10 Affirmative Action and Equal Employment
Downloaded via UNIV OF BATH on August 20, 2019 at 11:36:21 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.
Opportunity G E R A L D A. BODNER Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Yeshiva University, Bronx, N.Y.
10461
The meaning of affirmative action to provide equal opportunity employment is clarified with respect to what the law requires.
Although
the
definition
relatively straightforward—to to
provide
interpreting
equal employment government
of affirmative action is
undertake reasonable efforts opportunity—problems
regulations
and
defining
in
terms
such as "goals," "minorities," and "merit" complicate matters. The author suggests non-governmental means of
regulation
in dealing with particular aspects of these problems.
T n d e a l i n g w i t h affirmative a c t i o n or a n y o t h e r o b l i g a t i o n a r i s i n g o u t ·*•
of l a w a n d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e g u l a t i o n s , i t is i m p o r t a n t to d i s t i n g u i s h
b e t w e e n o u r l e g a l o b l i g a t i o n o n the one h a n d a n d a n y a d d i t i o n a l u n d e r t a k i n g s a n i n d i v i d u a l or e n t i t y m i g h t w i s h to assume b e y o n d t h e r e q u i r e ments of t h e l a w o n t h e other.
H e r e I set f o r t h the f o r m e r a n d p r o v i d e
a b r i e f o u t l i n e for the l a y r e a d e r of o u r p r i m a r y l e g a l o b l i g a t i o n s a r i s i n g o u t of w h a t is r e f e r r e d to as "affirmative a c t i o n '
(1).
I t is, i n m y o p i n i o n , essential for i n t e l l i g e n t d e c i s i o n m a k i n g t h a t those c h a r g e d w i t h t h a t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y b e a c c u r a t e l y t o l d w h a t i t is t h e y a r e o b l i g e d to d o — a s o p p o s e d to w h a t i t is t h e y are b e i n g a s k e d t o d o b e y o n d t h e p u r e r e q u i r e m e n t s of the l a w . T h e r e a r e those w h o
would
use w h a t t h e y s e e m to r e g a r d as a s s u m e d l y d e s i r a b l e l e g a l theories as a b l u d g e o n t o f o r c e s o c i a l p o l i c i e s t h a t m a y or n o t m a y b e d e s i r a b l e o n t h e i r o w n m e r i t s . I t is, h o w e v e r , n e i t h e r m y i n t e n t i o n n o r m y r o l e to c o m m e n t o n those s o c i a l p o l i c i e s . I s i m p l y w i s h t o m a k e c l e a r w h a t a n i n t e n s i v e s t u d y of affirmative a c t i o n l a w s , r e g u l a t i o n s , a n d cases v i n c e s m e is the n a t u r e of o u r l e g a l o b l i g a t i o n .
con-
I l e a v e t o others w h a t
t h e y m a y f e e l e q u a l l y s t r o n g l y are o u r o b l i g a t i o n s b e y o n d the l a w . L e t m e b e g i n b y t e l l i n g y o u w h a t , i n m y l e g a l o p i n i o n , affirmative a c t i o n does n o t a n d c a n n o t l a w f u l l y r e q u i r e .
I t does n o t r e q u i r e a n
91 Niederhauser and Meyer; Legal Rights of Chemists and Engineers Advances in Chemistry; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1977.
92
LEGAL
RIGHTS
OF CHEMISTS AND
ENGINEERS
i n s t i t u t i o n t o h i r e a c e r t a i n p e r c e n t a g e o r n u m b e r of i n d i v i d u a l s f r o m a n y g i v e n e t h n i c g r o u p or sex, e v e n i f t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n c u r r e n t l y u t i l i z e s a l o w e r p e r c e n t a g e of s u c h i n d i v i d u a l s t h a n the p e r c e n t a g e a v a i l a b l e i n that j o b g r o u p i n g ( 2 ) .
