciliation, mediation, or
settlement. Accordingly, punitive damages should not be
available. Instead, the government should be given the authority
to seek fines in appropriate cases. Nor should excessive
compensatory damages be obtainable. Moreover, providing adequate
remedies need not, and should not, subject defendants to a
multiplicity of lawsuits in multiple forums.
I look forward to enactment of legislation that is consistent
with the principles outlined above. As you know, civil rights
has been important to me throughout my life and my career in
public office. I have always held the fundamental principle that
government must advance equal opportunity, not further divide
society along lines of race, color, religion, sex, national
origin or disability. The dream of Martin Luther King of a
country where <each is judged by the content of their character,
not by the color of their skin. "] is a goal we must strive to
make a reality.
Photo Copy Preservation
MAY 11 '90 21:56
FROM THE WHITE HOUSE #2
PAGE 006
DRAFT
CLOSE HOLD
4
Working together, we can produce a proud record of promoting
civil rights and enhancing economic opportunity for all
Americans. That record will include the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, the
Comprehensive Violent Crime Control Act, Project Hope, the Family
Savings Plan, drug prevention and education, enhanced drug
enforcement, the Education Excellence Act, and the
reauthorization of the Civil Rights Commission, among others.
Having made a good start, let us conclude the year as
cooperatively and productively as we began it.
Sincerely,
Photo Copy Preservation
** TOTAL PAGE. 006 **
THE COMMISSIONERS
From the beginning, the Commission on Civil Rights has been
considered an
"independent"
agency, although the word does not
appear in the Civil Rights Act of 1957 which established the
Commission as an agency "in the executive branch of the
government." The Act did endow the Commission with bipartisanship,
one of the attributes of independence. This bipartisanship is
reflected in the make-up of its seven Commissioners (one seat is
vacant) who as Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, were
chosen as Commissioners because of their moral stature and
intellectual cabile competence, as well as their cultural diversity. They
all have private responsibilities -- educators, lawyers, and
business executives -- into which their Commission duties must fit.
The Commission's impact on public opinion and on judicial and
legislative action in the civil rights field depends in large
measure on the policies set by these men and women who make up the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Their insight, courage and
perseverance in effectively performing this vital role has
contributed to greater public understanding of sensitive civil
rights matters and has helped to move the nation toward equality
under the law. As then Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr. said
in 1956 on the eve of the creation of the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights, "through greater public understanding. the Commission may
chart a course of progress to guide us in the years ahead."
MHT-10-1990
0
The State Advisory Committees
The Commission's 51 Advisory Committees have a long and
honorable history. From the earliest years, the Committees
have brought to the Commission information and advice from all
sections of this country. The volunteer citizens who serve on
the Advisory Committees have spurred needed changes in their
States and communities that ultimately benefit all Americans.
Dealing with difficult and divisive issues, these men and women
exemplify the best tradition of public service and deserve our
thanks.
To those of you here today from the Advisory Committees, we are
looking forward to a revitalized effort on your part, a
reinvigoration that will be part of the overall renewal of the
Commission on Civil Rights.
The Regional Directors
Yoeman service has also been contributed by the Commission's
regional directors. The three who are here today have 66
combined years with the Commission. Their task has been
immensely more difficult in recent years, with responsibility
for some four times the numbers of States as previously. We
owe them our sincere thanks for their efforts.
A12 MONDAY, MAY. 14, 1990
THE WASHINGTON POST
Black Leaders Press Bush to Support Rights Act
consensus behind the legislation,
when virtually all civil rights and
black groups endorse it.
Another black Republican, John
RIGHTS, From A1
legislation Thursday when he meets
Thornburgh said he would recom-
volves civil rights groups. Julius.
Wilks, chairman of the executive
with Fletcher's Civil Rights Com-
mend a veto, but the president has
Chambers, an official with the
ed for floor votes later this month
committee of the National Black
mission, but one official said that
not issued his own veto warning.
NAACP Legal Defense Fund and
or early next.
won't "necessarily" occur.
Republican Civil Rights Task Force,
Ralph Neas, head of the Leader-
one of the leaders scheduled for to-
A Sununu aide denied the chief of
The legislation precipitating the
ship Conference on Civil Rights
said, "We have been getting calls
day's meeting, put the challenge to
staff had brought the conservatives
battle seeks to modify or overturn
from members fearful of counter-
said the legislation has the support
Bush directly yesterday in a com-
into the discussion. Bobbi Kilberg,
five 1989 Supreme Court decisions
of "substantial majorities" in the
efforts in the administration to get
mencement speech at the Unvers-
the White House official who said
that civil rights groups said signif-
Senate and the House.
ity of North Carolina.
the president to veto this legisla-
she, not Sununu, arranged the ses-
icantly turned back the clocks on
Caught in the middle is Bush, who
"In civil rights," he said, "actions
tion. We don't want the president to
sion, said conservative black Repub-
protections against job discrimina-
enjoys approval ratings among blacks
speak louder than words. The course
veto a major civil rights bill." The
licans were always on the guest list.
tion. After originally saying no rem-
that near 70 percent in some polls,
of action being urged by the Justice
task force, made up of black Repub-
"The president wants to hear all
edy was necessary, the administra-
feat no GOP president since Dwight
Department will drown out all the
licans who have served in govern-
views," she said.
tion submitted its own legislation to
Eisenhower has approached. Bush
lofty rhetoric and fine-sounding
ment, has endorsed the broad civil
A string of interested groups will
modify two of the decisions.
and the national GOP have been la
speeches that we have heard from
rights legislation
visit the White House this week.
Thornburgh in April condemned
boring to reach out to blacks after
the Oval Office. The toxin of veto
Fletcher, like most who will attend
Black leaders and business groups
the pending legislation, arguing it
eight years of the Reagan adminis-
will poison all the wells of good feel-
the meeting, opposes the adminis-
will be there today. Labor groups,
would result in "surreptitious quo-
tration. Blacks were virtually unan-
ing toward the president that have
tration alternative. "I'm looking for a
Hispanic and women's groups are
tas" and would force businesses to
imous in condemnation of the former
sprung up in the black community."
more comprehensive response," he
scheduled on Wednesday. Admin-
pay not only back wages if they
president's policies.
Fletcher said he fears "an ele-
said, "You can't go a quarter-mile in
istration officials have suggested
were found to have discriminated
This is the first substantive battle
ment in the White House" will try to
Bush may make a statement on the
this time in our nation's history when
but monetary damages as well.
the president has faced that in-
persuade Bush there is no black
the full mile is needed."
Bush Urged
To Support
Rights Act
Black Leaders Meet
With President Today
To Head Off Veto
By Ann Devroy
Washington Post Staff Writer
Civil rights leaders, including key
black Republicans inside the Bush
administration, will try to persuade
President Bush today to ignore a
veto recommendation from the at-
torney general and support the
1990 Civil Rights Act pending in
The leaders are bracing for what
leaders, but more conservative
Williams, an economist at George
Mason University and Glen Loury, a
professor at Harvard University.
Fletcher called them "superconser-
Advocates of the legislation say
they suspect Sununu and Attorney
General Dick Thornburgh hope a
series of White House "outreach
sessions" on the issue this week will
demonstrate to the president that
the black community is split over
the legislation and that Bush should
stick with the administration's far
more modest civil rights proposal.
They want him to veto the broader.
legislation that has cleared House
and Senate committees and is head-
Photo Copy Preservation
Congress.
Arthur Fletcher, chairman of the
U.S. Civil Rights Commission, yes-
terday called a "battle for the pres-
ident's mind" over the fate of the
legislation this week. Many civil
rights groups have listed the bill as
their top priority this year.
Fletcher, a Bush supporter for a
decade who was named by-the pres-
ident to rejuvenate the moribund
Civil Rights Commission, will join a
group of black Republican and Dem-
ocratic leaders meeting today with
the président to try to persuade him
not to veto the legislation.
Republican sources said White
House Chief of Staff John H. Sununu
has insisted the group briefing Bush
include not only the mainstream
Democratic and Republican black
blacks such as Robert Woodson,
head of the National Center for
Neighborhood Enterprise; Walter
See RIGHTS, A12, Col. 1
vatives."
UNITED STATES
1121 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
COMMISSION ON
Washington, D.C. 20425
CIVIL RIGHTS
New Commissioner
ARTHUR A. FLETCHER
Arthur A. Fletcher was appointed chairman of the U.S. Commission
on Civil Rights in February 1990. A Republican, he was appointed
by President Bush to serve a term expiring in November 1995.
Mr. Fletcher is president of Arthur A. Fletcher and Associates, a
management consulting firm with offices in Maryland. He served at
the White House as deputy assistant to the President for urban
affairs from 1976-77; as president of Arthur A. Fletcher and
Associates, Inc., 1973-76; and as executive director of the United
Negro College Fund, 1972-73. He was an alternate delegate to the
26th session of the United Nations General Assembly in 1971; and
was an assistant secretary of labor for employment standards at the
U.S. Department of Labor from 1969-71.
Mr. Fletcher was a special assistant to the governor of the State
of Washington in 1968-69; a member of the city council in Pasco,
Washington; and an employee relations consultant at the Hanford
Atomic Energy facility, 1967-68. He was a public school teacher
in Berkeley, California, 1961-65; a reports control manager at
Aerojet-General Corporation in Sacramento, California, 1957-61; and
an assistant director for the public information office of the
Kansas State Highway Department in Topeka, 1955-57.
In 1954 while teaching in a rural elementary school in Kansas,
Mr. Fletcher helped raise money for the pending Brown vs. School
Board of Topeka desegregation suit, which was successfully fought
up to the United States Supreme Court. In the early 1950's,
Mr. Fletcher played professional football with the Los Angeles Rams
and the (then) Baltimore Colts until an injury cut his career
short.
Mr. Fletcher was born in Phoenix, Arizona on December 22, 1924.
He served in the United States Army from 1943-45, and received his
B.A. degree from Washburn University in Topeka, Kansas in 1950.
Mr. Fletcher and his wife Bernyce reside in Washington, D.C.
3/90
foog second Adistry af put service
frim
UNITED STATES
1121 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
COMMISSION ON
Washington, D.C. 20425
CIVIL RIGHTS
WILLIAM BARCLAY ALLEN
William Barclay Allen served as Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights until October 23, 1989, at which time he received from President
Bush effective notice that the resignation Commissioner Allen tendered
September 8, 1989 had been accepted. Allen was appointed Chairman in
August 1988 by President Reagan. A Republican, he continues and has been
a member of the Commission since April 1987. His term expires in
December 1992.
A professor of government at Harvey Mudd College in Claremont, California
since 1972, Dr. Allen served as a member of the Commission's California
Advisory Committee in 1985-87. He has also been a visiting tutor at St.
John's College, Graduate Institute in Liberal Education since 1977. He
was an assistant professor of government at American University in
Washington, D.C. in 1971-72; and a lecturer and Fulbright Fellow,
Universite de Rouen (France) in 1970-71.
Dr. Allen has been the program administrator of the Liberty Fund
Bicentennial Project since 1982; a member of the National Council on the
Humanities, 1984-87 and a Kellogg National Fellow in 1984-87.
Dr. Allen has lectured extensively and written numerous articles for
major publications. He has served as president of the Board of Education
for the Clarement Unified School District, and was a consultant to the
Whittier Union High School District and the city of Pomona in California.
In 1986, Dr. Allen was a candidate for the Republican nomination to the
U.S. Senate. In the 1984 presidential campaign, he served as one of the
two California Chairmen of Scholars for Reagan. In the 1980 presidential
campaign, Dr. Allen was town chairman and alternate to the 62nd Assembly
District Republican Central Committee.
