62/ (f ' ) ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE SIGNIFICANT ELEMENTS AND BEHAVIORS IN THE ROLE OF THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY OFFICER IN INDUSTRIAL SETTINGS AND POST-SECONDARY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS By Thomas Stanley Fortson, Jr. The central purpose of this study was to discover what Equal Employment Opportunity Officers perceive to be the significant elements and behavior of their job which have a crucial impact on the progress or success of their facility’s affirmative action program. The sampling used in this study was limited to 89 post-secondary educational institutions as listed in the 1974-1975 Educational Directory for the State of Michigan and a random sample of 100 industrial facilities listed in a publication entitled, 30,000 Leading U. S. Corporations for the State of Michigan. A self-administered questionnaire was developed which consisted of 30 items related to the job performance of the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer. Sources for item content were personal experience, review of literature, and professional colleagues in the field of EEO. The items were divided into the following seven categories: Category A — Intake Category B — Internal Structure Category C — Policy Making Category D — Program Development Category E — Public Relations Category F — lnservice Training Category G — Maintenance Thomas Stanley Fortson, Jr. The analysis was based on institutions, level of management to which the EEO Officer reports, years of experience on the job, and for any interaction effect. Comparison of responses using the Multivariate Analysis of Variance Test was made to determine any significant difference in the perceptions of EEO Officers from the two types of facilities. The level at which the response of EEO Officers to any category was said to be significant because of factors other than chance was the .05 level. Four null hypotheses were tested for each category related to the job performance of the EEO Officer. Each null hypothesis states that there would be no difference found between the EEO Officers based on the work settings, levels, of management, years of experience, and interaction effect. Results of the statistical analysis for each of the seven categories made it possible to reject the null hypotheses for the following: Category B — Internal Structure based on institution. It was found that EEO Officers in the industrial setting perceived Internal Structure to have more of a crucial impact on the success of their facility's affirmative action program than EEO Officers in educational facilities. Category F — lnservice Training based on the interaction effect of institution and experience. For this category it was found that EEO Officers in educational facilities with four or more years of experience perceived the category lnservice Training to be significantly more crucial to the progress or success of their facility's affirmative action program than EEO Officers in industry. Category G — Maintenance based on experience. For this category it was found that EEO Officers with four or more years of experience perceive this category to be significantly more crucial to their facility's affirmative action program than EEO Officers with zero to three years of experience. Thomas Stanley Fortson, Jr. Conclusions 1. With few exceptions, EEO Officers in education and industry are using the same approach for the upward mobility and recruitment of minorities and women. 2. EEO Officers in both education and industry are of similar demographic back- grounds with respect to sex and race. 3. From an industrial perspective, the internal structure of an organization in regard to affirmative action is a key to accomplishing the organization’s goals for employement of minorities and women. 4. The more experience the EEO Officer has in educational facilities the more valuable they perceive the training function in making the affirmative action program successful. 5. The more experience the EEO Officers have on the job, the more concerned they are about employes already in the workforce. A STUDY OF THE SIGNIFICANT ELEMENTS AND BEHAVIORS IN THE ROLE OF THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY OFFICER IN INDUSTRIAL SETTINGS AND POST-SECONDARY EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS By Thomas Stanley Fortson, Jr. A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1977 DEDICATION To my father, my source of inspiration and motivation, who may realize many of his dreams and aspirations in his son. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A Special appreciation is expressed to Dr. Walter Johnson, Chairman of the Guidance Committee, who in his own magical way, brings out the very best in those who cross his path. To Dr. Robert Green who provided a role model and a standard for me to emulate. To Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker, acknowledgment is due for his advice as a committee member and giving me my first position in the field of Student Personnel. To Dr. Stanley Stark, who provided assistance as a committee member and for his assistance in the area of managment. To Miss Judy Taylor who provided the necessary support and assistance in the statistical analysis and computer programming. To my parents, who always believed in me and provided the encouragement and understanding. A very special thanks to my wife Toni, who always waited up for me when I came home from classes. To my daughter Sheila, who by the time she is of age, research in this area hopefully will not be needed. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. THE PROBLEM ................................................. 1 Introduction ................................................. 1 Purpose of the Study ........................................... 8 Scope and Limitations of the Study ............................... 9 Significance of the Study ....................................... 10 Definitions of Terms ........................................... 11 Research Hypotheses ........................................... 13 Overview .................................................... 14 ll. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ....................................... 15 Civil Rights Act of 1964 ........................................ 15 Social Scene .............................................. 15 Legislation ................................................ 17 Title VII .................................................... 20 Executive Orders .............................................. 22 Executive Order 11246 ......................................... 22 Affirmative Action Plans and Utilization Analysis ..................... 23 Affirmative Action ............................................ 25 Goals and Timetables .......................................... 26 Additional Laws Related to EEO ................................. 28 The Equal Pay Act of 1963 ................................... 28 The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ............... 29 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ......................... 29 The National Labor Relations Act and Related Laws ............... 29 State and Local Laws ....................................... 30 Title IX, Educational Amendments of 1972 ...................... 30 Role of the Courts ............................................. 30 McDonald Douglas vs Green .................................. 33 Defunis vs Odegaard ........................................ 33 Bakke vs The University of California ........................... 36 Dollar Settlements ............................................. 37 The Equal Employment Opportunity Officer ........................ 40 Selection and Design of the EEO Position ........................ 41 Issues Faced by the EEO Officer ............................... 42 Effectiveness of the EEO Officer ............................... 44 EEO Officers in Industry ........................................ 45 EEO Officers in Higher Education ................................. 46 EEO Committees .............................................. 51 Ill. DESIGN AND PROCEDURE ...................................... 54 Selection of Geographical Area ................................... 54 Organizations Sampled and Sampling Process ........................ 55 Selection of Colleges and Universities ........................... 55 Selection of Industrial Work Settings ........................... 56 Development of the Instrument .................................. 57 Item Construction .......................................... 57 Refinement of the Instrument ................................. 58 Follow-Up ................................................... 59 Design ...................................................... 59 Definition of Categories ........................................ 60 Analysis ..................................................... 65 Research Hypotheses ........................................... 65 Summary .................................................... 66 IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA ........................................... 67 Characteristics of the Participating EEO Officers ..................... 67 Distribution of EEO Officers by Title ........................... 68 A Comparison by Job Description .............................. 70 Distribution of EEO Officers by Age ............................ 71 Distribution of EEO Officers by Sex ............................ 72 Distribution of EEO Officers by Ethnic Background ................ 73 Distribution of EEO Officers by Experience ...................... 74 Distribution of EEO Officers by Levels of Management ............. 75 Distribution of EEO Officers by Size of Facility ................... 76 Testing of Research Hypotheses By Multivariate Analysis of Variance ..... 77 Research Hypotheses for Category A — Intake .................... 77 Multivariate Analysis of Variance — Category A — Intake ........... 78 Research Hypotheses for Category B — Internal Structure ........... 79 Multivariate Analysis of Variance — Category B — Internal Structure . . 80 Sum of Means — Category B — Internal Structure ................. 81 Univariate Test — Category B — Internal Structure ................ 82 Sum of Means — Item 5 — Internal Structure .................... 83 Research Hypotheses for Category C — Policy Making .............. 84 Multivariate Analysis of Variance — Category C — Policy Making ..... 85 Research Hypotheses for Category D —— Porgram Development ........ 86 Multivariate Analysis of Variance — Category D — Program Development .................................... 87 Research Hypotheses for Category E — Public Relations ............. 88 Multivariate Analysis of Variance — Category E — Public Relations . . . 89 Research Hypotheses for Category F — lnservice Training ........... 90 Multivariate Analysis of Variance — Category F — lnservice Training . . 91 Sum of Means — Category F — lnservice Training ................. 92 Univariate Test — Category F — lnservice Training ................ 94 Sum of Means — Category F — lnservice Training ................. 95 Research Hypotheses for Category G — Maintenance ............... 97 Multivariate Analysis of Variance — Category G — Maintenance ...... 98 Sum of Means — Category G — Maintenance ..................... 99 Univariate Test - Category G — Maintenance .................... 100 Sum of Means — Item 15 — Maintenance ....................... 101 Summary .................................................... 102 vi V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .................................. 103 Problem ..................................................... 103 Methodology ................................................. 103 Summary of Demographic Findings ............................... 104 Summary of Principle Findings ................................... 106 Conclusions and Discussion ...................................... 112 Implications for Student Personnel ................................ 115 Recommendation for Future Research ............................. 121 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................... 122 APPENDICES ......................................................... 129 Appendix A ........................................................ 130 Letter of Introduction ............................................. 131 Letter of Purpose ................................................ 132 Research Questionnaire ............................................ 133 Critical Incident Technique ......................................... 139 Appendix B ........................................................ 144 Follow-Up Letter ................................................ 145 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 4.1 Distribution of EEO Officers by Title ................................. 68 4.2 Comparison of EEO Officers by Job Description ........................ 70 4.3 Distribution of EEO Officers by Age .................................. 71 4.4 Distribution of EEO Officers by Sex .................................. 72 4.5 Distribution of EEO Officers by Ethnic Background ...................... 73 4.6 Distribution of EEO Officers by Experience ............................ 74 4.7 Distribution of EEO Officers by Levels of Management ................... 75 4.8 Distribution of EEO Officers by Size of Facility ......................... 76 4.9 Multivariate Analysis of Variance Category A — Intake ........................................... 78 4.10 Multivariate Analysis of Variance Category B — Internal Structure .................................. 80 4.11 Sum of Means Category B — Internal Structure .................................. 81 4.12 Univariate Test Category B — Internal Structure .................................. 82 4.13 Sum of Means Item 5 — Internal Structure ...................................... 83 4.14 Multivariate Analysis of Variance Category C — Policy Making ..................................... 85 4.15 Multivariate Analysis of Variance Category D — Program Development ............................... 87 4.16 Multivariate Analysis of Variance Category E — Public Relations ................................... 89 4.17 Multivariate Analysis of Variance Category F - lnservice Training .................................. 91 4.18 Sum of Means Category F -— lnservice Training .................................. 92 viii 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 Univariate Test Category F — lnservice Training .................................. 94 Sum of Means Item 27 — lnservice Training ..................................... 95 Multivariate Analysis of Variance Category G — Maintenance ...................................... 98 Sum of Means Category G — Maintenance ...................................... 99 Univariate Test Category G - Maintenance ...................................... 100 Sum of Means Item 15 — Maintenance ......................................... 