supposedly
It does n o t m e a n that y o u are r e -
q u i r e d — o r e v e n p e r m i t t e d — t o m o d i f y standards to increase u t i l i z a t i o n of m e m b e r s of m i n o r i t y groups or w o m e n so l o n g as y o u r e x i s t i n g s t a n d ards for selection are r e a s o n a b l y j o b - r e l a t e d a n d a p p l i e d e q u a l l y . I t does n o t m e a n that y o u h a v e to allocate to a n y g r o u p of i n d i v i d u a l s p r o p o r t i o n a l percentages of f u t u r e p r o m o t i o n s ,
t e n u r e d positions,
levels. F u r t h e r , i n h e r e n t i n a l l this, i t does not m e a n that the
or
salary
government
must be made a w o r k i n g partner i n determining h o w y o u r u n your instit u t i o n a n d m e e t its l e g i t i m a t e o p e r a t i o n a l a n d a c a d e m i c needs so l o n g as these decisions i n c l u d e reasonable affirmative a c t i o n efforts to ensure n o n discrimination.
General Requirements W h a t affirmative a c t i o n does m e a n c a n p r o b a b l y be best u n d e r s t o o d i f y o u t h i n k of i t not so m u c h as a n e n d i n itself b u t as a means t o w a r d s a very important end.
A f f i r m a t i v e a c t i o n is a n o b l i g a t i o n to u n d e r t a k e
reasonable, g o o d - f a i t h efforts t o w a r d a c h i e v i n g the g o a l of e q u a l e m p l o y ment opportunity.
T h u s , w h a t is c u r r e n t l y the most essential aspect of
affirmative a c t i o n r e q u i r e s that y o u e x p a n d y o u r r e c r u i t m e n t sources so that r e a s o n a b l y q u a l i f i e d i n d i v i d u a l s f r o m a b r o a d a r r a y of e t h n i c g r o u p s a n d b o t h sexes h a v e a n o p p o r t u n i t y to k n o w of a n a v a i l a b l e p o s i t i o n a n d b e c o n s i d e r e d o n the basis of v a l i d a n d e q u a l l y a p p l i e d c r i t e r i a .
Essen-
t i a l l y , that means t h a t i f y o u r o n l y c u r r e n t m e t h o d of r e c r u i t i n g a c h e m i s t is to c a l l the c h a i r m a n of the c h e m i s t r y d e p a r t m e n t at H a r v a r d a n d say, " w h o do y o u k n o w that y o u can recommend" m e n t labels as the " o l d b o y w o u l d require you now
(something the
n e t w o r k " ) , affirmative a c t i o n
to e x p a n d
govern-
obligations
y o u r r e c r u i t m e n t sources o n
the
a s s u m p t i o n that the c h a i r m a n at H a r v a r d is not as l i k e l y to k n o w p o t e n t i a l l y q u a l i f i e d m i n o r i t y or f e m a l e a p p l i c a n t s .
P e r h a p s that means
p o s i t i o n m u s t be a d v e r t i s e d i n some p u b l i c a t i o n .
the
I f so, the p u b l i c a t i o n
chosen s h o u l d h a v e a reasonable l i k e l i h o o d of m a k i n g the p o s i t i o n k n o w n to p o t e n t i a l l y q u a l i f i e d m i n o r i t y a n d f e m a l e a p p l i c a n t s . I t does n o t m e a n that y o u c a n n o t c o n t i n u e to contact y o u r colleague at H a r v a r d a n d ask h i m for his r e c o m m e n d a t i o n , a n d i t does n o t m e a n t h a t y o u c a n n o t
fill
the job u n t i l v a r i o u s m i n o r i t y a n d f e m a l e a p p l i c a n t s a p p l y . W h a t i t does m e a n is that i n a d d i t i o n to y o u r o l d m e t h o d of r e c r u i t i n g , y o u m u s t u t i l i z e others so that there is a reasonable o p p o r t u n i t y for a l l groups to k n o w a b o u t the p o s i t i o n a n d b e c o n s i d e r e d f a i r l y for i t . A s l o n g as the means y o u a d o p t are r e a s o n a b l y d e s i g n e d to that e n d , t h a t , i n m y o p i n i o n , is w h a t is r e q u i r e d , e v e n i f i t doesn't r e s u l t i n a s i n g l e m i n o r i t y or f e m a l e
Niederhauser and Meyer; Legal Rights of Chemists and Engineers Advances in Chemistry; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1977.