Dr. Allen was born in Fernandina Beach, Florida on March 18, 1944, where
he graduated from Peck High School as valedictorian in 1962. He earned
his undergraduate degree (B.A.) from Pepperdine College in 1967, a
master's degree (M.A., 1968) and a doctorate degree (Ph.d, 1972) from
Claremont Graduate School.
Dr. Allen resides in Claremont, California with his wife and two children.
11/89
UNITED STATES
1161
COMMISSION ON
Washington, D.C. 20425
CIVIL RIGHTS
New Commissioner
just ate the
CARL A. ANDERSON
Carl A. Anderson became a commissioner of the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights in February 1990. A Republican, he was selected by
the House Minority Leader to serve a six-year term.
Mr. Anderson is vice president for public policy for the Knights
of Columbus, and dean, vice president, and professor of family law
at the North American campus of the Pontifical John Paul II
Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family in Washington, D.C.
Before joining the Knights of Columbus, Mr. Anderson was special
assistant to the President for Public Liaison, 1985-87; and a staff
member in the White House Office of Policy Development, 1983-85.
Prior to that, Mr. Anderson was a counselor in the office of
Secretary Richard Schweiker and Secretary Margaret Heckler at the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 1981-83;
and legislative assistant to Senator Jesse Helms (N.C.), 1976-81.
During 1989 he served in the office of the president-elect as an
advisor to HHS Secretary-designate Louis Sullivan.
From 1981-82, Mr. Anderson was a commissioner of the Native
Hawaiian Study Commission, a Congressionally-mandated commission
to study the social, economic, and legal situation of Native
Hawaiians.
A lawyer by profession, Mr. Anderson has authored several papers
and manuscripts on the family and law. He earned an undergraduate
degree (B.A.) in 1972 from Seattle University, and his juris doctor
degree (J.D.) from the University of Denver in 1975.
Born in Torrington, Connecticut on February 27, 1951, Mr. Anderson
resides in Arlington, Virginia with his wife Dorian and their four
children, Carl, Matthew, Teresa, and Katherine.
3/90
UNITED STATES
1121 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
COMMISSION ON
Washington, D.C. 20425
CIVIL RIGHTS
MARY FRANCES BERRY
Mary Frances Berry was reappointed to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in
December 1986. An Independent, she was appointed by the Speaker of the House.
Dr. Berry is the Geraldine R. Segal Professor of American Social Thought and
Professor of History at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. She is also the 1990-91 president of the Organization of American
Historians (OAH). The OAH was founded in 1907 to promote study and research in
American history. With 12,000 members, it is the largest professional society
in the field. Dr. Berry was a Vice Chair of the Civil Rights Commission in 1980-
82, and has been a Commissioner since that time.
Dr. Berry served as the Assistant Secretary for Education in the U.S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) from April 1977 until January 1980. For
a period she also served as Acting U.S. Commissioner on Education.
As Assistant Secretary for Education, Dr. Berry headed the Education Division
of HEW and administered an annual budget of nearly $13 billion. In this role,
she coordinated and gave general supervision to the National Institute of
Education, the Office of Education, the Fund for the Improvement of Post-
secondary Education, the Institute of Museum Services, and the National Center
for Education Statistics.
Prior to her service at HEW, Dr. Berry was Chancellor of the University of
Colorado at Boulder where she was also professor of History and Law. She was
Provost of the Division of Behaviorial and Social Sciences at the University of
Maryland, College Park, prior to her selection as Chancellor of the University
of Colorado at Boulder.
Dr. Berry was born in Nashville, Tennessee on February 17, 1938. She earned
bachelor's and master's degrees at Howard University, a doctorate in history from
the University of Michigan, and the juris doctor degree from the University of
Michigan Law School. She has held faculty appointments at Central Michigan
University, Eastern Michigan University, the University of Maryland, College
Park, the University of Michigan, and Howard University in Washington, D.C.
Dr. Berry is a member of the Bar of the District of Columbia.
She has received 18 honorary doctoral degrees and numerous awards for her public
service and scholarly activities, including the NAACP's Roy Wilkins Award, the
Rosa Parks Award of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and the Ebony
Magazine Black Achievement Award. Ms. Magazine honored her as one of its 1986
Women of the Year.
Dr. Berry is the author of a number of articles and essays as well as five books
including Long Memory: The Black Experience in America (with co-author John W.
Blassingame) and Why ERA Failed: Politics, Women's Rights, and the Amending
Process of the Constitution.
4/90
UNITED STATES
1121 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
COMMISSION ON
Washington, D.C. 20425
CIVIL RIGHTS
ESTHER GONZALEZ-ARROYO BUCKLEY
Esther Gonzalez-Arroyo Buckley became a Commissioner of the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights in December 1983. A Republican, she was
reappointed by the President in December 1986.
Mrs. Buckley has held a number of positions in the Republican Party. She
has been the chairperson of the Webb County Republican Party; a charter
member, secretary and vice president of the Webb County Republican
Women's Club; precinct chairperson; alternate to the national Republican
convention in 1984; delegate to the Webb County and State Republican
conventions; and chairperson of the Senatorial District 21 Republican
Caucus.
Mrs. Buckley is currently a biology and physics teacher at Cigarroa High
School in Laredo. She is also chairperson of the school's science
department; chairperson of the Accreditation Committee for the Southern
Association of Schools and Colleges; and chairperson of the
Superintendent's Advisory Committee for the Laredo Independent School
District.
Mrs. Buckley serves on the Task Force on Career Ladder and Teacher
Appraisal and the Governor's Commission on Women. She is a member of the
Science Teachers Association of Texas, National Science Teachers
Association, Association of Teachers and Professional Educators and
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. She is a charter
member of the local chapter of Kappa Delta Pi, an honors fraternity in
education and Phi Delta Kappa, a professional fraternity in education.
She previously served by appointment of the governor to the Teacher's
Professional Practices and Ethics Commission. During 1974-77, she was a
teacher with the Migrant Compensatory Education Project and the Migrant
Youth Corps. She has also taught English as a second language for adults
at Laredo Junior College during 1972-76.
Mrs. Buckley earned her undergraduate degree (B.A., magna cum laude) from
the University of Texas in 1967, and a graduate degree in education and
spanish (M.S., with honors) from Laredo State University in 1975.
Born in Laredo, Texas, March 29, 1948, Mrs. Buckley resides in Laredo
with her husband Elmer and seven children.
9/88
UNITED STATES
1121 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
COMMISSION ON
Washington, D.C. 20425
CIVIL RIGHTS
BLANDINA CARDENAS RAMIREZ
Blandina Cardenas Ramirez, Director of the Office of Minority Concerns, American
Council on Education, was reappointed the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in
December 1986. A Democrat, she was appointed by the Senate Minority Leader.
Dr. Cardenas Ramirez was a Commissioner on the Civil Rights Commission in 1980-
86. She was vice president for Institutional Advancement at Our Lady of the Lake
University in San Antonio from 1988-89, and director of development at the Inter-
Cultural Development Research Association (IDRA) in San Antonio from 1976-86.
She has held successive post as a teacher with the San Felipe Independent School
district in Del Rio, Texas; executive assistant for the Texas Migrant Educational
Development Center in Austin; assistant to the superintendent of the Edgewood
Independent School District in San Antonio; and directed various education
programs for the school district.
During 1974-75, Dr. Cardenas Ramirez was a Rockefeller Fellow assigned to Senator
Mondale's staff. She was also an assistant dean of the National Teacher Corps
Institute at the University of Virginia in Richmond.
Dr. Cardenas Ramirez was the Commissioner of the Administration of Children,
Youth and Families, and Chief of the Children's Bureau at the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare during 1977-79. In this role, she administered
a $900 million budget and six programs including Head Start, runaway Youth,
Domestic Violence, the National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect, the Child
Welfare Services and the Adoption Opportunities Program.
Dr. Cardenas Ramirez has been a consultant to numerous organizations and
educational institutions. She was a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Texas Advisory Committee, 1974-77; Chairperson of the Federal Interagency
Committee on the International Year of the Child, 1977-79; and a delegate to the
Early Childhood Education committee of the Organization for Economic and Cultural
Development, Paris, France, 1978-79. She has also been a member of the board of
the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Born in Del Rio, Texas on October 25, 1944, Dr. Cardenas Ramirez received a
bachelor of journalism degree in 1967 from the University of Texas, Austin, and
a doctorate in education in 1974 from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
She also attended Texas Women's University, Denton and St. Mary's University in
San Antonio.
Dr. Cardenas Ramirez has authored several articles. She resides in Washington,
D.C. with her son Alexandro Rodolfo.
3/90
UNITED STATES
1121 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
COMMISSION ON
Washington, D.C. 20425
CIVIL RIGHTS
New Commissioner
RUSSELL G. REDENBAUGH
Russell G. Redenbaugh became a commissioner of the U.S. Commission
on Civil Rights in February 1990. An Independent, he was appointed
by the Senate Majority Leader to serve a six-year term.
Mr. Redenbaugh is the first disabled American to serve on the
national Commission since its creation in 1957. He was blinded and
lost most of his hands in an explosion at the age of 17.
Mr. Redenbaugh is a partner and director of Cooke & Bieler, Inc.,
an investment management firm based in Philadelphia; and chairman
and chief executive officer of Action Technologies Inc., a
California-based company that makes operating systems and
application software for distributed computing systems. He is also
a co-founder and head of Kairos, Inc., a Philadelphia educational
services firm.
Mr. Redenbaugh is an accomplished author, executive, financial and
economic strategist, and teacher. He has been a chartered
financial analyst since 1972; a chartered investment counselor
since 1969; a member of Financial Analyst of Philadelphia, and the
Wharton Club of Philadelphia.
Mr. Redenbaugh earned his undergraduate degree (B.S., magna cum
laude) from the University of Utah in 1967, and an MBA, with
honors, from the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania in
1969.
Born in Salt Lake City, Utah on July 14, 1945, Mr. Redenbaugh
resides in Philadelphia with his wife, Patty, and their four
children, Micah, David, Allie, and James.
3/90
UNITED STATES
1121 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
COMMISSION ON
Washington, D.C. 20425
CIVIL RIGHTS
WILFREDO J. GONZALEZ
Wilfredo J. Gonzalez was appointed Staff Director of the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights on March 30, 1990. A Republican,
Gonzalez was appointed by President Bush.
Before being appointed to the post, Gonzalez was associate director
of Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights, U.S. Department of State,
1988-90; and associate administrator for Minority Small Business
and Capital Ownership Development, U.S. Small Business
Administration, 1985-88. As associate administrator, Gonzalez
directed the agency's efforts to assist minority business
development, including the 8(a) program and the 7(j) program.
From 1978 to 1984, Gonzalez served with the Peace Corps as Country
Director in Ghana, West Africa, where he directed and supervised
all Peace Corps operations; as Chief of Operations for the Latin
American Region; and as Peace Corps Deputy Director in Colombia,
South America.
Gonzalez began his Federal government career in 1976 as an HEW
Fellow. He has held positions in the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, at ACTION the volunteer agency, and at the
Department of Labor. He has been an assistant director for the
Community Service Society in New York, director of development for
Aspira of America, and a manpower consultant for the New York Urban
Coalition.
Gonzalez was born March 26, 1943 in San Juan, Puerto Rico and was
raised in the South Bronx. He graduated from the University of
Puerto Rico, magna cum laude, with a B.A. degree in sociology in
1969. He attended the Bronx Community College, 1964-66; the
University of Puerto Rico Law School, 1971-72; and the Baruch
Graduate School of Public Administration, 1975-76.
Gonzalez resides in Springfield, Virginia with his wife and three
children.