101 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction One of the most urgent and perplexing problems facing both higher education and industry in this decade is the employment of minorities and women. Equal employment opportunity is mandated by Federal, State and local legislation; Presidential Executive Orders; and definitive court decisions. However, affirmative action analyses are just beginning to uncover the "tip of the iceberg" of discrimination. Racial and ethnic divisions in our society have translated themselves into relationships which have systematically denied equal employment opportunity to minority persons. Similarly, traditional and out-moded views of the role of women have given rise to wide-spread patterns of employment discrimination on the basis of sex. The effect of these has been to create a substantial preference for white males. The elimination of these disparities then is the main thrust of affirmative action. Statisties provide ovenNhelming evidence that there are critically too few minorities and women in executive and management positions in industry and too few women and minorities in facilities and administrative positions in colleges and universities.1 But there are enough who have aspired, who have achieved, and who have clearly demonstrated their 1Bureau of National Affairs, lnc.,"Few Women are in Management," Bulletin to Management, No. 1 1047, March 5, 1970. Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., ”Women and Minorities in Management and in Personnel Management", Personnel Policies Forum, Survey No. 96, December, 1971, pp. 2-4. Making Affirmative Action Work in Higher Education, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 20-23). abilities and won recognition to the extent that they have drawn much attention to their plight.2 For example, the plight of women in academics came under the watchful eye of many academic administrators on January 1, 1970. On this day a women's civil rights group known as the Women’s Equity Action League (WEAL) filed a complaint of sex discrimination against the academic community with an "industry-wide-charge" of a pattern 3 Although there were Executive Orders prohibiting sex of sex discrimination. discrimination, they were not being enforced. The charges were followed by about 80 pages of documentation and later more than 500 class-action complaints filed by WEAL and other women’s groups against individual institutions. Sandler in an analysis of WEAL states: The activities of WEAL, coupled with those of women on the campus, are in no small part responsible for the shift in Congresses attitude about sex discrimination on the campus. When the 92nd Congress adjourned, academic women had almost all they had asked by way of legislation: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act. Title IX of the Education Amendment Act, the Equal Rights Amendment, and the coverage of sex discrimination by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The mandate of the Congress is clear: it is a matter of national policy to prohibit discrimination against women on the campus.4 2Rosalind Loring and Theodore Wells, Breakthrough Women in Management, (New York, 1972). 9. ix. 3B. Sandler, "T he Day WEAL Opened Pandora's Box“, The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 22, 1973, p. 8. 4lbid. In a heterogeneous society, such as ours, discrimination is incompatible with such fundamental ideals as equality of opportunity or just plain fair treatment for all. But in many institutions of post-secondary education and in industrial work settings, there has been much hidden resentment against affirmative action. While a number of forces are at work to suppress open opposition, numerous affirmative action programs are meeting this resistence at the state of implementation. For example, Richard Lester, a Princeton economist, prepared a study on the federal antibias program for the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education in which he concluded that, "the drive for equal opportunity in facilities has been a worthwhile effort in theory, and in practice a painful experience," that has accomplished little for minority groups while doing violence to a long tradition of academic independence and excellence.5 Like their counterparts in the business world, educational institutions are employers and contain many of the similarities that characterize business organizations. Educational institutions have complex organizational hierarchies, well-established managerial and admin- istrative roles, and clear-cut staff and line functions, all normally associated with any large business organization.6 As important elements of its operation, the educational institution must maintain a certain number of employes; it must recruit employes from available labor pools; and it must set wages for its employes according to rank and length of service and develop a system of incentives and benefits to retain those employes it has recruited.7 Because educational institutions can be characterized as employers, it has come under the jurisdication of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 5John Donohue, "Bias and The American University", America, September 14, 1974, pp. 107-108. 6George Sape, "The Educational Institution As an Employer", Federal Regulations and Employment Practices of Colleges and Universities, National Association of College and University Business Officers, (Washington D.C. 1974) p. 1. 7lbid. From a socialogical point of view, Talcott Parsons defined organizations as social units (or human groupings) deliberately constructed and reconstructed to seek specific goals.8 They are characterized by: (1) divisions of labor, power, and communication respon- sibilities, divisions which are not random or traditionally patterned, but deliberately planned to enhance the realization of specific goals; (2) the presence of one or more power centers which controls the conserted efforts of the organization and direct them toward its goals; these power centers must review continuously the organization's performance and re-pattern its structure, where necessary, to increase its efficiency; (3) substitution of personnel, i.e., unsatisfactory persons can be removed and others assigned their tasks. The organization can also recombine its personnel through transfer and promotion.9 Post-secondary educational institutions and industrial work settings certainly fit this definition. Also, these organizations have the power to reward and penalize. They can reward by providing career opportunities for some people and denying them to others. They reward, as well by the way social goods and services are distributed by deciding who receives training and skills, formal education, moral support, self respect, productive employment, and a promise for a secure future for self and children.10 Minorities and women, as evidence has shown, have been penalized by these organizations by not being provided with career opportunities, and by not receiving proper training and support. There has been a growing awareness in recent years of these problems and wide- spread adoption of remedies to deal with them. However, despite these efforts, both unintentional and systematic discrimination remain widespread. The result of years of past discrimination are still deeply entrenched. 8Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations, (Engle Cliffs: N.J., 1964), p. 3. glbid. 10Louis Knowles and Kenneth Prewitt, Institutional Racism In America, (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 19691.9. 5. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 established a series of employement practices which are disallowed because of their discriminatory impact. Prior to 1972, section 702 of this title exempted educational institutions. However, in the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, section 702 was amended and now includes educational institutions. On September 24, 1965, President Johnson signed into law Executive Order 11246 which regulated the terms of the contract with the Federal Government and prohibited discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion and national origin. The order was amended on October 13, 1967 by Executive Order 11375 to add sex as a prohibited basis for discrimination. The executive order is enforced by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance (0 FCC) of the Department of Labor, which has overall responsibility for the administration of the order. The Department of Health Education and Welfare (HEW) has been designated as the enforcement agency for monitoring compliance in educational institutions. Within HEW, the executive order is administered by the Office for Civil Rights (OCR).11 The impact of Executive Order 11246 has been more direct on most academic institutions because most of them are involved in utilizing some form of federal funds. In January 1970 the Secretary of Labor issued Order No. 4 in consideration of Executive Order 11246. This regulation expanded the concept of affirmative action and required that federal contractors and subcontractors with one or more federal contracts of fifty thousand dollars or more, or more than fifty employes be required to maintain a written affirmative action plan including numerical or percentage goals and timetables. An exception was that public institutions of higher education were exempted from the requirements of developing 11David Hanson and Cyrene N. Pondrom, "Executive Order 11246 As Amended", Federal Regulations and Employment Practices of Colleges and Universities, op. cit. AFA-1. written affirmative action plans. However, on December 4, 1971, Revised Order No.4 was published and the exemptions for educational institutions was rescinded. Part 60—1.40(a) of the Office of Federal Contracts Compliance Regulations (Order No. 4) sets forth the requirements of an affirmative action program for government contractors and sub- contractors. In this section, it describes an affirmative action program as follows: . . .The contractor’s program shall provide in detail for specific steps to guarantee equal employment opportunity keyed to the problems and needs of members of minority groups, including, when there are deficiencies, the development of specific goals and timetables for the prompt achievement of full and equal employment opportunity. Each contractor shall include in his affirmative action compliance program a table of job classifications. This table should include but not be limited to job titles, principal duties (auxiliary duties, if any) rates of pay, and where more than one rate of pay applies (because of length of time in the job or other factors) the applicable rates. The affirmative action compliance program shall be signed by an executive official of the contractor.12 A successful Affirmative Action Program can provide for minorities and women a program that will increase their opportunities in the organization. The essence of an Affirmative Action Program then, should be to: 1. Establish strong organizational policy and commitment. 2. Assign responsibility and authority for the program to top organization officals. 3. Analyze present work force to identify jobs, departments and units where minorities and females are underutilized. 4. Set specific, measureable, attainable hiring and promotional goals, with target dates, in each area of underutilization. 12Code of Federal Regulations, Title 41, Chapter 60—140(a). 5. Make every manager and supervisor responsible and accountable for helping to meet these goals. 6. Re-evaluate job descriptions and hiring criteria to assure that they reflect actual job needs. 7. Find minorities and females who qualify or can become qualified to fill goals. 8. Review and revise all employment procedures to assure that they do not have a discriminatory effect and that they help attain goals. 9. Focus on getting minorities and females into upward mobility and relevant training pipelines where they have not had previous access. 10. Develop systems to monitor and measure progress regularly. If results are not satisfactory to meet goals, find out why, and make necessary changes.13 A key figure in the implementation of these important elements is the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer. One of the enduring truisms of organizational analysis is that organizations are, after all, made up of people, and their relationship with each other.14 Leadership, therefore, will play a very important role. "The critical thing in organ- izations is the kind of leadership." ”Leaders summon the appropriate qualities of men." "Without good leadership nothing is possible." "The trouble with this organization is that it lacks good leadership."15 These are popular phrases in executive boardrooms and faculty meetings as well as textbooks when talking about organizational problems. The Equal 13Affirmative Action and Equal Employment: A Guide Book for Employers, (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Washington, 1964), P. 3. 14Charles Perrowk, Organizational Analysis: A sociological View, (Belmont, Col. 1970), p. 2. 15Sape, op. cit. p. 5. Employment Opportunity Officer then is a very critical person in the organization. Under Subpart B of the Regulations of OFCC entitled, ”Required Contents of Affirmative Action II Programs," section 60222, "Responsibility for Implementation, it states as follows: An Executive of the contractor should be appointed as director or manager of company Equal Opportunity Programs. Depending upon the size and geographical alignment of the company, this may be his or her sole responsibility. He or she should be given the necessary top management support and staffing to execute the assignment. His or her identity should appear on all internal and external communications and the company's Equal Opportunity Programs.16 Educational institutions are sometimes expected to set the example for society and should be "models" of progressive employment environments. If these institutions are to maintain their traditional and respected role in American society, they must be at the forefront of the movement toward voluntary social reform. 1 7 Purpose of the Study From the foregoing, it is apparent that the dimensions of the problem experienced by minorities and women in post-secondary educational and industrial work settings are both numerous and complex. Therefore, the deficiency in information on the role and function of the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer in post-secondary educational institutions and in industrial settings: a concern for the upward mobility of minorities and 16Code of Federal Regulations, op. cit. 17Sape, op. cit., p. 1. women in the above areas; and an interest in acquiring information that would warrant the drafting of some conditional answers to the above, leads to the basic question in this investigation: What do Equal Employment Opportunity Officers perceive to be the significant elements and behaviors of their jobs which have a crucial impact on the progress or success of their facility's affirmative action program? More specifically, an attempt will be made to identify the various dimensions of behavior of the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer in a selected sampling of post-secondary educational institutions and industrial work settings that lead to progress or success of their affirmative action program in these two types of organizations. Scope and Limitations of the Study Although the responsibilities of the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer would include assisting in the employment of the physically handicapped, disabled veterans and veterans of the Vietnam Era, this study will be limited to the employment practices and affirmative action involving minorities and women. This investigation is also limited to selected post-secondary educational institutions and industrial facilities in the state of Michigan. All of the facilities have at least one employe who is responsible for the equal employment opportunity function. The post-secondary educational institutions will be selected from the 1974—1975 Education Directory which annually lists institutions in the United States that offer at least a twoyear program of college—level studies that are accredited or preaccredited by an accrediting agency recognized for such purposes by the US. Commission of Education. 