10.
93
Equal Employment Opportunity
B O D N E R
a p p l i c a n t , or, i f t h e r e is a b r o a d a r r a y of c a n d i d a t e s , e v e n i f the c a n d i d a t e h i r e d is n e i t h e r a m i n o r i t y m e m b e r n o r a f e m a l e .
Goals Is i t necessary to state goals? M y l e g a l o p i n i o n w o u l d b e yes. base m y o p i n i o n o n t h e r e g u l a t i o n s of the U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of a n d various enforcement
agencies s u c h as. H . E . W . as w e l l as t h e
j u d i c i a l decisions t h a t h a v e t h u s f a r b e e n i s s u e d . )
(I
Labor few
H o w e v e r , one m u s t
u n d e r s t a n d w h a t goals are or, at least, m u s t b e u n d e r t h e l a w .
Con-
c e p t u a l l y , i n the absence of a n affirmative a c t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t to set goals, the b u r d e n of p r o v i n g d i s c r i m i n a t i o n w o u l d l i e w i t h the
government.
E v e n i f n o t a single b l a c k is h i r e d i n 10 years, a b l a c k a p p l i c a n t w o u l d h a v e n o r e l i e f unless he c o u l d p r o v e his r e j e c t i o n w a s d e m o n s t r a b l y t h e result of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . B y b e i n g r e q u i r e d to state goals ( f o r
example,
" w i t h i n t h e next three years w e w i l l h i r e five a d d i t i o n a l b l a c k s as c h e m ists") a n d b y f a i l i n g to meet those goals, w h a t h a p p e n s i n l e g a l terms is t a n t a m o u n t to s h i f t i n g the b u r d e n of p r o o f f r o m the g o v e r n m e n t to y o u so t h a t y o u m u s t s h o w t h a t y o u r f a i l u r e to r e a c h the stated g o a l is n o t t h e result of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . T o p u t i t another w a y , i t creates a facie case against the i n s t i t u t i o n b u t not a n i r r e f u t a b l e one.
prima
Thus, the
b u r d e n of s h o w i n g n o n - d i s c r i m i n a t i o n c a n b e m e t b y s h o w i n g t h a t y o u e n g a g e d i n r e c r u i t m e n t efforts r e a s o n a b l y d e s i g n e d to attract q u a l i f i e d minority
candidates
who
perhaps
nevertheless
d i d n ' t a p p l y , or
that
despite a p p l i c a t i o n of m i n o r i t y a n d n o n - m i n o r i t y c a n d i d a t e s , y o u selected a n o n - m i n o r i t y c a n d i d a t e b e c a u s e h e or she w a s d e m o n s t r a b l y the best q u a l i f i e d for the p a r t i c u l a r job or jobs i n q u e s t i o n . P r e c i s e l y w h a t does g o a l setting i n v o l v e ( a l t h o u g h preciseness regrettably process)?
