Federal Government Rejects University's Hiring Proposal

A day after Commencement, the University received word from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare that it had failed for the fourth time to meet Federal requirements for a non-discriminatory hiring plan.

Both HEW reviewers and University officials have declined to discuss the precise nature of the government's objections to Harvard's latest affirmative action proposal. But sources on both sides have conceded that extensive revision of several portions of the plan must be made to fulfill the HEW standards.

As it stands now, Harvard has until August 1 to revise its proposal--as outlined in HEW's June 15 letter of rejection--to meet Federal standards, the usual one month deadline apparently having been extended upon Harvard's request.

HEW reviewers and Walter J. Leonard, special assistant to President Bok and coordinator of the University's affirmative action program, have said that the absence of a departmental breakdown of Faculty projections for hiring women and minority group members was the greatest single shortcoming of Harvard's proposal.

The government requires all major Federal contractors to draft extensive plans for ending discriminatory hiring practices.

Federally-funded schools, businesses and other institutions failing to supply the government with sufficient data, or whose "affirmative action" plans do not comply with the government's standards, risk loss of Federal funding.

Federal contracts account for an estimated one-third--about $60 million--of Harvard's annual income.

No Real Jeopardy

John Bynoe, director of the regional office of HEW, said that no institution will actually lose its Federal funds. Rather, he explained, an institution failing to comply with government standards may be deemed a "non-cooperative contractor" and may be heavily pressured to produce an acceptable affirmative action plan when its Federal contracts near expiration and come up for renewal.

Bynoe said that since HEW rejected Harvard's latest affirmative action program. University administrators had furnished his office with the "required materials" and "we advised them as to what to do."

"We have to make them [Harvard] tighten up their programs as much as possible," he explained. Bynoe concluded that "there will be no problem," and that he is confident Harvard will meet Federal standards within the allotted revision period.

Reliable sources have indicated that several of HEW's objections were ironed out during negotiation sessions between Leonard and the HEW Office of Civil Rights (which reviews the proposals). The same sources said, however, that there are still aspects of the program that must be modified for compliance with Federal standards as spelled out in the rejection letter and clarified during the negotiation sessions.

Bynoe emphasized that it is possible for an institution to lay down acceptable utilization analysis and target figures, act in good faith, and "still end up with no more women or minority group members."

"There is absolutely no assurance that because an institution submits goals and timetables, that these will be met," he said.

After the employer-institution has uncovered and examined its own possible hiring biases through utilization analysis, enlarged its search procedure accordingly, and established a series of appropriate goals and timetables for the increased hiring of women and minority group members, it need only show that it has acted in good faith to meet the goals it drew up for itself in order to comply with government regulation.

Soon after The Crimson (May 17) reported that the affirmative action plan submitted to HEW on May I was facing unfavorable review and might be rejected, Peter Clark '69, an HEW reviewer, indicated that Harvard's failure to break down by department its hiring projections could be one obstacle to Federal acceptance of the plan.

At that time, Clark said he "would think" that HEW would only accept projections by department--not faculty-wide--in the case of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

Leonard has long maintained that goals and timetables should be set by department. On many occasions, he has reiterated his contention that projections are only meaningful, and recruitment feasible, if they are made departmentally.

It is not clear from the wording of the government's affirmative action guidelines whether the projections may be set by faculty or must be set by department.

In his instructions to the deans of the various faculties last winter, regarding the setting of projections, President Bok said that the figures "may reflect faculty-wide totals."

John T. Dunlop, then dean of the Faculty, subsequently instructed Winifred S. Barad, equal employment officer for the Faculty, not to break down the goals and timetables by department.

The controversy regarding departmental vs. faculty-wide projections apparently has now been laid to rest. It remains for Harvard to complete utilization analysis of each of the departments in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in order to locate areas of "underrepresentation," and then to file goals and timetables in line with these findings.

When the proposal--which took a year to complete at a cost to the University of nearly $250,000--was submitted to HEW on May 1, Leonard said that he had "every reason to believe" that the policy it set forth would meet Federal standards and would be accepted.