10 After an extensive search, no sampling frame could be found which listed industrial work settings with 50 employes or more. The industrial work setting will be selected, then, from a publication entitled, 30,000 Leading U.S. Corporations. This publication, which lists corporations with 100 or more employes is a computerized analysis published in four major groupings which includes a geographical grouping as a major division. The industries in the state of Michigan will be used as the sampling frame. Significance of the Study This investigation is important for the following four reasons: First — There is a need for the clarification of the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer’s role in the hiring and decision making process of management and administration. What administrators need are techniques on how to translate Federal Laws and regulations into academic and employment practices and policies and not have these decisions made for them. Second — Through the clarification of the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer's role and responsibility in these various work settings, and by examining behavior that is both effective and ineffective in accomplishing affirmative action, this investigation could contribute to the elimination of institutional barriers that minorities and women now encounter in seeking employment and the redress of the historical imbalance favoring white males in the job market. Third — Because affirmative action programs are not adequately understood by managers and administrators in both education and industry, more knowledge is needed on the relationship between the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer and the executives who are responsible for carrying out this function as it was intended in the enacting legislation. 11 And finally — Very little is being written about the contributions that the Equal Employemnt Opportunity officer is making toward achieving the success of affirmative action programs. As a result, an attempt will be made to gain an insight into the success that they are experiencing in meeting their goals. Definitions of Terms The following terms are used in the context of this research: Affirmative Action — Specific actions in recruitment, hiring, upgrading and other areas which are designed and taken for the purpose of eliminating the present effects of past discrimination. Equal Employment Opportunity — A system of employment practices within an employing organization or generally under which individuals are not excluded from any participation, advancement, or benefits because of their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or other factors which cannot lawfully be the basis for employment actions. An employment system in which neither intentional nor unintentional discrimination operates. The purpose of affirmative action is to achieve equal employment opportunity. Equal Employment Opportunity Officer — The individual in an employing organization who has primary responsibility for development and maintenance of the organization’s affirmative action plan. Minority: Blacks, Spanish-surnamed Americans, American Indians, and Orientals —- This definition can be used for only a limited analysis. It includes only those groups who constitute a statistically significant portion of the labor market being considered since goals and timetables are required to be significant, measurable, and attainable. 12 Industrial Work Setting — A work environment of all industries classified in a coding system developed by the Federal Office of Management and Budgets for use in classifying establishments by principle industrial activity. Post-Secondary Educational Institutions — Facilities of formal instruction, research, public service, and other learning opportunities offered by educational institutions that primarily serve persons who have completed secondary education or who are beyond the compulsory school attendance age and that are accredited by agencies offically recognized for the U.S. Office of Education. 13 Research Hypotheses The following null hypotheses have been formulated with due consideration given to the statement of problem and purpose. 1. There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers in post-secondary educational institutions and in the industrial setting based on institutional type. 2. There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers in post-secondary educational institutions and in the industrial setting based on levels of management to which the EEO Officer reports. 3. There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers in post-secondary educational institutions and in the industrial setting based on years of experience in the EEO Officer’s position. 4. There will be no interaction effects between EEO Officers based on institutional type, levels of management, and years of experience on the job. 14 Overview This investigation will be organized into five chapters. Chapterl — Consisted of the introduction to the study; the significance of the study; the scope and limitation of the study; definition of terms; and the overview. Chapter II — Important and relevant literature on the subject is reviewed. Chapter III — The design and development of the study is presented. Chapter IV — Contains the analysis of the findings which comes from the collected data. Chapter V — Contains a summary of the study, conclusions, implications for the field of Student Personnel, and implications for future research. CHAPTER II Review of Literature The purpose of this chapter is to examine the relevent literature surrounding the development of the EEO Officer's position and the environment in which the EEO Officer must interact. The review of literature will therefore serve two functions. First, it will provide a background of knowledge on the evolution of the major legislation encompassing the concept of Equal Employment Opportunity and Affirmative Action. Second, the of literature will provide a framework from which will emerge the role and function of the EEO Officer; a relatively new position that is generating both progress and contention. Civil Rights Act of 1964 Social Scene Affirmative Action and Equal Employment Opportunity came to its years of maturation out of the economic and political struggles of blacks and other minority during the early 1960’s. Although our country was founded on the Declaration of Independence with the often quoted statement, ”All men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"; it is still attempting to reach this ideal for all its people 200 years later. While anti-discrimination legislation has been in existence since the Civil War, no social legislation before this has had the impact of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 15 16 When President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he stated in an address to the nation: ”We believe that all men are created equal yet many are denied equal treatment. We believe that all men have certain unalienable rights — yet many Americans do not enjoy these rights. We believe that all men are entitled to the blessings of liberty — yet millions are being deprived of those blessings, not because of their own failures but because of the color of their skin. The reasons are deeply embedded in history and tradition and the nature of man. We can understand without rancor or hatred how this all happened. But it cannot continue. Our constitution, the foundation of our Republic, forbids it. The principles of our freedom forbids it. Morality forbids it. And the law I will sign tonight forbids it."1 The development of the 1964 Civil Rights Act however, was not without individual sacrifice. Violence and disorder characterized the struggle. In 1963, serious disorders involving both whites and blacks, broke out in Birmingham, Savannah, Cambridge, Maryland, Chicago, and Philadelphia. Most of the severe disorders took place in the South during this time.2 1Stan Fleishman and Sam Rosenwein, The New Civil Rights Act, (Los Angles, Cal.: Blackstone Book Co., 1964) p. 10. 2Report of The National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co. Inc., 1968), p. 35. 17 “Police used dogs, firehoses and cattle prods against marchers many of who were children. White racists shot at Negroes and bombed Negro residences. Negroes retaliated by burning white-owned businesses in Negro areas. On a quiet Sunday morning, a bomb exploded beneath a Negro Church. Four young girls in a Sunday School class were killed.3 In late June of 1964, white segregationists broke through police lines and attacked civil rights demonstrators in St. Augustine, Florida. In Philadelphia, Mississippi, law enforcement officers were implicated in the lynch murders of three Civil rights workers.4 By the end of 1963, demonstrations had taken place in more than 800 Cities and towns. These demonstrations were climaxed by a gigantic but orderly "March in Washington for jobs and Freedom," in which more than 200,000 persons participated on August 28.5 Millions of white Americans and college students also began to take an interest and also an active part in the demonstration for equality. Legislation It wasn't until 1948 that the first comprehensive civil rights legislation was requested by a president in the 20th century.6 Harry Truman in a special message to congress 3loid. 4lbid., p. 36. 5"Crises in Civil Rights", Congress and the Nation, The 88th Congress, Vol. II, p. 48. 6“Background: Twenty Years of Civil Rights (1948-1968)", Congressional Quarterly, Vol. XXIX, 1973, p. 3. 18 February 2, asked for legislation to strengthen the Federal Government’s power to enforce civil rights legislation. Truman stated: ". . .There still are examples — flagrant examples — of discrimination which are utterly contrary to our ideals . . . We cannot be satisfied until all our people have equal opportunities for jobs, for homes, for education, for health, and for political expression, and until all our people have equal protection under the law."7 However, Congress didn't pass a civil rights bill until nine years later. It was in 1957 that Congress passed the first legislation of this type since the post-Civil War Reconstruction period. It was characterized as a conservative bill. It provided: limited voting rights in Federal elections, authorized the Attorney General to bring suit when a person was deprived of his rights, established a Civil Rights Commission, and set up a Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice.8 The 1957 Civil Rights Act9 opened the way for the 1960 Civil Rights Act. The 1960 Civil Rights Act strenghtened provisions of the 1957 Act for court enforcement of voting rights and required preservation of voting records. In addition to this it provided limited criminal penalty provisions related to the bombing and the abstruction of Federal orders.10 7loid. 8loid. 9P. L. 85-315 (71 Stat. 634 et seq.), as amended by P. L. 86-449 (74 Stat. 86 et seq.) and as further amended by P. L. 88-152 (77 Stat. 271 ). 10Congress and The Nation, op. cit., p. 48. 19 On February 29, 1963, President Kennedy delivered his first civil rights program to Congress. It was described by liberals in both parties as "thin". Later, in June of 1963, both Republicans and Democrats in the Congress began to ask for stronger civil rights legislation. On June 11, President Kennedy told the nation: "We cannot say to ten percent of the population that . . . the only way they are going to get their rights is to go into the streets and demonstrate”.11 Later that week, he gave to Congress a more comprehensive civil rights program to eliminate discrimination in public accomodations, schools, jobs, and voting. Also during the debate of this issue, history was made in that for the first time in the Senate, a vote was taken to end a filibuster launched by southern Senators.12 On November 22. 1963, President Kennedy was assinated in Dallas, Texas. Many minority groups thought at this time that their hopes and dreams of equality had died with the President. However, this was not the case. Riding on the wave of social consciousness, President Johnson signed into law on July 2, 1964, the most far reaching Civil Rights legislation since the Reconstruction era. 11loid. 12loid. 20 The Civil Rights Act of 1964 contained eleven major headings or subjects designated as "Titles”. The following is a list of the numbered “Titles" along with their subjects.13 Title I Title II Title III Title IV Title V Title VI Title VII Title VIII Title IX Title X Voting Rights Public Accomodations Desegregation of Public Facilities Desegregation of Public Education Commission of Civil Rights Non-Discrimination in Federally Assisted Programs Equal Employment Opportunity Registration and Voting Statistics Establishment of Community Relations Service Miscellaneous Title VII Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 pertains to the subject of Equal Employment Opportunity. In section 703 (a) of Title VII, it states that, " It shall be an unlawful practice for an employer: (1) (2) To foil or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compen- sation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of such individual, race, color, religion, sex or national origin, or To limit, segregate, or classify his employes or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise affect his status as an employe because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."14 13The Civil Rights Law or 1964, (p. L. 88352), Title VII. 14Ibid. Section 703 (a). 21 Section 705(a) of the Title also established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which was to be the investigating arm of the Federal Government. There was much Opposition to this particular Title of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, especially in the Senate where a coalition of southern and conservative Senators successfully bottled up the legislation with a filibuster. In order to break the filibuster, certain compromises and modifications had to be made. Two significant areas were affected. First, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's power was limited; and second educational institutions would be excluded in the coverage.15 Detailed in section 702 of the Title, the law stated: "This Title shall not apply to an employer with respect to the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious corporation, association, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, or society of its religious activities or an educational institution with respect to the employment of individuals to perform work connected with the educational activities of such institution. 16 This elimination of educational institutions would have a significant impact on Equal Employment Opportunity in the field of education. This particular topic will be examined later in this chapter. 15George Sape, "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as Amended”, Federal Regulations and the Employment Practice of Colleges and Universities, National Association of College and University Business Officers, (Washington D.C. 1974), p.1. 16The Civil Rights Act of 1964, op. cit., Section 702. 