not
been
one
of
the
o u t s t a n d i n g characteristics of
has this
C o n c e p t u a l l y , one sets a goal b y d e t e r m i n i n g one's c u r r e n t
u t i l i z a t i o n of m i n o r i t i e s a n d of w o m e n i n a p a r t i c u l a r job g r o u p i n g a n d t h e n compares i t w i t h the s u p p o s e d percentage
of q u a l i f i e d m i n o r i t i e s
a n d of w o m e n a v a i l a b l e for p l a c e m e n t i n t h a t job g r o u p i n g w i t h i n y o u r r e c r u i t m e n t area. T h e n , s i m p l y b y c a l c u l a t i n g the rate of e x p e c t e d t u r n over, one calculates the t i m e t a b l e for r e a c h i n g the percentage of a v a i l a b l e m i n o r i t i e s a n d of w o m e n , r e s p e c t i v e l y . N o w for the r e a l i t i e s . F i r s t , d e t e r m i n i n g the a v a i l a b l e percentage
of
m i n o r i t i e s o r w o m e n is a n y t h i n g b u t s i m p l e o r clear. Is y o u r p r o p e r a v a i l ability pool a l l individuals w i t h a P h . D . i n chemistry from any A m e r i c a n e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n , or is t h a t u n r e a l i s t i c a l l y i n a d e q u a t e
for
your
p a r t i c u l a r i n s t i t u t i o n since y o u d r a w p r i m a r i l y f r o m graduates of H a r v a r d , Berkeley, a n d Stanford?
[ T h e " G u i d e l i n e s " of t h e U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of
L a b o r f o r e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s specifically p e r m i t a p o o l b a s e d o n the " f e e d e r s c h o o l " c o n c e p t , at least f o r m i n o r i t i e s ( 3 ) . ]
I f y o u r i n s t i t u t i o n is
Niederhauser and Meyer; Legal Rights of Chemists and Engineers Advances in Chemistry; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1977.
94
LEGAL
RIGHTS OF CHEMISTS A N D ENGINEERS
s e e k i n g c h e m i s t r y professors, s h o u l d t h e p o o l b e l i m i t e d to reflect o n l y those P h . D . ' s t h a t h a v e a b i l i t y or interest i n t e a c h i n g at the r e q u i r e d l e v e l ? S h o u l d the p o o l i n c l u d e o n l y those w i t h e m p l o y m e n t
experience
as
chemists or also reflect c u r r e n t l y u n e m p l o y e d chemists as w e l l ? I f y o u ' r e l o o k i n g f o r a senior professor of c h e m i s t r y , s h o u l d y o u r p o o l b e l i m i t e d to chemists w h o r e c e i v e d t h e i r P h . D / s at least five years p r e v i o u s l y , o r m u s t i t also i n c l u d e m o r e recent graduates?
T h e n , of course, there are
t h e p r o b l e m s i n v o l v e d i n h o w y o u define y o u r job g r o u p i n g , y o u r r e c r u i t ment area, a n d y o u r current utilization of rather unspecifically defined m i n o r i t y g r o u p s [for e x a m p l e , t h e r e is c o n t i n u i n g d e b a t e o v e r w h e t h e r persons f r o m I n d i a or P a k i s t a n are m i n o r i t y m e m b e r s (4)]. c a n c e o f these p r o b l e m s c a n b e vast.
T h e signifi-
D e f i n i n g the job grouping, for
e x a m p l e , i n v o l v e s t h e b a s i c p r i n c i p l e or p o s s i b l e f a u l t i n h e r e n t i n g o a l s e t t i n g i n t h a t y o u get n o c r e d i t f o r j o b g r o u p i n g s i n w h i c h y o u h a v e o v e r u t i l i z a t i o n , y e t y o u are, i n a sense, p e n a l i z e d for job g r o u p i n g s i n w h i c h minorities or w o m e n
are s t a t i s t i c a l l y u n d e r u t i l i z e d .
Therefore,
t h e q u e s t i o n of w h e t h e r t h e p r o p e r j o b g r o u p i n g i s , f o r e x a m p l e , t h e c h e m i s t r y d e p a r t m e n t alone, a l l science d e p a r t m e n t s together, or
the
entire s c h o o l e n c o m p a s s i n g the c h e m i s t r y d e p a r t m e n t takes o n s u b s t a n tial importance.