4/90
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 5- 9-90 ; 4:39PM ;
2024566221-
2024566218;# 1
Executive Office of the President
Office of Legislative Affairs
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER
14
DATE 5-9-90
TO
Mark Lange
FAX NUMBER no 6218
OFFICE NUMBER
COMMENTS
FROM
David Sloane
FAX NUMBER
6493
OFFICE NUMBER
SENT BY:Xerox lelecopier 7020 ; 5- 9-90 ; 4:40PM ;
2024566221-
2024566218:# 2
FEB720-90 TUE 10:35 OPD
P,02
mark 6218
LANGE
pean 2/20/90 DOJ
SUMMARY OF KENNEDY-HAWKINS BILL AND ADMINISTRATION POSITION
The Kennedy-Hawkins bill seeks to overturn the following
Supreme court decisions:
Wards Cove Packing Co. V. Atonio (Section 4 of bill) ;
Price Waterhouse V. Hopkins (Section 5 of bill) ;
Martin V. Wilks (Section 6 of bill) :
Lorance V. AT&T Technologies. Inc. (section 7 of bill) ;
Crawford Fitting co. V. J.T. Gibbons. Inc. (Section 9 of
bill) 1 and
Patterson v. McLean credit Union (Section 12 of bill).
As discussed in the attached talking points, the Administra-
tion agrees that legislation is appropriate to address Lorance
and Patterson, and we will introduce such legislation. As this
paper next discusses, however, we plan to oppose legislation
aimed at Wards cove, Price Waterhouse, and Wilks.
Section 8 of the Kennedy-Hawkins bill also proposes, though
not in response to any adverse Supreme Court decision, to expand
Title VII to make damages available in all disparate treatment
cases. The Administration opposes this expansion.
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 5- 9-90 ; 4:40PM ;
2024566221->
2024566218;# 3
FEB-20-90 TUE 10138 OPD
- 2 -
The Administration's Proposals to Address Patterson V.
McLean Credit Union and Lorance V. AT&T Technologies
These two decisions may have been correct as a matter of
statutory construction, but they create anomalies or inconsisten-
cies in the law which Congress should correct. The Administra-
tion has proposed legislation to address these problems in A fair
and evenhanded way.
Patterson
42 U.S.C. 1981 ("section 1981") is a post-civil War statute
generally prohibiting discrimination in the "making and
enforcing" of contracts. In Patterson, the Supreme Court
held that this language did not include discrimination after
the contract had been made. Thus, racial harassment on the
job, for instance, would not be covered by Section 1981, and
plaintiffs are therefore now unable to collect the damages
usually available under this statute for an employer's dis-
crimination.
This is especially troublesome because Title VII of the
civil Rights Act of 1964-the other, and principal, federal
law prohibiting discrimination in employment--prohibits
racial harassment but does not provide for damages claims.
Accordingly, the Administration has proposed legislation
amending Section 1981 so that it will cover discrimination
not only when the contract is formed, but at all stages of
the contract's performance.
Lorance
In Lorance, the Court ruled that Title VII requires that an
employee who wishes to challenge a seniority plan adopted
with discriminatory intent must, unless the system is dis-
oriminatory in its explicit terms, challenge it at the time
of its adoption.
This is bad for several reasons. First, intentionally dis-
criminatory seniority systems, whether or not that intent is
apparent on the face of the agreement, should all be treated
the same way under the law. Second, it makes no sense to
require employees to challenge & provision in a seniority
system before it applies to them. This will lead to need-
less and speculative litigation, and is an unfair burden to
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 5- 9-90 ; 4:41PM ;
2024566221->
2024566218:# 4
FEB-20-90 TUE 10136 OPD
1.
- 3 =
put on employees -- who are understandably reluctant to sue
their employers before it is truly necessary. Most funda-
mentally, it is not fair to deny someone his or her day in
court, which is what this program would do in the case of an
employee who was hired after the adoption of the plan. This
is the same principle that the Administration is supporting,
but which the Kennedy-Hawkins bill is attacking, in Martin
V. Wilks.
Accordingly, the Administration has proposed legislation
that would make clear that all intentionally discriminatory
plans are to be treated alike, and that they need not be
challenged by a particular employee until actually applied
to that employee.
Conclusion
The Administration is opposed to all forms of intentional
discrimination, and it favors strong laws prohibiting such dis-
crimination and enabling plaintiffs to file lawsuits and receive
full relief. The Administration's stand against intentional dis-
crimination means we also oppose quotas, which is why we will not
accept legislation aimed at overturning City of Richmond v. J.A.
Croson co., Martin V. Wilks, or Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio.
We also oppose legislation that would encourage specious claims,
which is why we are against the proposed legislation aimed at
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, as well as Wards Cove.
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 5- 9-90 ; 4:41PM ;
FEB-20-90 TUE 10:37 OPD
2024566221-
20245662186# 5
Wards Cove Was Correctly Decided and
Was Consistent with Prior Precedent
The Supreme Court's decision last term in Wards Cove Packing
Co. V. Atonio had three distinct holdings which opponents of the
decision seek to overturn: (1) that a plaintiff in a Title VII
disparate impact action must identify the particular employment
practice that he or she believes is discriminatory; (2) that once
the plaintiff has shown the disparate impact of such a practice,
the employer must show that the practice significantly serves 4
legitimate employment purpose, rather than that the practice is a
literal "necessity" for the business; and (3) that the burden on
the employer is one of production of evidence, not proof -- that
is, that the overall burden of proving discrimination remains on
the plaintiff throughout the case. The Supreme Court was correct
on all three points. Moreover, each of the three major holdings
in Wards Cove is solidly based in the Supreme Court's own prece-
dent and the decisions of various federal courts of appeals.
1.
A plaintiff must identify the specific procedure (s) he is
challenging.
It should be the plaintiff's responsibility to identify the
practices he or she thinks are discriminatory. It should
not be up to the employer to prove a negative.
Title VII is designed to root out racial discrimination
against individuals, not to encourage proportional represen-
tation of racial groups. That means that the plaintiff in a
disparate impact case must show disparate impact caused by &
selection device (test, degree requirement, etc.), not just
overall racial imbalance.
As the Supreme Court pointed out, this is not an onerous
burden for plaintiffs and will not discourage meritorious
claims. Federal discovery rules, as well as recordkeeping
practices and requirements, ensure that plaintiffs will have
access to the information they need to identify discrimina-
tion.
The Supreme Court has already held, in ruling against an
employer in Connecticut V. Teal, 457 U.S. 440 (1982), that
what matters is not the racial "bottom line," but rather the
elimination of specific discriminatory practices. The hold-
ing in Wards Cove is simply the flip-side of the coin.
Every Supreme Court disparate impact decision, from Griggs
through Wards Cove, has involved an attack by a plaintiff on
a specific procedure. The Court has never even hinted that
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 5- 9-90 ; 4:42PM ;
2024566221-
2024566218:# 6
FE3-20-90 TUE 10:37 OPD
an attack on the employer's "bottom line" racial balance was
permissible.
Indeed, the Justices have said repeatedly, in a variety of
contexts, that racial balance is not required by Title VII
or the constitution.
Finally, every court of appeals has indicated explicitly or
at least implicitly that a plaintiff must identify a speci-
fic employment practice which has caused a disparate impact
on minorities.
2.
A defendant's rebuttal burden is merely to show that his
selection procedures are "job-related. - Literal "necessity"
need not be shown.
Title VII prohibits discrimination; it does not and should
not prevent employers from making decisions for legitimate
business reasons.
Thus, the Court made clear in Wards cove that, where an
employer can point to credible evidence of such legitimate
motives, the plaintiff must show either that the employer's
justification is pretextual, or that there exists an alter-
native way of achieving the same legitimate business end but
with less disparate impact.
While Supreme Court decisions have used the term "business
necessity," the Court has never defined or used that term as
the Kennedy-Hawkins bill does to mean literally "essential"
to the business. Indeed, the Court has almost always used
that term interchangesbly with "Hob-related" or such other,
more flexible formulations. Similarly, while the courts of
appeals have adopted a variety of formulations, they have
never required that a practice be literally "essential" to
the operation of the business.
Few business practices are literally "essential." An
employer can usually change his practices if he is willing
to operate less efficiently and make less money. To outlaw
any nonessential business practice that produces a disparate
statistical impact, as the Kennedy-Hawkins bill would, will
inevitably do one of two things. It will force employers to
eliminate the disparate impact either by adopting surrepti-
tious quotas, or by switching to less efficient business
practices. Neither result is good policy, and neither is
consistent with Title VII.
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 5- 9-90 ; 4:43PM ;
FED-20-90 TUE 10:38 OPD
2024566221-
2024566218;# 7
P.07
3.
The burden of proof remains on the plaintiff at all times.
The employer's burden is one of production, not persuasion.
Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states clearly
that the burden of proof in a civil case always remains on
plaintiff. A defendant should not have to prove that he is
innocent. Thus, all the Court did in Wards Cove was reapply
the general rule of civil litigation to Title VII cases.
Probably as early as 1973, and certainly by 1978 and 1981,
the Supreme Court had held that in the disparate treatment
context, the burden of proof always remains on the plaintiff
even when the burden of production has shifted to defendant.
McDonnall Douglas corp. V. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) ; Board
of Trustees V. Sweeney, 439 U.S. 24 (1978) (per curiam) ;
Texas Dep't of Community Affairs V. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248
(1981). It would be paradoxical to place a heavier burden
on the defendant in the disparate impact context, where the
discrimination alleged is not even intentional.
Even in the disparate impact context, the Court had given
earlier indications that the shifting evidentiary burdens
are to be the same as in disparate treatment cases -- so
that in the former cases as well as the latter the ultimate
burden of proof always remains on plaintiff. New York city
Transit Authority v. Beazer, 440 U.S. 568, 587 n.31 (1979) ,
Albemarle Paper Co. V. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 425-426 (1975).
While the Court had in earlier dicta used a variety of for-
mulations ("articulate," "show," "demonstrate," and "prove")
to describe defendant's rebuttal burden, the Court had also
pointed out in a 1978 per curiam decision in the disparate
treatment context (Sweeney, supra) that these terms are
consistent with a burden of production as well as a burden
of persuasion.
The Third Circuit expressly relied on the Supreme Court's
decision in Beazer for its pre-Wards Cove en banc decisions
that the burden of persuasion always remains with the plain-
tiff in disparate treatment and disparate impact cases.
NAACE V. Medical Center. Inc., 657 F.2d 1322, 1334-1337 (3d
Cir. 1981) (en bano) ; Croker V. Boeing CO., 662 F.2d 975,
991 (3d Cir. 1981) (en banc).
Indeed, to make the defendant's rebuttal burden one of proof
is to make it an affirmative defense -- and that amounts to
making racial imbalance a violation of Title VII per 12,
which rejected. the Court and Congress have repeatedly and correctly
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 5- 9-90 ; 4:43PM ;
2024566221-
2024566218:# 8
FEB-20-90 - TUE 10:39 OPD
P.08
7
expressly endorsed by a 4-justice plurality in an opinion written Watson
Moreover, all three of these subholdings of Wards Cove were
by Justice O'Connor a year before Wards Cove was decided. of
V. Fort Worth Bank & Trust CO., 108 S. ct. 2777 (1988). Many
those challenging the Court's decision in Wards Cove try to paint
case. as The decision not only was reasonable but was solidly based
it "radical" or "unprecedented," but this simply is not the
More importantly, and as the Court said over and over again, it
in the Court's own precedent and the decisions of lower courts.
reached the decision it did in large part because it did not want
Title VII to become a powerful engine pushing employers to adopt
surreptitious quotas or to abandon legitimate, efficient selec-
tion devices in order to minimize their exposure to suit. That
is precisely what would happen under the Kennedy-Hawkins bill.