22 Executive Orders Soon after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was made law, President Johnson signed Executive Order 11246 and later Executive Order 11375. Executive Orders are regulations by the President of the United States or the Chief Executive of a state which has the effect of law in governmental matters. It first came into use in 1850, but the numbering system was started in 1895 in the administration of President Lincoln.17 “T he President deprives his authority to take administrative action by executive order either from statues of Congress or from his constitutional powers including the general power of direction or overall mangement which flows from his implied Constitutional position as the administrative superior of heads of the executive department of the national government."18 Executive Order 11246 Executive Order 11246 was issued and signed by President Johnson on September 24, 1965. It prohibited discrimination by contractors with the Federal Government as a condition of their contract on the basis of race, color, religion, and National Origin. It was amended by Executive Order 11375 to add sex as a prohibited basis of discrimination. Executive Order 11246 as amended establishes the legal basis for Affirmative Action. It states that during the performance of the contract, the Contractor agrees as follows: 17"Executive Orders," Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 8, 1972, p. 949. 18loid. 23 (1) "T he contractor will not discriminate against any employe or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employes are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employes and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the contracting officer setting for the provisions of this non- discrimination clause."19 Executive Order 11246 as amended gets its enforcement power from Section 202 (6). (2) "In the event of the contractor’s noncompliance with the nondiscrim- ination clauses of this contract or with any of such rules, regulations, or orders, this contract may be suspended in whole or in part and the contract may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts in accordance with procedures authorized in Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, and such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies invoked as provided in Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, or by rule, regulation, order of the Secretary of Labor, or otherwise provided by law.”20 Affirmative Action Plans And Utilization Analysis On December 21, 1971, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance of the Department of Labor published in the Federal Register Title 41 of the Code of Federal 19Executive Order 11246 as Amended, Part II, Subpart 8, Section 202(a). 20Ibid. Section 202(a). 24 Regulations, Chapter 602 dealing with Affirmative Action Programs. In Subpart A 602, it states: This part shall also be known as "Revised Order No. 4” and shall cover nonconstruction contractors. Section 601.40 of this Chapter, Affirmative Action Compliance Programs, requires that within 120 days from the com- mencement of a contract each prime contractor or subcontractor with 50 or more employes and a contract of $50,000 or more develop a written affirmative action compliance program for each of its establishments, and such contractors are now further required to revise existing written affirma- tive action programs to include the Changes embodied in this order within 120 days.21 What is implicit in Title VII is explicit in Revised Order No. 4.22 The employer is instructed here to conduct a utilization analysis and write an Affirmative Action Plan. A utilization analysis is an analysis by the employers that causes them to determine whether or not minorities and women are employed in each major classification at a rate consistent with the availability of qualified minorities and women. In more detail it requires the employer to: — determine by race, sex and sex-within-race, the current work force distribution (vertically and horizontally, for all units and subunits of the organization) of minorities and women in the organization. — compare his employment of minorities and women with their availability in the external labor market (or markets). — determine, through the above comparisons, where his employment (again across all units and subunits of the organization) is not statistically consonant with the incidence of minorities and women (who possess the requisite skills for various types and levels of jobs) in the labor market. 21Code of Federal Regulations, Title 41, Chapter 6021. 22How to Eliminate Discrimination Practices, (New York: Design Division of Information Science Inc., 1975). D. 2. 25 — establish Affirmative Action Plan (AAP) goals and timetables to attract and employ minorities and women with the requisite Skills at a rate compatible with the rate which job openings or opportunities will occur within the organization (through expansion or turnover). — conduct an analysis of the applicant flow process, recruitment effort placement process, promotion process (job to job, pay grade to pay grade, etc.,), compensation process, and termination process (voluntary and invol- untary) to determine whether the protected classes participate equitably in these processes. (These analyses depend upon historical data. Revised Order No. 4 requires federal contractors to retain at least six month's history on each of these aspects of the employment process). — where statistical disparities are found, investigate to determine whether they are discriminatory; if so, include in the AAP the steps intended to eliminate the practice and to relieve ("make whole”) the affected persons or classes.23 Affirmative Action The Office of Federal Contract Compliance, (OFCC) in Revised Order No. 4, also describes and sets the guideline for the required content of affirmative action programs. In Subpart B — 60-2.10, it states: “An affirmative action program is a set of specific and result-oriented procedures to which a contractor commits himself to apply every good faith effort. The objective of those procedures plus such efforts is equal employ- ment opportunity. Procedures without effort to make them work are meaningless; and effort, undirected by specific and meaningful procedures, is inadequate. An acceptable affirmative action program must include an analysis of areas within which the contractor is deficient in the utilization of 23ibid., p. 3. 26 minority groups and women, and further goals and timetables to which the contractor's good faith efforts must be directed to correct the deficiencies and thus to increase materially the utilization of minorities and women, at all levels and in all segments of his work force where deficiencies exist/'24 Goals and Timetables One of the major areas of concern in the employment of minorities and women in affirmative action is the area that deals with goals and timetables. In section 602.12 of Revised Order No. 4, it states: “T he goals and timetables developed by the contractor should be attainable in terms of the contractor's analysis of deficiencies and his entire affirmative action program. Thus, in establishing the Size of his goals and the length of his timetables, the contractor should consider the results which could reasonably be expected from putting forth every good faith effort to make his overall firmative action program work."25 These goals and timetables are oftem mistaken for guotas. They are not. Goals and time- tables are an employer's projections of the rate at which it is likely to utilize minorities and women in all major job categories if its affirmative action efforts are pursued in good faith. Quotas, which require the hiring of specified numbers of people in certain classes under court orders are almost never imposed in regular employment Situations.26 This point is clarified and stressed in the following statements: 24Code of Federal Regualtions, op. cit., Chapter 60—2.10. 25lbid., Chapter 60-2.12. 26Affirmative Action Planning Manuel, (Washington D. C.: EEO Services Inc., 1975.) p. 16. 27 "Goals may not be rigid and inflexible quotas which must be met, but must be targets reasonably attainable by means of applying every good faith effort to make all aspects of the entire affirmative action program work."27 "No contractor's compliance status shall be judged alone by whether or not he reaches his goals and meets his timetables."28 “The purpose of a contractor’s establishment and use of goals is to insure that he meet his affirmative action obligation. It is not intended and should not be used to discriminate against any applicant or employe because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."29 Despite many attempts to clarify the issues surrounding goals and quotas, the debate continues.30 There is also wide disagreement on whether it is appropriate in society to even rectify pass injustices. Judge Halpern in a New Jersey Surpreme Court case stated: "We pride ourselves as a nation on the 'mix' of our people wherein history has proven our strength lies. But that ‘mix' is comprised not only of blacks, but of Poles, Jews, Scandinavians, Italians, Puerto Ricans, Hungarians, Cubans, Germans, and others too numerous to list. It is one thing for the division to find that a given person has been discriminated against and given him relief. But when it fashions a remedy on a class quota basis, it leads to insoluable problems and piles discrimination on top of discrimination!"31 27 Code of Federal Regulations, op. cit., Ch. 60-2.12(e). 28loid., 60—2.14. 29loid., 602.30. 30"Are Job Goals Quotas," The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 15, 1974. 31Charles Shige vs Town of Montclair, N. J. Supreme Ct, 227-281 (1975). 28 There are minority group members who also feel the quota system is derogatory and is patronizing to the intended beneficiary minority. Professor Thomas Sowell in his book, Black Education Myths and Tragedies, states: "T he actual harm done by quotas is far greater than having a few incom- petent people here and there - and the harm that will actually be done will be harm primarily to the black population. What all the arguments and campaigns for quotas are really saying, loud and clear, is that black people just don’t have it, and that they will have to be given something in order to have something. The devastating impact of this message on black people — particularly black young people — will outweigh any few extra jobs that may result from this strategy. Those black people who are already competent, and who could be instrumental in producing more competence among this rising generation will be completely undermined, as black becomes synonymous — in the minds of black and white alike — with incompetence, and black achievement becomes synonymous with charity or payoffs."32 Additional Laws Related To EEO In addition to major legislation and court cases emerging from the concept of equal opportunity employment, EEO officers should also be familiar with the following legislation: — The Equal Pay Act of 196333 requires all employers subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to provide equal pay for men and women performing similar work. In 1972, coverage of this Act was extended beyond employes covered by FLSA to an estimated 15 million additional executive, administrative and professional employes (including academic, administrative personnel and teachers in elementary and secondary schools) and to outside sales people. 32Thomas Sowell, Black Education: Myths and Tragedies, (New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1972). p. 292. 33The Equal Pay Act of 1963, Amended, (P.L. 88-38,77) Stat. 56, Ch. 8, 206(d), December 15, 1967. 29 — The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967:34 prohibits employers of 25 or more persons from discriminating against persons 40 — 65 in any area of employment because of age. — Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 196435 prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin in all programs or activities which receive Federal financial aid. Employment discrimination is prohibited if a primary purpose of Federal assistance is provision of employment (such as apprenticeship training, work-study, or similar programs). Revised Guidelines adopted in 1973 by 25 Federal agencies prohibit discriminatory employment practices in all programs if such practices cause discrimination in services provided to program beneficiaries. This could be unequal treatment of beneficiaries or in hiring or assignment of counselors, trainers, faculty, hospital Staff, social workers or others’ in organizations receiving Federal funds. Although Title VI does not explicitly bar sex discrimination, various Federal agencies prohibited such discrimination in their own regulations. — The National Labor Relations Act and Related Laws.36 Discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or national origin may violate rights arising under these laws. It may be unlawful for employers to participate with unions in the commission of any discriminatory practices unlawful under these Acts, or to practice discrimination in a manner which gives rise to racial or other divisions among employes, to the detriment of organized union activity; or for unions to exclude individuals discrim- inatorily from union membership, thereby causing them to lose job opportunities, 34The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, (P. L. 90-902, Amended by P. L. 93-259 S. 22747) April 8, 1974. 350ivil Rim Act of 1964, op. cit. Title VI. 36The National Labor Relations Act, 29. U. S. C. 151 et. seq. 30 to discriminate in the representation of union members or non—members in collective bargaining, in processing of grievances, or in other respects, or to cause or attempt to cause employers to enter into discriminatory agreements or otherwise discriminate against union members or non-members. State and Local Laws.37 Many state and local government laws prohibit employment discrimination. When EEOC receives discrimination charges, it defers them for a limited time period to certain State and local agencies with comparable jurisdiction and enforcement sanctions. Determination of which agencies meet this "deferral" standard is a continuing process. Procedures of these agencies and their requirements for affirmative action vary, but if satisfactory remedies are not achieved, charges revert to EEOC for resolution. In any case, employers should be familiar with requirements of their local laws. — Title IX, Education Amendments of 1972.:38 In addition to extending coverage of the Equal Pay Act, Title IX, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex against employes or students of any educational institution receiving Federal financial aid. Provisions covering students are similar to those of Title VI of 1964 Civil Rights Act. ROLE OF THE COURTS As important as legislation past in congress is the role of the Federal courts. In what is regarded as a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court in March of 1971 in the case of Willie S. Griggs —vs- Duke Power Company stated in the form of Chief Justice Warren Burger’s opinion what is defined as discrimination in employment. The key wording of the opinion reads as follows: 37Affirmative Action and Equal Employment, (Washington D. C.: EEOC Vol. 1, 1974). 381bid. p. 15. 