( W e recently obtained a determination that the appro-
p r i a t e g o a l - s e t t i n g u n i t s f o r t h e f a c u l t y at a c o l l e g e of m e d i c i n e c o n s i s t e d of a single u n i t for a l l c l i n i c a l science f a c u l t y a n d a single u n i t for a l l b a s i c science f a c u l t y as o p p o s e d to m u c h m o r e finite b r e a k d o w n s o r i g i n a l l y d e m a n d e d b y H . E . W . ) H o w e v e r , t h e p o s s i b l e advantages of l a r g e r j o b g r o u p i n g s also i n v o l v e the i n h e r e n t i n a c c u r a c y of c o m b i n i n g a v a i l a b i l i t y percentages for v a r i e d d i s c i p l i n e s a n d a p p l y i n g t h a t single p e r centage to d i s c i p l i n e s w h e r e i t m a y b e u n r e a l i s t i c . I n short, there are n o easy answers a n d v e r y f e w p r e c i s e l y d e f i n e d questions.
Merit L e t m e a g a i n e m p h a s i z e t h a t affirmative a c t i o n l e g a l l y c o u l d not a n d does not l i m i t the right of a n y i n s t i t u t i o n to m a k e a n y a n d a l l decisions o n the basis of m e r i t — w h a t e v e r its effect o n the p e r c e n t a g e of p e o p l e l i i r e d f r o m v a r i o u s g r o u p s ; w h a t e v e r different s a l a r y levels i t results i n f o r p e o p l e i n t h e same j o b category, a l b e i t at different levels of a b i l i t y ; a n d w h a t e v e r its effect i n terms of p r o m o t i o n , t e n u r e , or the l i k e .
This,
of course, is not to say t h a t m e r i t m u s t b e u s e d as a d e t e r m i n a n t i n r e g a r d to e v e r y d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g e v e r y job. W h a t is r e q u i r e d , h o w e v e r , is t h a t the d e t e r m i n a n t n o t b e b a s e d o n e t h n i c b a c k g r o u n d , sex, or o t h e r p r o h i b i t e d c r i t e r i a . T h u s , f o r e x a m p l e , years of service is a p e r m i s s i b l e d e t e r m i n a n t of s a l a r y l e v e l w h e r e this is r e g u l a r l y a n d f a i r l y u s e d at a n institution.
Niederhauser and Meyer; Legal Rights of Chemists and Engineers Advances in Chemistry; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1977.
10.
B O D N E R
95
Equal Employment Opportunity
T h e r e are t w o i m p o r t a n t r e q u i r e m e n t s , h o w e v e r , i n r e g a r d to
job
c r i t e r i a , i n c l u d i n g those b a s e d o n m e r i t . F i r s t , the c r i t e r i a u s e d m u s t b e v a l i d l y job r e l a t e d , a n d s e c o n d l y t h e y m u s t b e e q u a l l y a p p l i e d . T h u s , y o u c a n n o t i m p o s e a r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t chemists h a v e a m i n o r i n l i t e r a t u r e w h e r e s u c h r e q u i r e m e n t w o u l d h a v e a d i s p a r a t e effect o n m i n o r i t y o r f e m a l e a p p l i c a n t s unless y o u c a n s h o w t h a t r e q u i r e m e n t is r e a s o n a b l y a n d p r o p e r l y r e l a t e d to job p e r f o r m a n c e ( 5 ) .
Additionally, you obviously
c a n n o t a p p l y a r e q u i r e m e n t to c e r t a i n a p p l i c a n t s w h i c h y o u d o n o t a p p l y to others, a l t h o u g h I w o u l d b e i n c l i n e d to b e l i e v e t h a t y o u c o u l d i m p o s e c u r r e n t r e q u i r e m e n t s t h a t w e r e n o t a p p l i e d to e v e r y present h o l d o v e r i n t h e job c a t e g o r y o n t h e g r o u n d t h a t v a l i d j o b - r e l a t e d standards h a v e b e e n raised. T h a t aside, t h e difficult q u e s t i o n r e m a i n s i n r e g a r d to m e r i t : h o w d o y o u p r o v i d e e v i d e n c e t h a t y o u h a v e , i n fact, b a s e d y o u r decisions o n m e r i t , p a r t i c u l a r l y w h e n this is offered as a justification f o r y o u r n u m e r i c a l f a i l u r e to m e e t y o u r stated goals.