However, when reports of impending rejection came a few weeks later, Leonard conceded that the University's failure to subdivide the projections of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences by department could result in negative review of Harvard's affirmative action plan by HEW.

The affirmative action plan just rejected by HEW represented Harvard's fourth attempt to meet requirements set by the Federal government.

HEW must approve Harvard's affirmative action program before it becomes a binding policy for the University.

The most recent proposal includes portions of programs that Harvard submitted to HEW in February 1970 and November 1971, both of which were later invalidated by new directives from Washington.

HEW reported to Harvard on the rejection of the plan and the nature of its shortcomings within one day of the 45-day time limit required by law. Originally, department officials had speculated that they might not have sufficient time to act on the Harvard proposal, since they had just received the Yale and MIT plans.

Bynoe emphasized that no two schools should have the same affirmative action program, which in part explains why the guidelines established by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare on the formulation of proposed programs are somewhat nebulous.

Procedurally Harvard's affirmative action program has progressed.

The latest proposal sets forth policy which, for the first time, allows women to take maternity leave with pay. In the past, a woman leaving work to bear a child forfeited her pay. The new policy treats maternity leaves the same as leaves for illnesses, allowing the woman to collect her salary if her absence does not exceed the number of days allowed for sick leave.

The grievance procedure that was adopted last Fall was accepted by HEW at that time and has since become University policy.

The nepotism policy set forth in Harvard's most recent affirmative action report is essentially the same as the one the University has always followed. Under present policy, an individual cannot work in a department under another member of his family except with permission from the "appropriate dean or vice president."

The University has also begun giving part-time appointments with tenure as part of its plan to increase the numbers of women and minority group members in the faculties.

But "while there has been an increase over the past three years in the number of minority and women professors at Harvard, the numbers still remain small," the report to HEW said. The affirmative action document also noted that the numbers of women and minority group members represented on the higher rungs of the academic and administrative ladders are relatively small.

Two of the most controversial elements of the affirmative action plans required by law are utilization analysis and the enumeration of target goals and timetables.

The government requires the employer to find and examine its own possible hiring biases, and subsequently to complete a "utilization analysis" by "organizational unit" of faculty and administrative jobs.

Each affirmative action plan must therefore include statistics on women and minority group members in all faculties and job categories, and on the available labor pool in order to locate areas of apparent "underrepresentation."

The proposals must then outline goals and timetables for the next two years regarding the additional hiring of women and minority group members. Institutions are bound to revise these and resubmit their new goals to HEW biannually.

In its affirmative action proposal, the University stated that it would concentrate on junior faculty positions since "in this way, faculties can develop a group of proven ability to be promoted from within to more senior positions."

But the goals as outlined actually project a decrease of four women assistant professors for next year, despite an overall increase of 31 such positions and although 109 such posts will become available between now and 1975.

In the administrative ranks, the University boasts five women deans out of a total of 17 in the University. All of the five, however, are affiliated with the Radcliffe structure.

In general, the utilization analysis presented by Harvard showed that although women and minority group members have made some gains in faculty and administrative areas, the vast majority of such Harvard employees remain salary-and-wage workers--technicians, office and kitchen workers--with few holding Corporation appointments as faculty members or administrators.

Women, for instance, hold less than 10 per cent of the academic posts but make up close to 90 per cent of the clerical staff.

Harvard's affirmative action proposal is not available to the public at large or to interested groups within the University, except in an abridged edition.

The law does not require that the entire document or any of its parts be made public until it has been accepted by HEW and becomes binding policy for the institution.

The University has a month left to modify and resubmit the plan recently rejected by HEW. Although in reality, institutions apparently have indefinite amounts of time to fulfill Federal requirements, Leonard "would like to put this whole matter to rest," as would many of the women's groups which have long protested alleged delinquency on the part of the Administration in coming to terms with its obligation to establish a viable affirmative action program.WALTER J. LEONARD