31 "Congress has now provided that test or criteria for employment or promotion may not provide equality of opportunity only in the sense of the fabled offer of milk to the stark and the fox. On the contrary, Congress has now required that the posture and condition of the job seeker be taken into account. It has — to resort again to the fable — provided that the vessel in which the milk is preferred be one all seekers can use. The Act proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form but discriminatroy in operation."39 What is sometimes referred to as the Grigg's Principle, Justice Warren Burger went on to say: "T he touchstone is business necessity. If an employment practice which operates to exclude Negroes cannot be Shown to be related to job performance, this practice is prohibited."40 In this particular case, the Duke Power Co. openly discriminated against blacks prior to the effective date of Title VII (July 2, 1965). Its Dan River plant was organized into five operating departments. Blacks were employed only in the Labor Department, where the highest paying jobs paid less than the lowest paying jobs in all four other departments. In 1955, the company instituted a high school diploma requirement for assignment to any department except Labor. In 1965, this requirement was imposed on transfers from Labor to any other department. Also, in 1965, on the effective date of Title VII, the company added a new requirement for placement in any but the Labor Department achieving satis- factory scores on two professionally developed aptitude tests. 39Willie s. Griggs vs Duke Power Co., (401. (u. s.), 24 (1971). 4°lbid. 32 The question raised in this case was, "Does Title VII prohibit an employer from requiring a high school diploma or psssing standarized intelligence tests as a condition of employment where such requirements have the effect of excluding a disproportionate number of black applicants?" The court reached their conclusion despite its apparent agree- ment with a lower court’s finding that the employer had not instituted these requirements with an intent to discriminate. Discriminatory intent, or lack of it in the court's view was irrelevant. It was the consequences of such practices that Congress intended to reach through the Act. "T he objective of Congress in the enactment of Title VII is plain from the language of the status. It was to achieve quality of employment opportunities and remove barriers that have operated in the past to favor an identifiable group of white employes over other employes. Under the Act, practices, procedures, or tests neutral on their face, and even neutral in terms of intent, cannot be maintained if they operate to "freeze" the status quo of prior discrimination in employment practices."41 In summary then, the court has stated that Title VII prohibits not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form but discriminatory in effect. To use a job requirement that exclude a disproportionate number of minority and women, the employers must prove that it accurately measures an applicants ability to do the job. Once a requirement is proven discriminatory in court, employers may not use it in selecting candidates unless they can prove there is no other way to measure that job skill. In other words, the fact an employer does not intend to discriminate is not a defense under Title VI I. 41ioid. 33 McDonald Douglas vs Green Another landmark case handed down by the Supreme Court effecting affirmative action was the 1973 Supreme Court ruling of McDonald Douglas vs Green.42 This case established further precedents significantly effecting the enforcement of Title VII law. This decision shifted the burden of proof from the party charging discrimination to the employer if the charging party could prove the following four points: 1. That he belongs to a racial minority. 2. That he applied and was qualified for a job which the employer was seeking applicants. 3. That despite his qualifications he was rejected. 4. That after his rejection the position remained open and the employer contin- ued to seek applicants from persons of the complaintants qualifications. Once the plaintiff has shown the above, the employer must show the court some legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for rejecting the qualified candidate or it will be found in violation of Title VI I. Defunis vs Odegaard The courts have begun to confront the student body composition issue which is one of the main routes to opportunities in employment. In the case of Defunis vs Odegaard, the Law School of the University of Washington denied admission to Defunis because of the 42McDonald Doufls vs Green, U. S. Sup. Ct. 411, U. S. 1972. 43loid. limited number of applicants that could be accepted into the school. However, several minority Students were admitted to the first year class who, if they had been white would have been denied admission.44 The minority students were admitted under special programs. Under this program, ethnic minority students were compared with other minority students and not with other white students during the admission process. Defunis brought suit against the University claiming that his constitutional right to equal protection of the law was denied by this admission process. The lower court found in favor of Defunis and the University appealed to the state Supreme Court. The issue in this case was: "May a state university law school give consideration to the ethnic or racial background of students in its admission screening procedure without violating the Constitution of the United States?"45 The University of Washington had established the admission policy so they could assist the legal community and minority groups in bringing about a more representative balance. The court stated: “Clearly, consideration of race by school authorities does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment where the purpose is to bring together, rather than separate, the races. The minority admission policy of the school, aimed at insuring a reasonable representation of minority persons in the student body, is not invidious. Consideration of race is permissable to carry out the mandate of Brown, and, as noted, has been required in some circumstances."46 44Defunis vs Odeggrd, Wash. 1973,507,p. 2d 1169, 1182. 45 lbid. 46 Ibid. 35 The State Supreme Court had agreed with the University that ”the educational interest of the state of producing a racially balanced student body is compelling." In a dissenting opinion, however, it was stated that the minority admissions program involved resulted in a deprivation of educational opportunity effecting Defunis and similarly situated persons. Chief Justice Hale Stated: "Racial bigotry, prejudice and intolerance will never be ended by exhalting the political rights of one group or class over that of another. The circle of inequality cannot be broken by shifting the inequalities from one man to his neighbor. To agrandize the first will, to the extent of the aggrandizement, diminish the latter. There is no remedy at law except to abolish all class distinctions heretofore existing in law. For that reason the constitutions are, and ever ought to be color blind. Now the court says it would hold the constitutions color conscious that they may stay color blind, I do not see how they can be both color blind and color conscious at the same time toward the same persons and on the same issues."47 After the State Supreme Court decided in favor of the University of Washington, Defunis appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the interim, Defunis was permitted admission to the law school. In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to rule on the Constitution- ality of whether a college or university may give consideration to the ethnic or racial background of students in its admission policy Since Defunis was at the time scheduled to graduate from law school and the case was moot. 47lbid. 36 Bakke vs The University of California The future of affirmative action programs may be decided by the United States Supreme Court in a case that many civil rights organizations feared to bring before it. The State Supreme Court of California ruled against the minority admissions program at the Medical School of the University of California at Davis.“8 The court ruled that the admissions program unconstitutionally discriminated against Allen Bakke, a white male. Bakke was a civil engineer from Sunnyvale, California who decided in 1973 at the age of 36 he would become a doctor. He applied to the University of California but was rejected. He claimed that 16 minority students with poorer records than his had been admitted to the class of 100. His contention was upheld. The University claims the lower Standards are necessary "to bring historically underrepresented minorities and ethnic groups into the mainstream of our countries' educational and professional Iife."“'9 Without the special standards, the University claims each new class in its professional schools would be virtually all-white. The program helps blacks, Mexican-Americans, American-Indians and Asian- Americans. A ruling that broadly upholds Bakke’s claim that he, as a white male, is a victim of racial discrimination, could eliminate a great many affirmative action programs. The University of California’s affirmative action program is said to be based strictly on race. Civil rights’ lawyers believe however, that the courts would be more likely to uphold a program that gave preferential treatment to disadvantaged students of any race, including poor whites. 48Allen Bakke vs Regents of The University of California, S. F. 23311, (Sup. Ct. No.31297). 49lbid. 37 Dollar Settlements In a September, 1976 report, EEO Perspective50 examined the court settlements issue with three objectives in mind: To summarize what had occurred in the more than two and one-half years since dollar settlements became prominent; To re-examine the trends that have, and have not developed and; To provide a prognosis of the directions that enforcement remedy seems to be taking. Since 1974, the report states that there have been four phases in the short history of the dollar settlements process:51 Phase One: Phase Two: Phase Three: Phase Four: The payment of nominal or reasonable amounts to single individuals. The payment of nominal or negotiated amounts to large numbers of employes. The AT&T settlement of 1973 (38 million dollars) is the classic example of this type of negotiated settlement. In that case tens of thousands of pe0ple received a dollar amount negotiated to a range up to 400 dollars. The payment of computed actual damages to single individuals. In these cases, the amounts paid to single individuals have grown very rapidly. The payment of computed actual damages to entire affected classes of individuals. One of the first important applications of this approach was the Northwest Airlines agreement (1974) in which the initial settlement amount was set at 24.1 million for 1,800 persons. 50EEO Perspective, (New York: Equal Opportunity Services, September, 1976). p. 3. 51lbid. p. 12. The EEO Perspective report also gave the following additional information: 38 52 60% of settlements involved sex 37% of settlements involved race 10% of settlements involved national origin 1% of settlements involved religion After previously making the recommendations to reduce vulnerabilities to costly confronta- tions prior to this report, EEO Perspective restated the following recommendations:5:3 1. Don’t underestimate the importance of EEO and its enforcement. EEO is not going to go away, it is not going to get less expensive, and as a national issue, it has neither “leveled off" nor is it declining in its vigor and growing power. Stop thinking of EEO solely in terms of "compliance,” affirmative action plans (AAP's) and government contracts. The fact that your company does or does not have government contracts has no bearing on EEOC, private party, and activist group actions. Your AAP, its commitments and all that good faith effort are not a defence in such confrontations. Don’t assume that your company is immune to EEO confrontations because it is too small, too large, or that it is somehow unique by virtue of its industry, geography, workforce makeup, and so forth. AS the earlier listing clearly shows, every type of employer can be a target for costly EEO confrontation. Don't restrict your concept of EEO to race and hiring. Sex discrimination has obviously become one of, if not the most important issues in dollar settlements; transfer and promotional opportunity are rapidly eclipsing hiring as the dominant employment issue; and age, the testing issue; the handicapped and other factors loom as major issues in the future. 52Ibid. p. 15. 53loid. p. 17-18. 39 5. Expand your EEO vocabulary. The familiar watchwords of compliance, emphasizing good faith effort, commitments, and future results have, during the last three years, given way to the new vocabulary of litigation and court enforce- ment. This vocabulary stresses present accountability and is punctuated with such terms as affected class, disaparate effect, pattern and practice, back pay, delayed restitution, and so forth. These terms and their implications are still absent from the thinking and planning of many top executives. 6. Deal with EEO related problems and incidents internally, before they become complaints or lawsuits. Set up an internal EEO complaint system. Invite and, if necessary, encourage employes to register their EEO related grievances. As burdensome and unattractive as this may sound to some, it is about the only way to keep complaints from reaching enforcement agencies. Note: If such a system is to be effective, it must be at least as Simple and responsive as the EEOC’S or state's complaint filing process. 7. Don’t discount or disregard any employe complaint or lawsuit either because the charges appear to be unjustified or the number of people involved is small. Once in your organization, other symptoms of discrimination are subject to investigation by the EEOC — regardless of a tenuous relationship to, or the merits of, the original complaint. 8. Be cautious when deciding to deny or fight formal charges of discrimination. Use the resources of legal control and personnel officers to consider: All substantive and procedural aspects of the charges and of possible defenses; * The dollar costs of fighting the charges; The internal and public impact of a well publicized confrontation; The exposure of other EEO problems once an enforcement agency enters your organization; * The extent of liability, Should specific charges be expanded to ”affected classes,” and finally; * That frustrating characteristic of EEO law which says that once a presumption of unlawful discrimination exists, the burden of proof shifts to the employer — who must prove that discrimination does not exist. 40 Equal Employment Opportunity Officer In order to develop, implement, and monitor a facilities Equal Opportunity Plan, an individual in the employing organization must be selected to be responsible for the process. The person selected to oversee the implementation of the program is clearly spelled out in Revised Order No. 4. It states: ”An executive of the contractor should be appointed as director or manager of the companies' Equal Opportunity Programs. Depending upon the size and geographical alignment of the company, this may be his or her sole responsibility. He or she should be given the necessary, top management support and staffing to executive the assignment. His or her identity should appear on all internal and external communications on the company’s Equal Opportunity Programs.54 As an agent of change, the EEO Officer's job is to alter the status quo in such a way that the people involved will benefit. The change should come through a deliberate process which is intended to be accepted by the people in the organization and at the same time benefit them. The methods used can be simple, and yet at times complex. The Federal Government attempted to give the EEO Officer guidelines in developing and monitoring the program for his or her facility. Below is a list of responsibilities that are listed and recommended by the government for the EEO Officer.55 1. Developing policy statements, affirmative action programs, internal and external communication techniques. 