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 5- 9-90 ; 4:44PM ;
2024566221-
2024566218;# 9
FEB-20-90 TUE 10:39 OPD
P.09
- 8 -
Martin V. Wilks should Not Be overturned
The Supreme Court's holding in Martin V. Wilks was simply
that, where the city of Birmingham, Alabama and a group of
minority plaintiffs who had sued the city agreed to hiring
and promotion quotas, nonminority plaintiffs who had not
participated in the original suit had a right to challenge
those quotas in a case of their own. Consent decrees
entered into in the earlier cases could not have a binding
effect against the plaintiffs in their subsequent litiga-
tion.
This holding is nothing more or less than a reaffirmation
of, as the Court put it, "the general rule that a person
cannot be deprived of his legal rights in a proceeding to
which he is not a party, and our "'deep-rooted historic
tradition that everyone should have his own day in court.
The Court's decision said nothing critical about civil
rights suits in particular. It was written strictly in
terms of proper civil procedure.
Furthermore, the principle that a court cannot bind you to a
judgment if you are not a party is so firmly rooted in fun-
damental notions of due process that any attempt, even by
Congress, to circumvent it raises constitutional questions.
-- The United States in its brief argued that due process
concerns were at stake.
--
The Supreme Court's opinion also alluded to due process
concerns.
It is inconsistent for those who object to the outcome of
Lorance V. AT&T Technologies, Inc. to object to the Court's
decision in Martin V. Wilks as well. The plaintiffs in
Wilks, like those in Lorance, deserve to have their day in
court. This was the Administration's position throughout
the Lorance and Wilks litigation, and it is still our posi-
tion today.
Many times employers seek to avoid paying back-pay to actual
victime by instead agreeing to quotas. In other words, the
wrongdoer avoids punishment by trading away the rights of
innocent bystanders.
The argument that this decision will discourage legitimate
settlements in discrimination cases is misguided for three
reasons. First, we should not encourage litigants to settle
cases at the expense of third-parties not in the room. Sec-
ond, procedural mechanisms (such as joinder) are available
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 5- 9-90 ; 4:44PM ;
FEB-20-90 - TUE 10:40 OPD
2024566221-
2024566218:#10
$
to bring in interested third-parties. Third, if the parties
settle the case without hiring quotas or other discrimina-
tory relief, it is unlikely that any third-party challenge
would be mounted in the first place. Finally, if a settle-
ment is lawful and does not impair the rights of those who
are not before the court, it will withstand any subsequent
third-party challenge anyway.
on the other hand, the decision will discourage settling
parties from agreeing to "remedies" such as quotas which
themselves violate Title VII by requiring the settling
defendant to discriminate in favor of one class of indivi-
duals over another on the basis of race.
DENI elecopier 7020 , 5- 9-90 , 4.45PM
FEB-20-90 TUE 10:40 OPD
2024566221-
20245662186#11
P.11
10 -
price Waterhouse V. Hopkins Is Fair to civil Rights Plaintiffs
The general rule in employment discrimination cases, just as
in any civil case, is that the plaintiff must show that the
defendent's unlawful act caused the injury.
In many cases, & plaintiff will be able to adduce some evi-
dence of discrimination -- for instance, a stray remark by
one supervisor, or the fact that someone of a different race
was promoted--but it would be unprecedented for such minimal
evidence to prove that discrimination caused the decision to
fire or not to hire or promote.
The Supreme Court's decision in Price Waterhouse V. Hopkins
is more than fair to plaintiffs. so long as a plaintiff
produces direct and substantial evidence of discriminatory
animus, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to show
that its decision would have been supported by legitimate
reasons. Indeed, if anything the Court's decision in Price
Waterhouse is unfair to defendants, for the Court does not
identify any provision in Title VII which would alter Fed-
eral Rule of Evidence 301's assignment of the burden of
proof in civil litigation to the plaintiff.
It is hard to understand, judging from who wrote the Supreme
Court's decision and how it came out, why plaintiffs should
be unhappy. The plurality opinion, which was written by
Justice Brennan and joined by Justices Marshall, Blackmun,
and Stevens, ruled for the plaintiff on nearly every issue.
Justices White and O'Connor concurred in the judgment for
the plaintiff, although they thought the plurality went too
far in certain respects. Three Justices -- Kennedy, joined
by Rehnquist and Scalia -- dissented because they thought,
under a proper standard, the defendant should have won.
Finally, legislation is grossly premature. There was no
majority opinion for the Court, SO the ultimate legal stan-
dards are still to be determined. There is no need for Con-
gressional intervention -- which will amount to no more than
"fine-tuning"--before there is a definite legal standard and
before there is any evidence that inequities are resulting.
SENT BY:Xerox lelecopier 7020 ; 5- 9-90 ; 4:45PM ;
FEB-20-90 TUE 10:41
2024566221-
20245662186#12
11
Title VII Should Not Be Amended to Include Damage claims
Section B of the Kennedy-Hawkins bill will make damage
awards available in all disparate treatment lawsuits brought
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is a
subterfuge, for it is not a response to any adverse Supreme
Court decision. The Supreme Court's decisions last year are
being used as a mere pretext for an unwise, across-the-board
expansion of Title VII.
The civil Rights Act of 1964 was landmark legislation, and
it has worked well. In particular, Title VII of that Act
has enabled this country to eradicate systematic exclusion
of minorities and women from the workplace. In each of its
provisions it used injunctions and other equitable remedies.
The Act carefully balanced employees' rights with the need
to preserve legitimate management prerogatives. It has made
meaningful, effective relief available, while discouraging
frivolous claims. Moreover, it has focused the parties on
eliminating discrimination rather than filing lawsuits.
The Kennedy-Hawkins bill's proposal to make damages availa-
ble in every Title VII disparate treatment case will upset
the carefully balanced remedial scheme that has worked so
well. Title VII "ain't broke"; it doesn't need to be fixed.
Making damages available above and beyond back pay and rein-
statement will encourage litigation rather than conciliation.
Such a provision will turn Title VII into a tort claims act
rather than an anti-discrimination statute. Damage claims
for pain and suffering, emotional harm, and the like will
become a staple of every Title VII claim.
Title VII cases with damage claims -- and all will inevi-
tably include them -- will no longer be tried to judges;
they will be tried to juries. In our view, the emotional
and complex issues presented in Title VII cases are better
handled in bench trials, as they have been for the last 25
years. For instance, "jury nullification" for claims by
unpopular plaintiffs have been avoided; so have unjust
awards of punitive damages.
interplays w/
Ams with Riad sat
ADA bill maker
such discrim. eligib.
under Girl Rightz Act
- but w/o pointive damages
(Sec. #)
Hate Gives Bill
- More $ for Headatart program
Enterprix zonsto draw
low-income area
- tax credit for children in
low-incone tamilis
- - Arotection STPA against rine
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 5- 9-90 : 4:46PM ;
2024566221-
20245662181#13
A.D.A.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
August 2, 1989
STATEMENT BY THE PRESS SECRETARY
The Administration has reached a consensus with key Senators
from both parties on legislation that would expand the reach of
this country's civil rights laws to include disabled Americans.
This will be landmark legislation, not only for the 37 million
Americans with some form of disability, but for all Americans,
demonstrating, as the President said in his Inaugural Address,
that "this is the age of the offered hand.'
The President endorses this legislation as the vehicle to
fulfill the challenge he offered in his February 9 address to the
Nation: "Disabled Americans must become full partners in
America's opportunity society."
The President has pursued a commonsense approach, seeking a
practical bill that will help the disabled reach their full
potential. He is committed to producing a bill that can be
signed this year.
The discussions have resulted in an agreement we expect to
be reflected in today's mark up in the Senate Labor and Human
Resources Committee of the "Americans with Disabilities Act."
The agreement provides for:
-
Federal protection for the disabled against
discrimination in the workplace, paralleling existing
protections that apply to entities that receive federal
funds. The requirement would initially apply to
employers of 25 or more and phase down to employers of
15 or more. Covered employers would have to make
reasonable accommodation to disabled persons.
-
Prohibition of discrimination against the disabled in
public accommodations. The agreement adopts a broad
definition of public accommodations, including
restaurants, stores, and health care providers. Public
accommodations would be required to make readily
achievable alterations to existing facilities to
accommodate the disabled. This legislation is designed
to achieve access for the disabled in the most
efficient manner, with emphasis on making new buildings
accessible.
-
Enforcement of the new protections through the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, and suits seeking
injunctive relief.
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7020 ; 5- 9-90 ; 4:47PM ;
2024566221-
2024566218:#14
-2-
The President is committed to bringing persons with
disabilities into the mainstream, including full participation
and access to all aspects of society. He wants to do this
through a framework that allows for maximum flexibility to
implement effective solutions, builds on existing law to avoid
unnecessary confusion and litigation, and attains these goals
without imposing undue burdens. The President believes this can
be accomplished by using reasonable measures, phased over time,
as this legislation does.
We are pleased that substantial progress has been made. We
will continue to analyze the full ramifications of the
legislation and look forward to working with the Senate and the
House to complete the legislative process this year.
# # #
14
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Concern for Civil Rights
Question: Is the Reagan Administration indifferent to the
concept of equal opportunity, and to the forces of
discrimination in our society?
Answer:
President Reagan is opposed to all forms of
discrimination against any American. He is firmly
committed to achieving a society that is truly
color-blind; a society in which each individual has
equal standing before the law and equal opportunity to
compete for life's rewards based solely on ability and
effort, without regard to race or ethnicity.
Analysis:
O
The President believes the proper role of the Federal
government is to ensure that no person is unlawfully denied
or afforded opportunities because of his or her race, sex,
age, religion, national origin, or handicap.
The Reagan Administration has consistently adhered to the
view that government power must be used to combat all acts
of such unlawful discrimination. However, that power should
never be employed to favor some individuals on the basis of
race or sex, while penalizing others.
--
Certain "remedies" such as quotas based on race and
forced school busing were not required by any of our
civil rights laws, but were the result of attempts by
well-meaning people to accelerate the elimination of
discrimination.
--
Some efforts to rectify past discrimination against
some groups served merely to mandate new discrimination
against others -- creating situations as morally
objectionable as the original problem. Nor did these
"remedies" achieve the intended results.
Veto of Civil Rights Restoration Act
Question: If President Reagan has been so concerned about civil
rights, why did he veto the Civil Rights Restoration
Act which offers minorities stronger protection against
discrimination?
White House Office of Public Affairs
(202) 456-7170
15
Answer:
The President supported legislation designed to
eliminate invidious discrimination and to ensure
equality of opportunity for all Americans, while
preserving their basic freedoms from governmental
interference and control
Congress, however, passed a bill that vastly and
unjustifiably expands the power of the Federal
government over the decisions and affairs of private
organizations and places at risk such cherished values
as religious liberty.
Minorities would have been fully protected against
discrimination under the President's alternative
legislative proposal. Moreover, numerous other
Federal, state, and local civil rights laws provide a
broad range of protections against discrimination.
Analysis:
The Civil Rights Restoration Act was presented simply as
an effort to "restore" the coverage under Title IX of the
Education Amendments Act of 1972, which prohibits sex
discrimination in any "education program or activity"
receiving Federal funds, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (race), Section 504 of the Rehabilition Act of 1973
(handicap), and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 -- which
existed prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in the 1984 case
of Grove City College V. Bell.
In Grove City College V. Bell, the Supreme Court ruled that
since the only Federal money benefiting Grove City College
came in the form of financial aid to its students, only the
college's financial aid office was covered by Title IX.