I n short, h o w d o y o u define
and
e x p l a i n m e r i t i n a r a t i o n a l m a n n e r t h a t enables some r e v i e w i n g m e c h a n i s m to b e c o n v i n c e d that m e r i t is not b e i n g u s e d as a n excuse for l a c k of
good-faith
affirmative a c t i o n efforts
or for d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . I t is a
p r o b l e m p e r h a p s c o m p o u n d e d b y a b u r e a u c r a t i c s u s p i c i o n of a n y s y s t e m that cannot be quantified a n d programmed.
H o w e v e r , that obviously
c a n n o t b e a l l o w e d t o deter a m e r i t system. M e r i t is not, as I h a v e sought f o r l o n g h o u r s to c o n v i n c e g o v e r n m e n t officials, the n u m b e r of p u b l i c a tions a f a c u l t y m e m b e r w r i t e s — n o t e v e n i f w e f a c t o r i n (as some g o v e r n m e n t officials h a v e suggested) a w e i g h t i n g f o r the p a r t i c u l a r j o u r n a l i n w h i c h i t is p u b l i s h e d or the l e n g t h of the a r t i c l e . R a t h e r , at some p o i n t , a n e v a l u a t i o n of m e r i t necessarily reflects h u m a n judgments
of w o r t h a n d a b i l i t y .
qualitative and
subjective
H o w , the g o v e r n m e n t
agent
asks, d o I k n o w t h a t s u p p o s e d m e r i t is not b e i n g u s e d as a c o v e r - u p f o r i n t e n t i o n a l or u n i n t e n t i o n a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ? ( N o t e t h a t the i n t e n t i o n to d i s c r i m i n a t e — a s o p p o s e d to t h e a c t u a l effect of d i s c r i m i n a t i o n — i s n o t a necessary i n g r e d i e n t i n a
finding
of f a u l t . )
I t s a v a l i d question for
w h i c h there are as yet, i n the b r a v e n e w w o r l d of affirmative a c t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s , o n l y t e n t a t i v e answers.
O n e s u c h possible a n s w e r
sug-
gested b y some g o v e r n m e n t official w o u l d i n v o l v e l i s t i n g t h e a p p l i c a b l e subjective c r i t e r i a ( e x c e l l e n c e i n s c h o l a r l y research, c i t i z e n s h i p f u n c t i o n s a n d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , t e a c h i n g a b i l i t y , etc.) f a c t o r i n the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g process.
a n d assign these a w e i g h t e d
T h e n w h o e v e r is r e s p o n s i b l e —
the chairman, faculty committee, e t c . — w o u l d numerically evaluate each i n d i v i d u a l ' s r a t i n g i n e a c h f a c t o r (so t h a t D r . X gets 8 p o i n t s i n s c h o l a r l y r e s e a r c h , D r . Y gets 3 p o i n t s i n s c h o l a r l y research, etc.)
and multiply
this r a t i n g i n e a c h c r i t e r i a b y the w e i g h t g i v e n to s u c h c r i t e r i a to a r r i v e at a w e i g h t e d r e s u l t t h a t c a n b e
compared
f r o m one
individual
Niederhauser and Meyer; Legal Rights of Chemists and Engineers Advances in Chemistry; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1977.
to
96
L E G A L RIGHTS O F CHEMISTS A N D ENGINEERS
another.