2. Assisting in the indentification of problem areas. 5“Code of Federal Regulations, op. cit. Ch. 60-2.22(a). 55loid. 41 3. Assisting line management in arriving at solutions to problems. 4. Designing and implementing audit and reporting systems that will: a. Measure effectiveness of the contractor’s problems. b. Indicate need for remedial action. c. Determine the degree to which the contractor's goals and objectives have been attained. d. Serve as liaison between the contractor and enforcement agencies. e. Serve as liaison between the contractor and minority organizations, women’s organizations and community action groups concerned with employment opportunities of minorities and women. f. Keep management informed of the latest developments in the entire equal opportunity area. Selection and Design of the EEO Position Establishing leadership and responsibility for implementing and developing the affirmative action program is a crucial step. AS stated earlier, Revised Order No. 4, directs the employer to establish at their facility a director or manager to carry out the necessary steps in an affirmative action program. However, it is at this point that many organizations experience trouble with the plan or program. Four of the most common errors in designating leadership in this area are:56 56College and University Affirmative Action Manuel, (New York: Executive lnterprises Publication Co., Inc., 1975), p. 29. 42 I 1. Declare EEO to be a “personnel matter,’ name the personnel director as EEO Officer, and leave his or her access to decision making power unchanged. 2. Declare that EEO is "outside the normal personnel process,” appoint a full- time EEO Officer at the “Special Assistant to the President" level, and let him or her figure out how to break into the actual system in existence. 3. Declare EEO to be essentially a problem of "involving the disadvantaged," establish two affirmative action committees one each primarily for minorities and women who have never had management experience — and assure them that all responsible recommendations they make will be given serious consideration. 4. Declare EEO to be "irresolvable from within," hire an outside consulting organization, “write an affirmative action plan," and have a few ”key management people" read over the plan and suggest changes before someone signs it did sends it to the Government for approval. The basic problem with these four approaches are that they do not utilize the EEO Officer’s position to maximize their contribution to the program. The organization should clearly designate leadership and fix responsibility. This need to designate leadership and assign responsibility should not be taken lightly. Issues Faced by the EEO Officer Havelock,57 in examining ways to diagnose problems claim that most change agents would do well to make a brief survey of the surface systems of an organization and seek out 57Ronald Hazelock, The Change Agents Guide To Innovation In Education, (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Educational Technology Publications, 1973), p. 64. 43 the problem issues. The growing number of substantive issues in employment justifying the need for an employing organization to supply needed resources to address the problem 813258 Promotion Layoffs Recruiting Interviewing PEPE”? Most frequent forms of complaints were:59 1. Formal, State and federal agencies 2. Past or present employes 3. Reverse discrimination In another issue dedicated entirely to the EEO Officer, Perspective listed four problems facing most administrators and managers in this position. They included:60 1. Being sandwiched between a hyperactive, increasingly enforcement oriented EEO establishment and a passive, generally unresponsive management; 2. The lack of staff and financial resources available to the EEO function; 3. The absence of adequate authority or internal "clout" to overcome resistance to EEO requirements; 4. The general lack of credibility that exist for the EEO issue itself, and; 5. The need to exercise both patience and vigor in pressing for EEO solutions, regardless of resistance encountered. 58EEO Perspective, (New York: Equal Opportunity Services, September, 1974), p. 5. 59loid. 60loid. p. 3. Effectiveness of EEO Officers In employing organizations that establish the position of the EEO Officer, what effect does it have on the organization's EEO achievements? Driscoll61 in a study of changes in employment of minorities and women from 1970 to 1975 examined 160 employing organizations and found that 27 had a person designated as a special EEO Officer, 42 indicated that the person with responsibility for EEO reports to the highest officer (CEO), and 50 included EEO results in managerial performance appraisals. For each of the three companies, an analysis was made of (1) the change between 1970 and 1975 in the percentage of minorities and women in different groups and, (2) the highest level position held by a minority and by a woman in 1975. Of the three variables studied, those that had a special EEO Officer appeared to have had the most positive impact on EEO results with regards to minorities. The increases in minority employment between 1970 and 1975 in companies with EEO Officers were greater for all occupational groups than increases reported by the total sample. For employment of women, however, the presence of an EEO Officer among the companies surveyed had negative results, with declines in percentages of women between 1970 and 1975 in all occupational groups except professionals/technical and unskilled service. Based on the result of this particular sample, the companies with a special EEO Officer had the greatest increases in minority employment in the 1970 and 1975 period and the highest level position held in minorities and women in 1975. Whether the person reports 'to the chief executive officer appears to have little effect on the company’s achievements. Inclusion of EEO results in managerial performance appraisals may have a slightly positive effect on minority employment but a negative effect on the employment of women.62 61James Driscoll, ”Equal Employment Opportunity: Programs and Results," Personnel Policies Forum, (Washington D. C.: Survey No. 112, March, 1976. 62lbid. this is Louise Miller who is the EEO Officer at Rockwell Corporation.63 She comes to this position with sixteen years of experience working with Rockwell. She had worked with the Saturn and Appollo programs before being transfered to her present division which is B-l. Her training in EEO comes from years of growing responsibility in the field. About her background she states the basic thrust ”being committed and wanting to familiarize oneself with every document and piece of legislation in the field.” In an attempt to explain the 45 EEO Officers in Industry EEO Officers in industry for the most part are experienced managers. An example of EEO Officers position in industry, she states: In describing her general overall attitude and employes perception of her position, she ”No other position demands more personnel skill than the affirmative action officer’s. It calls for a constant balance between management directives and employe sentiment. All frustrations of the program’s failures fall directly on this person. Added to these responsibilities is the burden of creativity in a job filled with goals and timetables. Unavoidably the person filling the affirmative action officer position straddles a fence with demands, resent- ments and pressures on either side.”64 claims that: ”Attitude is an important term when discussing the affirmative action officer. People look for certain qualities and clues for affiliation. There is an ideal which every affirmative action officer is expected to meet. Words like ’progressive, sharp, assertive and effective,’ are often used to describe what is often desirable in a chief EEO administrator. The burden of living up to this ideal is one further concern to the officer/'65 63M. Benavidez, and K. Vozoff, "A Glimpse Into The Corporate Life Of Equal Opportunity," 64loid. 651bid. Equal Opportunity Forum, February, 1977, p. 3. 46 EEO Officers in Higher Education In the “Higher Education Guidelines" of the Office for Civil Rights, Department of Health Education, and Welfare and released on October 1, 1972, it States that: ”An administrative procedure must be set up to organize and monitor the affirmative action program. 41 CFR 602.22 provides that an executive of the contractor should be appointed as director of EEO programs, and that he or she should be given ’the necessary top managment support and staffing to execute the assignment.’ This should be a person knowledgeable of and sensitive to the problems of women and minority groups. Depending upon the size of the institution, this may be his or her sole responsibility, and necessary authority and staff should be accorded the position to ensure the proper implementation of the program. In several institutions the EEO Officer has been assisted by one or more task forces composed in substantial part of women and minority persons. This has usually faciliated the task of the EEO Officer and enhanced the prospects of success for the affirmative action program in the institution."66 Princeton University provides an arrangement that is consistent with the arrangements outlined above. The Provost, who is the general deputy of the President is designated as the affirmative action officer of the University. His responsibility is further delegated to an assistant with the title of ”Affirmative Action Coordinator” with the following responsibilities:67 66Higher Education Guidelines, Office of Civil Rights, Department of H.E.W., October, 1972. 67Making Affirmative Action Work In Higher Education, (San Francisco, California: Jossey- Boss Publishers, 1975), p. 71. 47 Oversight of developing, implementing, monitoring, and reporting university equal opportunity and affirmative action programs. Maintaining and updating university-wide basic data files. Coordinating preparation of utilization, salary analysis, and personnel mobility systems. Receiving periodically from the dean of the faculty and the director of personnel services, departmental and office reports on recruitment, hiring, mobility, attrition, and overall affirmative action progress, and assessing them. Preparing and presenting reports to the equal opportunity council and committees. Serving as liaison between the university administration and interest groups in the university. Preparing equal opportunity and affirmative action annual reports. Overseeing development of policy statements, and internal and external communication techniques. Keeping relevant administrative offices of the university informed of developments in equal opportunity and affirmative action areas. At the University of California, Berkeley, the EEO Officer has provision for penalyzing a department that fails to adhere to requirements.68 68loid. p. 72. 48 The (Affirmative Action) Coordinator will also be invested with the delicate but vital responsibility of negotiating with departments or other units which have apparently failed to adhere to the requirements of the Affirmative Action Program. While it is anticipated that such situations will normally be remedied by negotiation and mutual agreement, the following remedies may be applied by the Administration in the cases where all other approaches have failed. 1. In individual cases a department or unit may not be permitted to make an appointment until the procedures described above, governing search and canvass for that appointment, have been met. 2. In the rare case where a department or unit repeatedly fails to follow the prescribed procedures in particular specialities, or willful evasion of the Affirmative Action policy is otherwise shown, that department or unit may be instructed to suspend all new entry-level appointments until such time as the unsatisfactory situation has been corrected or the unit has satisfactorily demonstrated that it has exhausted all reasonable efforts to rectify the situation. An examination of two EEO Officers at educational facilities clearly points out the problems and frustrations of the people in this position and their insight into the causes. In his third annual report to the Harvard University Community, Walter Leonard, who is assistant to the President, reported:69 ”I wished that l were able to report that my job is almost finished; that the Affirmative Action Program has succeeded; that its task of working itself out of business has been accomplished; that there is no underutilization of minorites and women in the various categories of appointments and faculty positions; that it is nearly impossible to find discrimination (overt or othenlvise) against any group within the university; and that there is no further need to have a Specific program to ensure equal opportunity for all. 69Walter Leonard, “Affirmative Action At Harvard,” The Chronicle Of Higher Education, March 31, 1975, p. 13. 49 Unfortunately, this is not the case. Not only have we not progressed a great deal since October, 1971, both statistically and attitudinally, but, I fear, we have moved backward from that date in a number of areas. There seems to be a growing number of individuals who do not understand (or who do not wish to understand) what affirmative action is all about. I am very troubled because I see a growing assult (both overt and curiously subtle) against affirmative action being waged by a number of different groups and individuals throughout the country. It is waged partly by those who propa- gate the myth of a ’takeover’ by minorities and women in employment and a resultant loss of opportunity for white males; and partly by those who promote the myth and 'red herring’ of reverse discrimination and preferential treatment. It seems to me that too many people are now ready to declare the trip over, when the first leg of the journey has not yet been completed. I personally fear that we are witnessing an end of the Second Reconstruction. Again, the ’good people' are doing little, if anything to arrest this unfortunate trend.” Leonard continues and gives an example of his interaction with an academic dean and how oftentimes academic administrators try to circumvent his office. 70 ”We have, however, had a great deal of trouble and have been forced into confrontations with department heads on listing of high level, administrative positions. This situation has improved a good deal over the past months, due in large part to effective monitoring by the personnel office. Nevertheless, we are still experiencing too many attempts at circumvention of the policy. This to me is really an attitudinal problem, i.e., ’how little can we do or how can I get around listing the position, since I already have a candidate.’ Unfortunately in most cases the candidate happens to be a white male. 7olbid. 