Since 1984, President Reagan said he favored amending the
four statutes in order to protect women, minorities, and
others against discrimination throughout entire educational
institutions. Although no case had been made for further
amendment, the President's most recent alternative would
have provided even further coverage.
The Civil Rights Restoration Act, however, goes far beyond
restoring the pre-Grove City coverage of the four civil
rights statutes in question, despite virtually no evidence
to justify amending these statutes outside the area of
education. Federal agencies, aside from the Department of
Education, indicated that their efforts to ensure that those
receiving Federal funds do not discriminate had been
virtually unimpeded by the Grove City decision.
White House Office of Public Affairs
(202) 456-7170
16
The Civil Rights Restoration Act, passed into law over the
President's veto, will subject religious institutions,
businesses, and individuals to greatly increased Federal
paperwork requirements and oversight; leading to greater
consumer costs, random on-site compliance reviews by Federal
agencies (even in the absence of a specific allegation of
discrimination), and increased exposure to lawsuits and
action by the courts.
The President's alternative would have ensured equal
opportunity for the elderly, women, the handicapped, and
minorities across the board in public school districts,
public systems of higher education, systems of vocational
education, and private educational systems which receive any
Federal aid.
O
It would also have extended the application of the civil
rights statutes to entire businesses or private entities
which receive Federal aid as a whole and to the entire plant
or facility of a business or other private entity where that
plant or facility alone receives Federal funds.
The President's alternative would have ensured equal
opportunity in all Federally funded programs of departments
and agencies of state and local governments.
Unlike the Civil Rights Restoration Act, the President's
alternative would have protected religious liberty by
limiting coverage of the statutes in question to that part
of a church or synagogue which participates in a Federal
program.
The President's bill stated explicitly that farmers would
not become subject to Federal regulation under these
statutes by virtue of their acceptance of Federal
agricultural assistance, and that grocers and supermarkets
would not be subject to Federal regulation under these
statutes if the only Federal funds they received were in the
form of food stamps from customers.
Affirmative Action
Question: Why is the Reagan Administration opposed to
affirmative action?
Answer:
The Reagan Administration supports affirmative action
-- but opposes mandatory quotas or similar forms of
preferential treatment based on race. Contrary to
perceptions promoted by the media, affirmative action
and racial quotas are not one and the same.
White House Office of Public Affairs
(202) 456-7170
17
Analysis:
True affirmative action does not require reverse
discrimination. It means expanding opportunities by:
-- Vigorously recruiting qualified minority and female
candidates;
-- Encouraging qualified minority and female candidates
to apply for education, employment, and other
opportunities from which they have been traditionally
excluded;
-- Identifying and eliminating barriers to opportunities
for minority group members and women;
-- Assisting community groups, educational institutions,
employers, and unions in devising training programs to
overcome such barriers; and
-- Marketing available housing in a manner that ensures
that all persons have an equal opportunity to obtain
housing.
O
Quotas, the requirement that selections for employment,
promotion, housing, etc., be made so as to attain specified
numerical proportions of various groups, result in
negative consequences that reach beyond the effect of
reverse discrimination.
-- Quotas institutionalize discrimination on the basis
of race and gender.
-- By casting a shadow on the real achievements of
minorities and women, quotas promote the very
prejudices they were initiated to overcome. The
attainments of minorities and women are made to appear
as benefits conferred by the government or the courts
-- not the rewards of ability and hard work.
-- Quotas have not helped those most in need.
Beneficiaries often have been those who have already
come furthest in freeing themselves from past burdens.
-- In housing complexes, allegedly "benign" quotas are
specifically aimed at excluding or limiting minority
tenancy in order to achieve the owners' vision of
proper racial balance.
White House Office of Public Affairs
(202) 456-7170
18
School Desegregation
Question: Has progress against segregation in public schools
ground to a halt under the Reagan Administration?
Answer:
The Reagan Administration is working to ensure not
only equal access to education for minorities, but
also equal access to quality education. The
Administration has aggressively advanced education
reform proposals that promise particular benefits to
minority and disadvantaged students and has promoted
equal educational opportunity for all.
Analysis:
o
Investigations of alleged discrimination and plans for
dealing with it, where found, are aimed not merely at
"numbers," but also at ensuring that there is no
discrimination in the quality of education afforded
minorities.
O
For example, an effective remedy for segregation has been
the highly successful "magnet" schools, which attract
integrated enrollments by virtue of their superior course
offerings.
--
In 1981, the Department of Education funded a study
of magnet schools, including an inquiry into the
effectiveness of magnet schools in desegregating
school districts. The study found that magnet schools
are powerful and versatile tools in the desegregation
efforts of school districts.
:
Since 1984, the Magnet Schools Assistance Program has
provided funds to school districts across the country
to assist them in establishing and operating
desegregated schools by providing innovative
educational opportunities and varied curricula.
The Administration has proposed increased funding
for this program.
o
School busing has often resulted in significant enrollment
losses in affected districts -- followed by greater racial
isolation and poorer education quality than existed before.
Frequently, minority students were merely being reassigned
from one poor school to another.
White House Office of Public Affairs
(202) 456-7170
19
The Reagan Administration has been successful in negotiating
five-year statewide desegregation plans for the public
higher education systems in Kentucky, Texas, Maryland, and
Pennsylvania. Presently, the latter three states are
implementing their plans and the Department of Education is
assessing Kentucky's implementation of its plan.
The Department of Education recently examined the
implementation of desegration plans by ten states to
eliminate remaining vestiges of de jure, or statutory
segregation in their higher education systems.
--
The Department found that all ten states had made
significant progress in desegregating their systems.
Arkansas, South Carolina, West Virginia, and the
community college system of North Carolina were found
to have complied fully with their desegregation plans.
--
While substantial progress has been made by Delaware,
Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Virginia, the
Department found that further actions are needed to
implement fully their desegregation plans. The
Department is requiring these six states to take other
effective measures -- in most instances by the end of
1988 -- to eliminate the remaining vestiges of illegal
segregation.
Black Poverty
Question: Blacks may have made "modest" gains in rising out of
poverty in recent years, but hasn't progress slowed
considerably from what it was in the years prior to
the Reagan Administration?
Answer:
From 1983 to 1986, almost 900,000 blacks escaped
poverty, the largest three-year decline in black
poverty in nearly two decades. In contrast, from
1978 to 1981, the number of blacks living below the
poverty line rose by over a million and a half.
Analysis:
o
In 1959, the first year for which modern poverty statistics
were compiled, 55.1 percent of black Americans lived below
the poverty line.
o
The 1960s were a time of modest Federal social spending
(the "Great Society" programs did not approach full gear
until the 1970s) -- but of strong economic growth and low
inflation. During this decade, the black poverty rate fell
by nearly 23 percentage points, to 32.2 percent by 1969.
White House Office of Public Affairs
(202) 456-7170
20
In the 1970s, a time of massive Federal "anti-poverty"
spending -- but of reduced economic growth and rising
inflation -- progress in reducing black poverty stopped
and the number of blacks living in poverty began rising
rapidly at the end of the decade.
The double-digit inflation of 1979 and 1980 was particularly
devastating to low-income families. A family of four with a
steady income of $8,000 in 1979 was over $500 above the
poverty line. By the end of 1980, that same family with the
same income was almost $500 below the poverty line, solely
due to inflation.
While much remains to be accomplished in the effort to
achieve economic equality for blacks, the best course of
action remains the Reagan policy of sustained economic
growth and low inflation.
Note on Hispanic Poverty: The Hispanic poverty rate is declining
(1.7 percentage points in 1986), but has remained relatively
stagnant since the poverty rate for Hispanics was first
calculated in 1972. Because Census Bureau calculations
include aliens, both legal and illegal, the significant
economic progress achieved by many Hispanics has been
continuously offset in the annual poverty statistics by the
influx of poor illegal aliens.
Infant Mortality
Question: Has infant mortality for non-white babies risen under
the Reagan Administration?
Answer:
This frequently-leveled charge simply is not true.
The infant mortality rates for both whites and
non-whites have declined since the 1960s and are now
at record lows.
Analysis:
O
It is true that the infant mortality rate among non-whites
is higher than it is for whites, but this has been the case
since statistics have been kept. The important fact is,
however, that progress for both whites and non-whites is
proceeding at a rapid pace.
The overall infant mortality rate declined by 17 percent
between 1980 and 1986. That represents significant
progress.
A major factor in the higher rate for non-whites is a higher
proportion of low birth-weight infants.
White House Office of Public Affairs
(202) 456-7170
05/08/90
15:56
001
5-8-90
TO: MARK LANGE
FAX # 456-6218
FRom: BOYD HOUINGSWORTH
FAX # 224 - 0291 -
- MORE INFO ON CIVIL RIGHTS
Bill -- - FROM AN OUTSIDE
SOURCE.
NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL PAGES 4
05/08/90
15:57
002
LA
LABOR POLICY
ASSOCIATION, INC.
May 3, 1990
SPECIAL MEMORANDUM
90-96
TO:
Key Federal Policy Makers
RE:
Kennedy-Hawkins Is Still An Employment Quota Bill
On Wednesday, May 2, the House Education and Labor Committee agreed to
amendments offered by Rep. Hawkins to H.R. 4000 that purportedly address the concern
that the legislation will force employers to quietly adopt quota hiring systems. While it is
encouraging that the sponsors have publicly acknowledged that the quota concern is a
legitimate issue, the language adopted does little to correct H.R. 4000's strong bias in favor
of them.
At the outset it should be remembered that the principal purpose of Kennedy-
Hawkins is to:
1.
permit a plaintiff to establish a Title VII violation solely on the
basis of statistical comparisons between groups of employees;
2.
make it virtually impossible for an employer to defend itself
against the finding of statistical disparity; and
3.
permit juries and courts to levy huge damage awards, attorney
fees and expert witness fees for that statistical disparity.
The amendments adopted by the Committee address neither the first nor the third point,
and make only cosmetic changes in the second point. In fact, the initial reading of the
amendments by several prominent industrial psychologists suggests that in certain respects
they create even more barriers for employers trying to defend themselves than the original
bill.
Because the modified version of Kennedy-Hawkins will make it so easy to "prove"
Title VII violations and win huge damage awards, as with the original bill the only real
defense employers will have is to hire, promote and lay off employees on the basis of
quotas. The message to employers is clear-if your "numbers" are not just right, you are a
sitting target. But if your numbers are okay, you can breathe easy.
1015 Fifteenth Street. NW. Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: 202 789-8670
05/08/90
15:57
003
LPA Analysis - Page 2
Statistical Comparisons
The first step in proving a Title VII violation (the "prima facie" case) under the Civil
Rights Act (CRA) of 1990 is by the plaintiff showing that "a group of employment practices
results in a disparate impact" on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin or color. In
a disparate impact case, the plaintiff shows that within a company, there are less minorities
or women in a particular group of employees than in the relevant labor market. Or the
plaintiff may rely, as in Wards Cove, on the mere fact that there are proportionately less
minorities in one job than another. There is no need to show a specific discriminatory
practice. Statistical comparisons between groups of employees alone would be sufficient to
establish a "prima facie" violation of Title VII.
Employer Defense
Once the prima facie case is established on the basis of mere statistical
comparisons, a company can defend itself only if it can show by objective evidence:
that the challenged group of employment practices (i.e., practices that
produce one or more decisions with respect to employment) bear a
substantial and demonstrable relationship to effective job performance.
Thus, under the latest version of H.R. 4000, the only way an employer can defend against
punitive and compensatory damages is by proving that each and every one of its hiring and
selection practices bears a "substantial" and "demonstrable" relationship to "effective" job
performance. If any single practice cannot be shown to meet this test, the defense fails.