T o b e f r a n k , I a m n o t e n t i r e l y c l e a r h o w t h i s system is less
subjective. W h i l e I r e c o g n i z e i t m a y b e of some c o m f o r t to the g o v e r n m e n t to at least h a v e a n e m p l o y e r
specify
the c r i t e r i a a n d assign a
w e i g h t i n g to e a c h c r i t e r i a , the g o v e r n m e n t m u s t s t i l l d e a l w i t h the f a c t that at some t i m e h u m a n j u d g m e n t m u s t b e i n v o l v e d i n a n y m e r i t - b a s e d decision. A second p o s s i b l e w a y of d e a l i n g w i t h these issues, a n d one t h a t I strongly recommend
be
explored
by
many
i n s t i t u t i o n s , is r e a l l y a n
a t t e m p t to d e a l w i t h the l e g i t i m a t e c o n c e r n of m a n y i n s t i t u t i o n s of h a v i n g to justify p r o f e s s i o n a l j u d g m e n t s to i n d i v i d u a l s w h o l a c k the e x p e r t i s e i n the g i v e n scientific
field.
A possible s o l u t i o n to this is to e s t a b l i s h
some reasonable n o n - g o v e r n m e n t a l means for r e v i e w i n g decisions. i f t h e c h a i r m a n decides
Thus,
t h a t the salary of D r . M a r y Jones is to
be
$10,000 a n d t h a t of D r . J o h n Jones is to b e $20,000, a n d M a r y c l a i m s that d e c i s i o n is b a s e d o n sex d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , there s h o u l d b e some f o r u m ( p e r h a p s three n o t e d professors i n c h e m i s t r y f r o m w i t h i n a n d w i t h o u t t h e i n s t i t u t i o n ) w h o c a n i n t e l l i g e n t l y r e v i e w the p r o f e s s i o n a l basis the c h a i r m a n ' s j u d g m e n t .
for
This probably w o u l d involve hearing from
b o t h the c h a i r m a n a n d M a r y , a m o n g others, a n d c o n s i d e r i n g the p r o fessional, j u d g m e n t a l considerations i n v o l v e d i n the d e c i s i o n . I s t r o n g l y suggest that the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of a n o n - g o v e r n m e n t a l r e v i e w system b y experts i n the g i v e n field b e seriously c o n s i d e r e d .
W h i l e i t is c l e a r l y n o t
a n absolute b a r to g o v e r n m e n t a l r e v i e w , there is reasonable l i k e l i h o o d of its decision's b e i n g g i v e n significant w e i g h t i n either a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e or l e g a l r e v i e w .
Summary AflBrmative a c t i o n is s t i l l a d e v e l o p i n g area of r e g u l a t i o n w i t h m a n y of its precise r e q u i r e m e n t s not yet d e f i n i t i v e l y r e s o l v e d i n either a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e or j u d i c i a l sense. specific p r o b l e m s
I strongly suggest t h a t i n d e a l i n g w i t h
a n d questions o n aflBirnative a c t i o n at y o u r i n s t i t u -
t i o n , y o u first o b t a i n the o p i n i o n of y o u r c o u n s e l c o n c e r n i n g t h e p r e c i s e r e q u i r e m e n t s of aflBrmative a c t i o n a n d t h e n m a k e the necessary d e c i s i o n w i t h a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g of w h a t aflBrmative a c t i o n a c t u a l l y does a n d does not r e q u i r e , as w e l l as w h a t is o t h e r w i s e best f o r y o u r i n s t i t u t i o n .
Literature Cited 1. Executive Order 11246. Further defined by U.S. Department of Labor Regulations 41 C.F.R. 60-1.1 et seq. 2. Ibid., 60-2.12(e). 3. "Memorandum to College and University Presidents," Aug. 1975, U.S. Department of Labor. 4. U.S. Department of Labor Regulations41 C.F.R. 60-1.3. 5. Griggs vs. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971). RECEIVED
November,
1976.
Niederhauser and Meyer; Legal Rights of Chemists and Engineers Advances in Chemistry; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1977.