50 Another technique of circumvention that has surfaced recently is illustrated by the following example. Dean X has an individual whom he would like to hire for a certain high level position. He creates a position at a lower level for this person, he argues that only that person has the special qualifications to do the job. Even if the position is listed with the personnel office, they will be unable to refer any suitable candidates since the dean has already made up his mind that the person he wants to hire is the one that he will hire. Once he has hired the individual, he is swiftly promoted to a higher position. In other words, the whole process becomes a sham.” The EEO Officer at Yale University also experienced much difficulty in attempting to implement her institution’s Affirmative Action Program. Jacqueline Mintz who was Associate Provost resigned from her position during the Spring Term of 1976. Besides coordinating the program, She also had the responsibility of monitoring the recruiting efforts of all the academic departments and the graduate and professional schools in accordance with Yales’S affirmative action goals, and to increase the number of women and minority persons on all the facilities. Yale had submitted three separate affirmative action plans in three years to the office of Civil Rights of the Department of Health Education and Welfare. Her experience agrees with the analysis of Perspective in that her position found itself being sandwiched between a hyperactive, increasingly enforcement-oriented EEO establishment and a passive, generally unresponsive management. She States that: ”There was no point remaining in a position where most of my recommendations for how to develop the affirmative action program have — for the past three years — not been acceptable. It has been a long and frustrating experience of disappointed hopes and lost time."71 EEO Officers initially find verbal and moral support when the task of implementing such a program begins. Mintz started with such support from top University officals. In an inter- view months before her resignation she is quoted as saying: “ Fred Strebeigh, ”Trouble Times With Affirmative Action,” Yale Alumni Magazine, April, 1976, p. 32. 51 "The most important thing about Yale’s Affirmative Action Program is that President Kingman Brewster, Jr., and the Corporation think that Yale should have an Affirmative Action Plan that is better than the government requires.”72 However, in her resignation She states; ”The greatest disappointment has been the inadequate level of support from the President, I suppose the most important point is that I would not have expected the President to let a program to which he is committed lapse as much as it has ..... from the inception, the program has operated under two related difficulties, its weak institutional support structure and the limited resources available to it.”73 This is a crucial point made by Mintz. Whoever is assigned the primary leadership role, should actively solicit the involvement of all levels of administration and management. E E0 Committees The Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education found that in most educational institutions with affirmative action plans, a special committee plays a role in the affirmative action program and works closely with the EEO Officer, and that on larger campuses, there may be several campus wide committees, as well as special committees for individual schools and colleges.74 Along with working closely with the EEO Officer, the committee usually included one or more of the following:75 72Ibid. 73lbid. 74Making Affirmative Action Work In Higher Education, op. cit. p. 73. 75Michigan State University Anti-Discrimination and Affirmative Action Policies, Article III Section C-3. 52 Review of affirmative action plans, including goals and timetables, Review of progress in achieving affirmative action goals, Review of departmental recruitment selection, and promotion procedures, Much less frequently, serving as an appeal body in grievance cases, sometimes at the stage immediately following departmental consideration of the grievance and sometimes following administrative review of the case, (usually by a dean). In about 14 percent of the institutions with committees, there was a provision for referring grievances to the committee. At Michigan State University, the Board of Trustees went a step further. The functions of this committee are: 76 To conduct ..... periodic reviews of the operation of several units of the University, to identify policies or practices which may reflect discrimination after appropriate notification of the President. Upon formal request by majority vote ..... any unit of the University shall provide access to any and all records necessary for carrying out such reviews. To the maximum extent consistent with the purposes of this procedure the confidentiality of personnel records and the principle of privileged communication shall be respected by the Committee and its staff. Any alleged abuse of the investigative powers of this Committee may be appealed at any time directly to the President of the University who shall have authority to take appropriate action. The Committee shall identify policies, practices, or patterns of behavior which may reflect discrimination as defined in this document and report to the responsible officials of the unit. The Committee shall also recommend to such responsible officials such corrective action as it deems appropriate. 76 Ibid. 53 In addition to this, the Committee was given expanded authority as outlined in the following statement: ”Any person or persons having knowledge of prohibited discrimination but without a personal grievance, shall have the right to file with the Committee Against Discrimination reciting facts of such alleged discrimination and requesting corrective action in the same manner as a person aggrieved. Such complainant shall have the same right as an aggrieved person to an appeal in the same manner to the Anti-Discrimination Judical Board. Such appeals to be entitled to consideration, Shall specify the time, the place, and the exact nature of the alleged discrimination; shall identify in specific terms the individual, group, organization or office believed by the complainant to be responsible for the alleged discrimination; and Shall specify the remedy being sought by the complaintant. Reports on these petitions and actions shall be included in the report to the President and to the Board of Trustees.77 The functions of these committees and the authority given them can add substantially to the role and function of the EEO Officer. One of the weaknesses the Yale EEO Officer pointed out was that their procedures were formulated with no effective faculty participation. The position of the EEO Officer and affirmative action committees are still relatively new in the field of academic hiring practices. Pedro Costello, a lecturer in history at Yale, voiced the attitude of many faculty toward the position of the EEO Officer. In reference to the EEO Officer at Yale he concluded: "T he only thing she’s been able to do is make the departments do a lot of papenlvork — to advertise in academic journals, say, that we are an equal opportunity employer, and so on. But I think that a department is still free to hire and fire as it wishes, without regard to affirmative action action, because each department is autonomous — free from the administration.”78 77Strebeigh, op. cit. p. 76. 54 CHAPTER III DESIGN AND PROCEDURE In this chapter, the design and procedure of the study is presented. Included are the procedures to: (1) Select the geographical location for the study: (2) identify the types of organizations sampled and sampling process; (3) describe the development of the instrument; (4) describe the item construction; (5) describe the refinement of the instrument; and (6) identify the process to be used in the analysis of the data. The information acquired by using this method and procedure is reported and analyzed in Chapter IV. Selection of Geographical Area The primary purpose of this study is to determine what Equal Employment Opportunity Officers in colleges and universities and in the industrial setting perceive to be the significant elements and behaviors of their job which have a crucial impact on the progress or success of their facilities affirmative action program. To investigate this problem, a geographical area had to be chosen that contained a significant number of educational institutions as well as industrial facilities. The State of Michigan was selected. Located in the midwest, it has a heterogenous population based on age and ethnic background. It’s industrial setting is diversified and it’s educational system is appropriate for the study. 55 Organizations Sample and Sampling Process The first step in the selection process was to identify colleges and universities and industrial facilities that have written affirmative action plans. The law requires that all employers with 50 or more full-time employes and a federal contract of at least $50,000 or more, develop a written affirmative action compliance program for each of its establishments. A central feature of an affirmative action program is the appointment of an individual to oversee the implementation of the plan. Selection of Colleges and Universities The colleges and universities were selected from The Education Directory 1974- 1975, Higher Education, which annually lists institutions in the United States and its outlying areas that meet the following requirements: 1. They are legally authorized to offer and are offering at least a two-year program of college-level studies in residence or, if nonresidence in nature, they are accredited or preaccredited by an accrediting agency recognized for such purpose by the Commissioner of Education, 2. They have submitted the information required for listing, and 3. They meet one of the traditional criteria for listing as institutions of higher education. 1 The criteria for listing in the directory are as follows: 1. Institutions accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or approved by a state department of education or by a state university, 1The Education Directory: 1974—1975 Higher Education, (Washington D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1975). 9. IX. L |"l 11 F-I uh c.1123) J -" . -.... Q‘IOL- .IIho 56 2. Institutions that have attained a preaccredited status with designated nationally accrediting agencies, 3. Institutions not meeting requirements of criterion one or two are eligible if it can be confirmed that their credits have been and are accepted as though coming from an accredited institution by not fewer than three institutions accredited by nationally recognized accrediting agencies.2 ”College-level studies,” as the term is used here, means a postsecondary program which (1) is wholly or principally creditable toward a baccalaureate degree and/or (2) terminates in an associate degree.3 This Directory listed institutions by type, size, and state. The section for the State of Michigan was selected. This section listed 89 two and four schools. Because of the reasonable number of schools listed, the entire population was sampled. Section of Industrial Work Settings Once the colleges and universities were identified, it was then necessary to select the industrial facilities. The industrial facilities were selected from a publication entitled, 30,000 Leading U.S. Corporations. This publication is a computerized analysis of the 30,000 leading U.S. corporations. It contains 15,000 manufacturers accounting for 90% of the total manufacturing assests and sales, and 15,000 concerns in all non-manufacturing industries, including finance. Corporations, including diversified/conglomerate companies classified by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC), industrial categories are ranked by annual sales, and analyzed by 25 vital indicias including sales, earnings, assests, and number of employes.4 The facilities listed had at least 100 employes. As stated in Chapter I, an extensive search of library directories listing business and industries and several interviews with officials from the Department of Commerce at the Capital Building in Lansing was made in an effort 2loid. 3loid. 430,000 Leading U. S. Corporations (New York: News Front Corporation, 1974), p. 2. 57 to locate a sampling frame that listed a minimum of 50 employes. No sampling frame to fit this criteria could be located. Therefore, the selection of industrial work settings were selected from the above mentioned publication. A feature of the 30,000 Leading U.S. Corporations is a classification of the above categories by state. The section for the State of Michigian listed 580 facilities. One hundred of these industrial facilities were surveyed. From a review of the literature it was decided that a response rate of at least 50% would be adequate.5 A table of random numbers was used to generate the list of industries surveyed. Development of the Instrument The development of the instrument progressed through three stages: (1) The selection of the instrument; (2) Construction of specific items, and; (3) Refinement of the instrument. Because of the population from which the data was collected involved the entire geographical area of the State of Michigan, it was decided that the best method be used to collect and analyze the data would be a self-administered questionnaire and the use of the Critical Incident Technique. A pilot instrument was constructed that consisted of: (1) a letter of introduction of researcher from the researcher’s committee chairman; (2) a letter from the researcher explaining the purpose of the questionnaire; (3) the questionnaire; (4) the Critical Incident Technique; and (5) a return envelope. (See Appendix A for items 1 through 4.) Item Construction After examining several options it was decided that the questionnaire would be divided into three parts. Part I would consist of demographic information. Part II would consist of a series of statements describing recommended behavior for EEO Officers to 5Earl Babie, Survey Research Methods, (Belmont Calif.: Wadsowrth Publishing Co. Inc., 1975), p. 165. 9: l'£':l'il‘ll :T‘IIISOI'CI '39“)? Elf); '3". " LL-"'.‘L) - 3'“). Il Ill : IItIl 1.5.;(52 3 'IL' IITSXI-I If’l'l-‘l I I v: n — > .' e . ~ u u - a H I ' 3:" . .1 :- - ll 3. l -. 'l:1 . C .‘i TI ‘1 l '1.- “ If ‘ ‘1 II I: :I‘.I-'-°D ‘.‘ ‘ :I.‘ s. -l " It. :1}; -'. :i ; us‘. ‘I .E\‘ in 3‘ 4L- ‘: a. a . s' I t\’ 58 successfully perform their job. The Statements were developed from interviews and the review of literature. The Statements were followed by a five point rating scale. The pilot group respondents were asked to circle the number next to each item which best indicated how they felt about that statement in terms of the following categories: 1. Always necessary — for progress in affirmative action, 2. Often necessary — for progress in affirmative action, 3. Sometimes necessary — for progress in affirmative action, 4. Usually not necessary — for progress in affirmative action, 5. Not necessary — for progress in affirmative action. Part III of the initial instrument consisted of a modified form of the Critical Incident Technique. The Critical Incident Technique is a procedure used in the collection and analysis of incidents in which an individual within an organization acting according to some criteria can measure their success or failure at some task.6 Refinement of the Instrument Parts of the instrument were revised to increase its content validity and acceptability. Revisions were based on the critical comments of colleagues and experts such as: 1. Professional staff members on the Industrial and Labor Relations Department of the General Motors Corporation. 