Many employment decisions, however, are predicated upon considerations other
than job performance. H.R. 4000 would effectively eliminate any defense for those
practices if they worked to the disadvantage of a protected group. Take, for example, an
assembly plant in which a group of predominately male sheet metal workers were paid $20
per hour while a group of predominately female administrative employees were paid $15
per hour. Could the employer defend the wage difference on the basis that collective
bargaining agreements and prevailing wage practices in the area (i.e., the job market)
dictated those pay rates? No. They cannot be said to bear a substantial and demonstrable
relationship to effective job performance because the compensation levels were based on
market factors rather than performance.
In view of this new rebuttal burden, comparable worth is also alive and well and
thriving inside H.R. 4000. Any practice or group of practices that has an impact on
minorities or women still must be shown to be related to job performance, and only job
performance. Payment of market wages (which is a nonperformance-related criteria)
could no longer be used to justify pay practices presently protected from the "comparable
worth" theory.
05/08/90
15:58
004
LPA Analysis - Page 3
Also, there are many legitimate, non-performance factors that could no longer be
considered, such as: economic layoffs, compensation decisions for job groups, grooming
standards, training costs, and moving expenses. Safety concerns such as used in the
Dothard case (selection of prison guards) and Beazer case (drug usage) also would not be
a permitted defense.
Similarly, what about a hiring policy that only accepts applications for certain
professional positions from those with advanced degrees? Or a promotion policy for
skilled technicians that requires taking a certain number of night courses each year? These
are all legitimate, but non-performance related, criteria.
In Spurlock V. United Airlines, the airline's policy was that applicants for pilot
positions must have 500 flying hours and a college degree. The court held that no violation
of Title VII occurred when the airline, which in 1971 had very few black officers, refused to
hire a black applicant who had no college degree and only 204 hours. Under H.R. 4000,
the applicant would be awarded punitive and compensatory damages, and the employer
required to put the plaintiff in the cockpit.
Objective Evidence
Another new barrier added by the amendment was the introduction of the concept
that objective evidence must be used to defend subjective hiring and promotion decisions.
It was not until the Supreme Court's Watson decision in 1988 that disparate impact theory
was extended to subjective practices, such as interviews and performance appraisal
systems. The Court made clear in Watson, however, that even standardized or objective
tests do not need to be justified by formal validation studies-the only truly "objective"
method of defending selection practices.
But another Hawkins amendment adopted in markup requires employers to
produce "objective evidence" to justify all practices-both objective and subjective. Such
evidence must justify all practices by proving that they bear a "substantial and
demonstrable relationship to effective job performance." Thus, content validity-a
traditional method of validating objective selection measures accepted since 1966 under
EEOC's Selection Guidelines-would be foreclosed under the "objective evidence" standard
because subjective judgments are absolutely essential to content validation.
Thus, the bill creates an impossible evidentiary oxymoron:
objective evidence to justify subjective practices.
This new requirement is not found in prior Supreme Court decisions, even for objective
practices. The fact that the Committee dropped the requirement that a practice be
"essential" to job performance does not resolve the problem-the "objective evidence"
requirement simply substitutes a new impossible rebuttal burden for an earlier one. How
can a company provide objective evidence to prove that between two people, one is a
05/08/90
15:59
005
LPA Analysis - Page 4
better writer than another, one is better at dealing with the public than another, one is a
better manager of people than another, one troubleshoots complex software programs
better than another?
Quotas
It is only logical to conclude that an employer would try to avoid such lawsuits by
quietly telling the company's managers to hire and promote on a quota basis. Justice
White acknowledged this logical result in the Supreme Court's Ward's Cove decision:
any employer who had a segment of his workforce that was--
for some reason--racially imbalanced, could be haled into court
and forced to engage in the expensive and time-consuming
task of defending the "business necessity" of the methods used
to select the other members of his work force. The only
practicable option for many employers will be to adopt racial
quotas, insuring that no portion of his workforce deviates in
racial composition from the other portions thereof; this is a
result that Congress expressly rejected in drafting Title VII.
This is the result expressly approved by H.R. 4000.
05/08/90
15:33
001
5 - 8 - 90
TO: MARK LANGE
FAX # 456-6218
FROM: BOYD
HOLLINGSWORTH
FAX # 224 - 0291
05/08/90
15:34
002
Quotas
Talking Points on Civil Rights
The small amendment to the Kennedy-Hawkins bill that we
understand Senator Danforth et al. to be considering would not
cure the legislation's very significant problems. Moreover,
Senate non-sponsors should not be cutting their own deals with
Senator Kennedy but should be talking to the Administration about
a desirable end result.
Quotas
Under Kennedy-Hawkins with the new amendment, liability would be
imposed wherever some (undefined) statistical imbalance is shown
between the workforce and the outside population, unless the
employer could prove by "objective evidence" that its employment
practices "bear a substantial and demonstrable relationship to
effective job performance." This standard contrasts with present
law requiring employees to produce evidence that the "challenged
practice pursues, in a significant way, the legitimate employment
goals of the employer" (i.e., is job related). The effect of the
new standard will be to encourage litigation-shy employers to
make sure their numbers "come out right" through the silent use
of quotas.
Employment criteria that are somewhat helpful to
effective job performance but not sufficiently
"substantial" would not meet the new standard. Why it
should be illegal for employers to pursue legitimate
employment goals has never been explained. This
question is especially relevant in today's highly
competitive world market.
This new standard is meant, and will be viewed by
courts as designed, to cut back on the Supreme Court's
business justification standard. To the extent that
employers must show more than business justification,
the pressure for quota grows significantly.
This new standard appears to allow no weight at all for
subjective or intuitive evaluations of what is required
for effective job performance. Nondiscriminatory
employers may find it very difficult to show by
"objective evidence" that all of their job practices
meet the test.
The new standard would eliminate the requirement that
plaintiffs identify the particular employment practice
complained of. That requirement has always obtained
heretofore because the Supreme Court never has said
that an attack simply on the employer's "bottom line"
racial or sexual balance is appropriate, and the Civil
Rights Act does not mandate such balance.
05/08/90
15:34
003
Kennedy-Hawkins would also shift the ultimate burden of
proof in disparate impact cases to defendants. Such a
shift is counter to the general civil rules and
specifically is contrary to the allocation in cases of
intentional discrimination. It is not clear why a
defendant accused of unintentional discrimination
should have a higher burden than an intentional
discrimination defendant. Moreover, shifting the
burden of proof is inconsistent with Title VII's
express statement that preferential treatment is not
required "on account of a [statistical] imbalance which
may exist."
Remedies
In cases where intentional discrimination is alleged, Kennedy-
Hawkins would scrap Title VII's current remedial scheme
(providing for injunctions and back-pay after trial to a Judge),
replacing it with jury trials that could result in the award of
compensatory and punitive damages.
This major statutory change overthrows Title VII's
longstanding approach geared to conciliation and
settlement, and is not even arguably related to any set
of Supreme Court rulings. No showing has been made
that Title VII remedies are not working well.
The heightened damage provisions would apply to the new
Americans with Disabilities Act if the ADA were to
become law. Society has no experience with the ADA
provisions, which were designed with current Title VII
remedies in mind.
Moving to high risk jury trials will inevitably make
Title VII litigation more time consuming, expensive,
and unpredictable.
Due Process
Kennedy-Hawkins would deprive certain putative discrimination
victims of their day in court, thereby infringing constitutional
rights. The bill would preclude equal protection challenges to
court-ordered consent decrees by individuals who had notice of
and opportunity to object to the proposed judgement, or for whom
reasonable efforts at notice were made or whose interests were
represented adequately by another who did object prior to entry
of the order.
This provision of the bill is designed to prevent court
challenges by workers who feel aggrieved by court
imposed quota systems that turn out to affect them
detrimentally.
05/08/90
15:35
004
Everyone should have his or her day in court. Courts
and litigants should not be encouraged to bargain away
the rights of unrepresented third parties.
Current federal rules are fair in requiring joinder of
all interested parties to litigation. A person not
joined whose rights then turn out to be infringed by an
agreement between other entities should have the
opportunity to vindicate his or her own interests at
that point. By denying that right, this section of the
legislation is inconsistent with another section
allowing victims of discriminatory seniority systems to
sue long after adoption of the system when the effects
actually are felt by the employee. (The Administration
supports legislation to bring about this latter
change).
Judicial Law Making
Kennedy-Hawkins provides that - [a] 11 federal laws protecting the
civil rights of persons shall be broadly construed to effectuate
the purpose of such laws to eliminate discrimination and provide
effective remedies.'
This provision could be invoked by Judges as
justification for stretching any number of laws beyond
the bounds established through the legislative process.
When laws are not read according to their terms, our
representative system is circumvented.
This is an amendment of all civil rights laws, but one
of no defined content. Not only would it allow Judges
to manufacture substantive standards for liability, it
would also expand Judges' remedial authority--perhaps
implicating bussing, taxation, etc.
Other Problems
The bill would impose liability wherever race,
religion, sex, etc. was a "motivating factor" in an
employment decision, even when the employer could show
that the same decision would have been made absent the
discriminatory animus; the general rule that the
plaintiff must show harm resulting from an improper act
would be overridden.
As detailed in the Attorney General's letter to Senator
Kennedy of April 3, numerous other provisions in the
bill are problematic. For example, general Title VII
statutes of limitation would be quadrupled, making
cases more stale; attorney fee provisions would be made
more favorable to lawyers; and the government would be
compelled to pay interest on Title VII awards against
the U.S.
P O 2
09PM
The Fortune 500's 'extremists'
Several months ago, William Bradford Fortune companies are radical: They
Reynolds turned a billous' verbal volley
support affirmative action.
toward U.S. Supreme Court Justice William
A survey just released by the Bureau of
Brennan, who wrote the recent decisions up-
National Affairs (a private publishing house)
holding affirmative action. The U.S. Justice
shows that despite administration efforts to
Department's top civ-
discredit such policies, seven of every eight
il-rights
officer
Fortune 500 firms responding plan to keep
claimed that the "rad-
affirmative-action programs for minorities
ical egalitarianism"
and women. In fact, 12 percent of the 206
of people like Bren-
respondents said they intended to increase
nan was "perhaps the
their affirmative-action efforts.
major threat to Indi-
vidual liberty."
What's more, a majority of companies
Mostly, this bom-
polled in the Northeast, Midwest and West
said that the administration has not ade-
bast was a sign that
quately addressed the employment of minor-
Reynolds had exhaust-
ities and women. Only Southern firms, by a
ed his bag of legal
tricks in the adminis-
puzzling 80.6 majority, reckoned the admin-
istration has been responsive.
tration's campaign
Reynolds
against affirmative
Really, affirmative action today is a
action. (Sharp personal denunciations are no
mainstream idea whose ultimate benefits
way to win the court's favor.) But beyond
(sounder companies, sounder societies) are
that, do his charges of "radical egalitarian-
generally acknowledged. It has the support
ism" have merit? And is "unlimited judicial
of the Business Roundtable and the National
power" the chief reason for affirmative ac-
Association of Manufacturers (whose rosters
tion?
include no known Bolsheviks and certainly
Those notions are nonsense. As it turns
no egalitarians).
out, Brennan is a radical in the same way
At bottom, it takes quite an extremist to
that many - If not most - of the nation's
find something extreme here.
3-27-87
Employers Welcome Ruling
Upholding Affirmative Action
By TAMAR LEWIN
Most large employers and business
case is important because It involved a
groups said yesterday that they wal-
voluntary affirmative action plan
comed the Supreme Court's decision
adopted without any finding that there
upholding affirmative action pro-
had been discrimination by the em-
grams,
ployer."
Some said the decision, Issued
in many of the earlier cases, he said,
Wednesday, should finally lay to rest
the plan had been designed as a judi-
the longstanding concern that employ.
cial remedy for discriminatory prac-
era who used race- or sex-based prefer-
tices. The Kaiser Aluminum and
ences in hiring or promotion were un-
Chemical Corporation, whose program
fairly discriminating against white
to train minority and female workers
male employees.
for skilled craft positions was upheld
"This decision is very positive for
by the Supreme Court in 1979, said this
businesses, since it gives them the free-
week's decision should help encourage
dom to do their own thing, to volun-
other companies to develop similar
tarily implement their own affirmative
programs.
action plans, without fear of a reverse
"Important as the decision is,
discrimination suit," said Stephen
equally important is what happens
Bokat, the vice president and general
next - what employers do about it to
counsel of the Chamber of Commerce
provide more jobs and opportunities
of the United States. "There had
for minorities and women," Kaiser
started to be a real rash of reverse dis-
said in a prepared statement applaud-
crimination suits, and I think a lot of
ing the decision. "Business needs to
employers were nervous about being
recognize that affirmative action Isn't
caught between a rock and a hard
just B numbers game concerned with
place."
goals and quotas. It's a program for
Most of the nation's largest employ.
professionally managing America's
ers adopted affirmative action pro-
people resources to Insure their fair
grams in the 1970's, after the Govern-
and full utilization and bring qualified
ment brought a spate of class-action
people, regardless of race or gender.
enforcement actions.
into the nation's work force."
Challenge From White House
But the Reagan Administration has
repeatedly challenged the legality of
broad-based affirmative action pro-
grams, 80 many employers have been
confused about their potential liability
under such programs.
"The Reagan Administration gave a
lot of employers the impression that af-
firmative action had been repealed,"
said Paul Siegel, a New York lawyer
who counsels corporations on employ-
ROSENTHAL Sundays the on
ment law. "This decision should clarify
the fact that affirmative action is a
09.
90
03:09PM
P03
Editorials
hiring "quotas." They are proselytizing other federal agencies
to the point that Andrew F. Brimmer, an economic consultant
IT'S TIME
and a former governor of the Federal Reserve Board, can say
flatly that affirmative action "is no longer a basic policy of the
TO RESTRAIN ESOPs
federal government." Yet few business voices are calling for
watering down affirmative action. For most companies it has
become a routine part of personnel management Justice has
T
the goal of turning workers into capitalists by helping
mounted a crusade that nobody else seems ready to join.
them buy shares in the companies they work for has
Critics of affirmative action have always insisted that it
reached its fullest flower to date through a device
discriminates against majority job seekers, especially white
known as the employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) (page
man. To some extent, they are right. But some tilt in favor of
94). Developed by Louis O. Kelso and endowed by Congress
blacks and women is justified to rectify the consequences of
with a rich panoply of tax benefits, the ESOP today is an idea
past discrimination. Federal regulators and the courts are
running amok. ESOPS cost U.S. taxpayers heavily in lost taxes,
available to see that the tilt does not lean too far. Only this
$2.5 billion for fiscal 1986. That could rise to $4.4 billion by
week a federal court in Washington threw out the city's fire
1990. But the real danger is that the justification for all this tax
department promotion program as discriminatory against
largesse-and the idea's original purpose-are being sup-
whites but upheld its hiring goals that favor blacks.
planted. ESOPS were conceived as a credit mechanism for
Affirmative action dates back to March, 1961, and, in practi-
financing worker stock ownership. But the outbreak of take-
cal terms, it is late in the day to start tearing it down. Harold
over wars is subordinating this objective to the ESOP'S new
C. Fleming, president of Washington's Potomac Institute,
role as a defensive financing weapon, especially in facilitating
points to a new study by his organization concluding that the
leveraged buyouts. Whatever social value the ESOP might em-
significant prograss toward equal opportunity by minorities Is
body, it has become a tax abuse whose main beneficiaries
due "in large part to the federal government's affirmative
increasingly are not workers but corporate managers, invest-
action program and private industry's adoption of it." Over the
\
ment bankers, and outside investors. The Reagen Administra-
years business and regulators have worked out rules and
tion's proposal for overall tax reform would strip the ESOP of
procedures for affirmative action, including numerical yard-
most of the preferences that make it appealing as a source of
sticks for sizing up progress, that both sides understand. It
corporate financing. That is exactly what should be done.
has worked and should be left alone.
Even in pristine form, ESOPS raise problems. Federal law
says they are a type of pension fund. The overriding goal of a
pension fund should be to make sure it has the resources
needed to pay benefits. How many people really want their
pensions tied solely to the stock of one company? Workers
JAPAN: NOW
who own stock may be motivated to work harder, but similar
incentives could be provided, with far less risk, through profit-
sharing plans and other bonuses.
HEAR THIS
As ESOPS multiply, so do abuses. Workers often support
or weeks the Reagan Administration pointed to Apr. 1 as
them as a way to save jobs, but in many cases jobs are lost
the date when the Japanese would reveal how much
anyway. ESOPS can be set up in ways that shut workers out of
they would respond to U.S. pressure to open their big
decision-making and expose the ESOP to risks, while reserving
potential gains for other investors.
telecommunications market to American producers (page 43).
That day has come and gone, and, as far as anyone can tell,
The courts and Congress alike are beginning to wrestle
with problems inherent in ESOPS, The goal should be to allow
the answer remains what it was: "Wait and see." Washington
officials and telecommunications industry executives are com-
management and labor to make use of ESOPS to save compa-
nies and jobs while curbing egregious abuse. The best reform
ing to realize that Japan's timetable stretches far beyond that
of the U.S., which calls for action right away. Because the
would eliminate most of the costly tax preferences altogether.
Administration and free-trade senators and congressmen had
staked so much on Apr. 1, the country now finds itself moving
almost willy-rully toward the economic retaliation that Presi-
dent Reagan and many members of Congress say they want
DON'T SCUTTLE
to avoid. The U.S. should bend every effort to avert a mutual-
ly damaging trade conflict with Japan. But If it comes, the
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Japanese will have mostly themselves to biame.
The Senate Finance Committee approved a bill that re-
quires the President to strike back within 90 days. A House
R
eagan Administration officials can often be heard say-
bill telling the President to ban imports of Japanese telecom-
Ing. "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" The Justice Dept.,
munications equipment failed just short of passage. Such
starting with Attorney General Edwin Messe III, should
take that advice to heart in its approach to affirmative action
actions are evidence more of frustration and anger than of
plans that try to increase job opportunities for blacks, women,
careful thought. But they send a signal to the Japanese that
the U.S. is fed up with throwing open its markets to them
and other minorities in the work force. Meese and members
of his staff attack hiring practices based on race and reject
while being denied access to Japan's. For the good of the
world trading system, the Japanese had better start moving.
Basnews week 4-15-85
MANAGING/COVER STORY
BUSINESSMEN
HIRE BY THE NUMBERS
The Reagan Administration is
pushing to get rid of affirma-
or a trial balloge remains to be seea.
The requirement that government -
tive action goals and timeta-
tractors adopt goals and timetables was &
des, or at least make them vol-
legacy of the Nixoa Administration. It wasts-
sued by the Labor Department Ca the eaty
intary. Corporate managers
1970s. The authority for the Labor Depart-
ment's action derived from Executive Order
refer to leave well enough
11245. signed is 1965 by President Lyndon
done.
by Anne B. Fisher
Johnson. Among other things. that order are-
sted the Office of Federal Contract Compli-
ance Programs to see that government con-
F THE REAGAN Administration were
tractors (which include most large American
nons taking shots " alfirmative action
corporations) obeyed government rules
think bosiness is an their side, they are
against discrimicution,
in for empleasest surprises. Some corpo-
As drafted. the Reagan order world give
de managements, m doubt, pash allivince-
mandmory goals and timetables both barrels.
ve action only because government pushes
"The Secretary of Labar," it TIMIQ, "shall in-
CELL But persuasive evidence indicates that
mediately revoke all regulations and guide-
nost large American corporations want to
lines promulizated pursuant to Executive Dr-
tain their affirrative action programs, aus-
der No. 11246" if they require companies
erical goals and all.
doing business with the government "to use
The Administration's position is that Earl-
numerical quotas, goals, ratios, or objec-
overs can achieve true fairness in hiring
tives." In effect. that would make numerries)
and only by ignowing race and sex alto-
goafs and timerables voluntary.
ther-not by favoring women, blacks, and
But the draft went a great deal further,
sparrice over white male applicants. Clar-
with this incendiary beguage: "Nothing in
CE. Thomas, chairman of the Equal Em-
this executive order shall be interpreted to
ryment Opportunity Commission in the
require or provide a legal basis for a SUVERTH
again Attenistration, has been outspoken
meat contractor or subcomaractor to usitize
his belief that companies should not be
any numerical quota, goal, or ratio, OF other-
id to atmistical standards to prove that
wise to discriminate against, or grant may
7 are hiring enough minorities and WHIT
preference to, any individual or group On the
Taking account of race and sex in hiring,
basis of rate, color, religion, SEX, or national
says, viclates Tale VII of the 1964 Civil
origin with respect to my aspect of employ-
Ms Act-the section that probibits dis-
ment These words would not make core-
nination in employment. Title VII says
pany goals and timetables Regall-that would
1 can't consider race or SEK in hiring decl-
take an act of Congress or aruling by a court.
19, period," notes Thomas. "It doesn't
Bat they would weaken the legal besis for
which tace or sex it's okay to favor."
such programs, possibly exposing employers
in far, in spite of the Administrate STUDI-
to a hlizzard of suite by white male employ-
&$, nothing runch has happened that af-
ces or job applicants claiming that affirmative
$ the way companies TUB their affirmative
action had discriminated against them.
on programs. The Labor Department's
DE of Federal Comract Compliance Pro-
NTIL THE PRESIDENT signs it,
ns, which enforces equal opportunity in
the drait is paper wishout legal
panies that do business with the federal
force. And maybe be won't sign it.
- bas gone right on enforcing the
This Administration has a history of
& But in August the Administration
backing losdly and then failing to bite. But
up a strong signal-a proposed presiden-
some officials in the Justice and Labor de-
security order that would put - end to
partments thank he will sign-not necessar-
fatory goals and timetables in affirmative
ily the Roated draft, but something like ii. "It
n programs. Whether it was a rocket
would be political suicide for a first-teurn
ASSOCUCE Side Ballen
Training minority college students is part of Headelt-Packard affirmative action program.
President," says a Justice Department offi-
cial. "But now-why nos?"
nuncer Enic Henry (left) MSEd to bea Interne. Here he is training statemt employee Educardo Plantilla
The Roating of the draft order stirred pre-
FORTUNE SEPTEMBER 16. 1985
PHOTOGRAPH BY CHNHARONG
Fortune
9-16-85
SERIEMBER lb. 1985 FORTUNE 27
05.
08.
90
03:09PM
P05
CheWashington post
OUTLOOK
SUNDAY. NOVEMBER 10, 1985
There are at least 10 good reasons that
In recent meetings with more
Why Bosses
business, while seeking administrative re-
than 150 companies, the consistent
forms, might take a position that voluntary
question we were asked was "If we
goals and timetables should continue to be
can't count, how can we measure? If
allowed and government should have some
we can't measure, how can we man-
kind of mandatory program:
age?"
Like to Be
William McEwen, director of
Changing Labor Market:
equal-opportunity affairs at Mon-
1
Women and minorities will be 75
santo Co. in St. Louis and chairman
percent of labor force growth between
of the human resources steering
Told To Hire
1990 and 2000. Employers without plans to
group of the NAM, told a House of
eliminate barriers to hiring or promoting
Representatives subcommittee in
those groups will be cut off from a major
July that "business
sets goals
part of America's labor force.
and timetables for every aspect of
Minorities
C.W. Parry, chief executive officer at
its operations - profits, capital in-
Alcoa, recently sent a memo to all employes
vestment, productivity increases and
noting that Alcoa's "best prospects for sur-
promotional potential for individuals.
vival and growth lie in our skillful selection
Setting goals and timetables for mi-
of the best individuals" from a "broad-based
nority and female participation is a
By Peter C. Robertson
talent pool that includes women and minori-
way of measuring progress and
ties."
focusing on potential discrimina-
RESIDENT REAGAN is being urged
tion."
P
to weaken enforcement of affirmative
Senior corporate officials clearly
action programs for federal contrac-
2
Minimizing Risk of Reverse Distrimi-
recognize that managers must be
tors. The proposition has divided the Cabi-
nation Suits:
measured on all of the things they
net, stalling action. But if Reagan still is
In a recent survey of chief executive
are expected to do.
trying to make up his mind, here's a mes-
officers by the management consulting firm
A survey of more than 200 major
sage from the business community: Go slow.
for which I work, 95 percent indicated that
companies found 76 percent saying
Although business has major problems
they will use numbers as a management tool
they used "voluntary internal nu-
with the program, it now supports the basic
to measure corporate progress whether the
merical objectives to assess (equal
principles of affirmative action as imple-
government requires them or not. However,
employment opportunity] perform-
mented under Presidents Kennedy, Johnson,
once the government requirements are
ance." One-fourth of the companies
Nixon. Ford and Carter.
gone, there would be a risk of so-called "re-
said that incentive compensation
The reasons corporations are not inter-
verse discrimination" suits alleging that em-
plans for managers include equal
ested in seeing those principles weakened
ployers have gone too' far with affirmative
employment objectives and that per-
have more to do with business than with civil
action.
formance against those objectives
rights. Business - led by the National As.
can affect incentive payments posi-
sociation of Manufacturers - sees that its
The continuation of & responsible
tively or negatively. By 1988 more
own self-interest requires affirmative action.
and balanced government program
than half the companies predict they
And if the Reagan administration thinks
that sanctions goals and timetables
will be basing incentive pay in part
American business will thank it for weaken-
will make it less likely that such
on EEO performance.
ing affirmative action enforcement, then the
suits will be successful, according to
administration isn't listening to what busi-
National Association of Manufactur-
nessmen outside the Beltway are saying.
ers President Alexander Trow-
bridge.
4
Use of Numbers as 0 Defense:
The government's present affirmative ac-
One proposal might elimi-
tion program requires companies doing busi-
nate the possibility that busi-
ness with the federal government to have
3
Compatibility with Manage-
nesses could use goals and timeta-
written affirmative action plans- including
ment:
bles even voluntarily or point to pro-
goals and timetables to increase the employ-
The use of goals and timeta-
gress in minority and female em-
ment of qualified minorities and women
bles and other numerical measures
ployment as part of the evidence in
where they are "under-utilized." Press re-
to track the employment of minori-
defending against discrimination
ports indicate the administration may no
ties and women is consistent with
charges; although the Supreme
longer require goals and timetables and
how corporations deal with all im-
Court has emphasized the appropri-
might even prohibit their voluntary use as a
portant areas.
ateness of such a defense. Employ-
management tool.
ers clearly want to use their pro-
gress as a defense and to be able to
0.5. 0,9. 90 03:09PM
PO6
a IN THESE TIMES NOV. 14-20, 1984
LIFE INTHE U.S.
BEOC, women in craft jobs in- of a mujor construction project
CLERECO from 2.8 to more than TO in 1966 in St. Louis to put some
percent: males in clerical jobs backbone in the government's
Increased from 4.6 to 10 percent. demands.
Between 1974 and 1980.
Myth: If government would
among come 77,000 companies Just gut out of the way. employ-
with 20 million employees.those ers would hire people on their
with government contracts (and merits. Forget It. Even after pub-
therefore
affirmative
action
lic
protest,
a
Lockheed
"Plan
for
plans) Increased minority em- Progress" in the late '30s stayed
DIOVINED recent and female $ good idea on paper. In fact, it
employment 15 percent, while was only after near-universal
non-contractors only Increased failure that numerical goals be-
those
calegorics
percent
care part of government policy.
respectively. Among contrac-
Even now, with heads of such
the bluck and female officials
major corporations as Hewlett-
and managers rose 96 and 73 per-
Packard, IBM and Control Dara
cent respectively, while among
self-styled enthusiasts for affir-
non-contractors it was only 50
mative action. the middle mun-
and 36 percent.
agers in those companies are
Myth: Affirmative action
chafing under regulation and
keeps employers from hiring the
carry newspaper clips of the ad-
best person for the job, and " is
ministration's views into their
unfair to while males. Affinna-
bosses' offices.
tive action, especially as B general
Myth: Employers hare affir-
policy applied nation-wide,
mative action and support the
means that merit can surface in-
administration. So wrong. In
stead of being smothered by dls-
fact, some members of the con-
criminatory practices. And the
tractor community actually pro-
law has consistently supported
tested when the administration
the rights of whites already hired
tried to lift requirements to file
in a situation of declining work-
written affirmative action plans:
force. In crisis, some workplaces
among other things, they
have worked out job-sharing
thought the plans protected them
programs that avoid job loss for
from lawsuits.
whites even under dire financial
Some 200 corporations sur-
circumstances.
veyed recently by the Chizens'
Myth: firmative action is g
Commission found that affir-
New Society Idea, brought 10 as
mative action had resulted In Im-
by Kennedy liberals. Actually,
proved management. Most liked
the concept behind affirmative
the way their procedures for hir-
action-that government my
Ing. promotion and performance
take positive signationsure
had been standardized and made
equality apportunity-goes
more effective.
basic to the Reconstruction cra
Overwhelmingly the managers
with the Freedmen's Bureau. At-
said they now identified qualified
ier M dismul history of retrench-
people mare fffelontly; that
it arose again under the
their employees were happier.
New Deal when equal opportun-
making for lower job turnover,
SOCIAL POLICY
ity clauses were part of the
less absentecism and a smoother
National Industrial Recovery Act
work environment. And it turns
of 1933.
out to be good for business.
When postwar employment
The Kaiser Foundation Health
New report kills myths
statistics revealed minorities be-
Plan, for instance, discovered B
ing shul out after getting a break
new marker among blacks for its
during wartime, Eisenhower
health plans once black doctors
brought back affirmative action
were included. Equitable Life
of affirmative action
clauses for defense contractors.
Assurance Society now has the
IT did take Kennedy and finally
largest number of black sales
the Civil Rights Act, however, to
staff among major Insurers and
put this era of affirmative action
-guess what-has a large num-
former chair of the Civil Rights
information, The thing is an un.
Into effect.
ber of black policy holders.
By Pat Aufderhelde
Commission; William Taylor,
derstated little mythslayer. When
Myth: Affirmative Action was
Myth: The Supreme Court has
former staff director of the Com-
you 500 the slingshot, duck.
imposed by big government. Yes
challenged affirmative action.
Affirmative action-good sd-
mission; Eleanor Holms Norton,
Myth: Affirmative action
and no: it's true that the record
f'll let you read the fine print on
vertising for business? That's
former EBOC chair; William
means quotas. Affirmative action
of voluntary participation stinks.
some of the more recent cases,
what a recent report shows: 78
Brown III, also a former EEOC
does not mean quotas. It never
Neither big defense contractors
but the upshor la this: No. The
percent of some 200 corporation
chair; Ellion Richardson, former
meant quotes. There is no legista-
nor big government-backed proj-
Supreme Court has consistently
heads Found that their affirma-
attorney general; and a dozen
tion that seys anyone must meet
ects like the San Francisco sub-
endorsed the principle behind af-
give employment programs DEC
others who belong to the Citi-
quotes. At all. Numerical goals
way system BART showed much
firmative action-yes, the Burger
enhanced the Company's image
zena' Commission on Civil
are regularly used, especially in
influence of broad legislative
Court-sithough in some cases it
and goodwin.
Rights. They are conserned these
post-1978 legislation that applies
hints that hiring should use affir-
has ruled that affirmative action
BUT for the Tast four years the
days about bad government-
to government contractors and
mative action guidelines. It took
may not apply to the case in
Reagan administration has acted
particularly about the erosion or
to government employers. That's
. grassroom protest and boycott
question.
as If affirmative action was not
destruction of independent agen-
because no other rule of thumb
In the Bakke case, a fave of af-
only bed for business but posi-
cies and established law. They are
worked.
firmative action fees, Justice
lively un-American.
also concerned about bad ideas.
Not aven the most dichard af-
You can tick it off-sutbacks
firmative action supporters will
Affirmative
Harry Blackmun, who concurred
They think Resgan Is wrong to
in part. wrote, "In order to get
in budget at the Equal Opportun-
oppose affirmative action, but
tell you that numerical goals
action means
beyond racism, we must first
ity Employment Commission,
they're afraid he's persuasive.
(based, for Instance, on the per
take account of race. There is no
appointments that have turned
Like David before Gollath,
centage of the social group In the
other way. And in order to treat
the Civil Rights Commission
they're willing to go up against
civil labor force) are a great idea,
that merit can
some persons equally, we must
hostile to affirmative action, #'
the Big Lic with plain facts: 217
or deny that they can lead to un-
treat them differently,"
Justice Department whose civil
pages of them, in fact, in a report
derrepresentation of some, less-
called Affirmative Action to
wall-counted minorities. They
surface instead
Myth: The Reagan administra-
rights head, William Bradford
tion it opposed to affirmative ac-
Reynolds, defiantly refuses even
Open the Doors of Job Opper-
only any that they're better than
to file EEOC forms for his own
funity: a Policy of Fairness and
of being
Non. No: even this is quite true.
other, more vague rules of thumb.
Yes, the Reagan administration
agency. And more-but you get
Compassion that Has Worked.
And they're a heck of a lot better
the drift.
smothered by
over the last few years was criti-
(Well, no one said they were
than trusting to luck.
cal of much in affirmative action
Certain people in Washington,
snappy writers.) It summarizes
Myth: Affirmative action was
D.C., took this all personally.
the history of affirmative action,
a good idea, our h never really
discriminatory
law, But even the Justice Depart-
ment endorses the concept by
They are ex-officials and lawyers
the Resgan administration's TE-
worked. Consider the most limit-
recognizing minority recruitment
who have dedicated helly chunks
sponse and the record of affir-
ad objective of the passel of legi-
practices.
BE B solid government objec-
of their lives, as good Republi-
mative action for private corpor-
siation going under the rubric
live.
cans and good Democrate, to
ations over the last 20 years.
"affirmative action' in-
©Pat Aufderhelds
creating and executing affirms-
Like Its title, the report In a
crease the proportion of minor-
To order the report, write Cit-
tive action programs and legisle-
touch carriest in presentation.
ities and women hired. In 1978.
izens' Commission on Civil
tion.
But that's more than compensat-
five years after AT&T signed 18
Rights, 620 Michigan Ave., NE,
0.5. 0.9. 90 03:09PM
P 0 1
THE KING CENTER
449 Auburn Avenue, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30312-1590
Ph. 404/524-1956
Fax. 404/522-6932
Date: 5/9/90 Time:
Please deliver the following:
TO:
Larry Rose
Company/Firm
Public Liaison
City/State
Fax No. 202-456-6218 Phone No.
FROM:
Steve Klein
NOTES:
Number of pages( including cover )
6
If all pages are not received, please contact:
Steve Klein
Ph. No. 404-524-1956