6John C. Flanagan, "T he Critical Incident Technique,” Psychological Bulletin, July 1954, p. 329. 59 2. A design Specialists in the Education and Training Department of General Motors Institute. 3. A pilot group of ten Equal Employment Opportunity Officers in both educational institutions and in the industrial setting. The pilot was conducted at an Equal Employment Opportunity Officers Seminar in Washington D. C. that was attended by EEO Officers from the entire nation. In addition, consistently critical comments and suggestions were given by Dr. Walter Johnson, the researcher's Committee Chairman, and Dr. Tony Hain, Chairman of the Communications and Organizational Behavior Department at General Motors Institute. The comments of all the groups and a careful analysis of the suggestions led to the least revision of the instrument and the elimination of Part III entirely. Because of the time it would take in responding to Part III and the constant flow of reports that EEO Officers must file with various local, state, and federal agencies, it was decided that the Critical Incident Technique contained in Part III would severely reduce the response rate. Therefore, this section was eliminated. FOLLOW-UP For those persons who did not respond after 3% weeks to the initial mailing, a follow-up letter was sent along with a second copy of the questionnaire and a stamped return envelope. (Appendix 8.) DESIGN The data collected from the self-administered questionnaire were edited, coded, and transferred to computer cards to facilitate the analysis. The data were stratified on the basis of institutions (Education — l1, Industrial — 12), on levels in management to which 60 EEO Officers report (Upper — M1, Lower — M2), and years of experience in the EEO position (0 to 3 — E1, 4 or more — E2). The above stratifications were produced on a 2 X 2 X 2 factorial design. (Figure 1) '1 l2 M1 E1 M2 M1 E2 M2 Figure 1 The survey consisted of 30 independent items which represented key job elements of the EEO Officer’s position. The dependent measures represented by the ratings consisted of each EEO Officers response to the 30 items on the survey. Definition of Categories An examination of the survey items show that they distribute themselves into seven categories listed as follows: 61 A. Intake — Explored in this section are the type of job elements that would involve bringing new employes into the workforce who because of employment practices were excluded. 8. Internal Structure — This area deals with the internal structure of the organization that indicates to the facility the progress or lack of progress it is making. C. Policy Making — Items in this area are concerned targets or objectives the facility establishes and the overall guidelines to be used. D. Program Development - This category focuses on the plan to be followed to report and implement programs to change and alter employe relationships. E. Public Relations —- Investigated here are items that promote good will among employes, the general public, ethnic groups, potential employes, and community organizations. F. lnservice Training - Included in this category are items that probe the use of existing mechanisms to further enhance the opportunities for minorities and women. G. Maintenance — This category focuses on upkeep or support elements to assure the success of employes already in the workforce. Listed by categories and appropriate items, the following clusters were formed: Category A — Intake Item 10 — Review all applications and other related materials to determine whether a qualified minority or female candidate is available. Item 13 — Assist in recruitment of minority and female college graduates. 62 Category B - Internal Structure Item 2— Develop internal and external communication techniques. Item 3 -- Assist in the identification and solution of underutilization of females and minorities. Item 5 — Perform monthly or quarterly analysis of minority and female goals and attainment. Item 6— Implement and monitor your facilities internal audit and reporting system. ltem19— Prepare periodic reports on Equal Opportunity statistics and affirmative action undertaken for the chief executive at your facility. Item 30— Review of employment and related pre—employment forms to assure compliance with federal legislation. Category C — Policy Making Item 1 — Assist in the establishment of your facilities Equal Employment Opportunity policy and preparation of the affirmative action program. Item 4 -— Assist in the establishment of minority and female goals. Category D — Program Development Item 7— Assist in the development of a minority and female skills inventory. 63 Item 14 — Encourage minorities and females to participate in tuition refund plans, open staffing programs, recreational and social activities etc. Item 17—- Assist in the development of training programs to change attitudes and behavior relative to Equal Employment Opportunity. Category E — Public Relations Item 9 — Serve as a liaison between your facility and minority and female community organizations concerned with employment opportunities of minorities and females. Item 11 — Serve as a liaison between your facility and government enforce- ment agencies during a compliance review. Item 12— Insure that all appropriate governmental posters are properly displayed. Item 23 — Serve as a liaison between your facility and minorities females in the workforce. Item 24 — Coordinate your facilities manpower and/or monetary support to local and national community oriented programs designed to improve the employment opportunities of minorities and females. Item 29— Involvement with local minority organizations, women organizations, community action groups and community service programs. 64 Category F - lnservice Training Item 8 — Meet with Staff heads to discuss problems and solutions regarding accomplishing your facilities affirmative action program. Item 21 — Keep managers and administrators at your facility informed of the latest developments in the entire equal opportunity area. Item 27 — Make supervisors and department heads aware of their respon- sibility to take action where necessary to prevent harrassment of employes placed through affirmative action efforts. Item 28 — Assist in creating an understanding with members of supervision and department heads that their work performance is evaluated on the basis of their Equal Employment Opportunity efforts and results as well as other criteria. Category G — Maintenance ltem15— Review your facilities personnel practices to assure that the practices comply with the Sex Discrimination Guidelines set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 6020. Item 20 — Assist in the investigation and resolution of complaints regarding alleged discrimination. Item 22 — Review of qualifications of minorities and females to ensure they are given full opportunities for promotions and transfers. Item 25 — Make periodic audits of training programs, hiring, and promotion patterns to remove any impediments to the attainments of goals and objectives. ltem26— Assist in making periodic checks to insure that comparable facilities, training programs, recreational and social activities are made available to minorities and members of both sexes. 65 Analysis The general linear model for computing the analysis of variance was used as the major statistical testing procedure. Separate multivariate analysis of variance was computed for each of the seven categories. These analysis ofvariance were carried out on a 2 X 2 X 2 factorial design. The main effect of institution, years of experience, management level, and the interaction of these three components were measured through the statistical analysis. The alpha level for each test was set at the .05 level. The Newman-Keuls Test of independent means was incorporated to differentiate between Significant levels following the analysis. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES Hypothesis 1 — There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers for colleges and universities and in the industrial setting based on institutional type. Hypothesis 2 — There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers for colleges and universities and in the industrial setting based on levels of managment to which EEO Officers report. Hypothesis 3 — There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers for colleges and universities and in the industrial setting based on years of experience in the EEO position. Hypothesis 4 — There will be no interaction effect between EEO Officers based on institutional type, levels of management, and years of experience on the job. 66 SUMMARY A questionnaire was designed and administered to two different employing facilities; Educational Institutions and Industrial Work Facilities. The instrument was designed to achieve the purpose of determing what Equal Employment Opportunity officers perceive to be the significant elements and behaviors of their job which have a crucial impact on the progress or success of their facilities affirmative action program. The sample for this study consisted of 100 industrial work facilities and 89 educational institutions in the State of Michigan. After pretesting and revising, the question- naire consisted of thirty items divided into seven categories with a response scale of always necessary, often necessary, sometimes necessary, usually not necessary, and not necessary. Responses to the items were analyzed through the use of the multivariate analysis of variance as the major statistical test. A level of significance at the .05 level was employed. In Chapter IV the data is presented and analyzed. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA This study was designed to collect and analysis significant elements and behaviors of the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer’s job which have a crucial impact on the progress or success of their facilities affirmative action program. In this chapter, the results of the collected data and analysis is presented. The chapter is divided into two sections. In section I, the characteristics of the participating EEO Officers are described. In section II, the Research Hypotheses are presented for each of the seven categories, followed by the Multivariate Analysis of Variance Test for each category. In each category where a significant difference is found, a table for the Sum of Means is presented followed by the Univariate Test for the items within the category. Characteristics of the Participating EEO Officers Table 1 through 8 represent a summary of data on the 94 Equal Employment Opportunity Officers participating in the study and the type of facility they represent. Table 1 demonstrates the wide variety of professional employes within an employing organization that may assume responsibility for the equal employment opportunity function. There were three presidents or chief executive officers (CEO) reported in the industrial work setting responsible for the EEO function. In the educational facilities, there were no presidents (CEO) reported. 67 68 Table 4.1 Distribution of EEO Officers by Title Education Industry Director of Personnel — 4 Assistant to President — 4 Director of Non-Academic Personnel and Staff Benefits Personnel Manager Dean — 3 Equal Employment Opportunity Officer -- 3 Director of Media Center/Coordinator of Affirmative Action Programs Director of Employe Relations/ EEO Officers — 2 Director, Equal Opportunity and Neighborhood Relations Vice-President of Finance/ Management Academic Dean Business Manager — 3 Manager Personnel Research Treasurer Affirmative Action Coordinator Dean of Academic Affairs Vice-President for Administrative Services — 3 Personnel Manager — 3 Employe Relations Manager/ EEO Assistant Cashier and Personnel Officer President — 3 Safety and Personnel Director Manager, Personnel Administrator Vice-President Personnel Relations Manager EEO — 4 Director of Personnel and EEO Director of Management Resources and Communication Vice-President Personnel Assistant and EEO Coordinator Industrial Relations Manager Supervisor of Employment Security and Training Vice-President, Personnel Assistant Personnel Director Accountant Director, Industrial Relations — 3 (continued) 69 Table 4.1 Distribution of EEO Officers by Title Education Industry Coordinator, Campus Services Administrative Assistant to the President Affirmative Action Director Administrative Assistant to President/ EEO Officer, Title IX Coordinator Academic Dean, Assistant to President Personnel Coordinator Personnel Director and Acting EEO Officer Vice-President for Finance Grants Coordinator Administrative Assistant Vice-President for Finance Vice-President for Development and Planning Comptroller Manager, Industrial Relations Manager, Labor Relations and Personnel Senior Vice-President, Personnel Director Equal Employment Opportunity Officer General Manager Personnel and Safety Director Personnel Director and Compliance Officer Labor Relations Manager EEOC Facility Coordinator Employment Manager Personnel Assistant Personnel, General Manager Plant Manager Vice-President, Personnel Director Delicatessen and Catering Buyer Division EEO Coordinator Officer Manager Personnel Director — 5 70 Table 4.2 A Comparison by Job Description Education Industry Number Percent Number Percent Yes 37 82 27 55 No 8 18 22 45 Table 4.2 indicates the number of EEO Officers which have reported that they have job descriptions. A job description can be an indication of the commitment a facility has toward the EEO function. Eight-two percent of the EEO Officers in Education reported they had job descriptions while only fifty-five percent in Industry reported having one. 71 Table 4.3 Distribution of EEO Officers by Age Age Education Industry Range Number Percent Number Percent 20—25 1 4 0 0 26—30 5 1 1 4 8 31 —35 6 13 5 10 36—40 5 1 1 13 27 41 ——45 8 18 9 19 46—50 6 13 5 10 51 —55 7 15 6 12 56—60 6 13 7 14 61—65 1 2 0 0 Total 45 100 49 100 Table 4.3 represents the distribution of EEO Officers by Age. A fairly even distribution of EEO Officers is seen in Education where the largest number, 18 percent, fell between the ages of 41 — 45. In Industry, a heavier emphasis was placed in the middle and latter part of the age group however, unlike Education, the largest number, 27 percent, fell between the ages of 36 — 40. 72 Table 4.4 Distribution of EEO Officers by Sex Sex Education Industry Number Percent Number Male 35 78 42 Female 10 22 7 Total 45 100 49 A distribution of EEO Officers by sex as indicated in Table 4.4 demonstrates a strong emphasis on males with a 78 percent prepresentation in Education and an even larger number in Industry with an 86 percent representation. 73 Table 4.5 Distribution of EEO Officers by Ethnic Background Ethnic Background Education Industry Number Percent Number Percent Afro-American 6 13 2 4 Caucasian 36 80 47 96 American Indian 0 0 0 0 Oriental 1 2 0 0 Spanish American 2 5 0 0 Total 45 100 49 100 Table 4.5 represents the extent to which the EEO position is held by whites. Eighty percent of the EEO Officers in Education are white, while an overwhelming ninety-six percent held this position in Industry. 74 Table 4.6 Distribution of EEO Officers by Experience Years of Experience Education Industry Number Percent Number Percent 0 — 3 24 53 12 24 4 or More 21 47 37 76 Total 45 100 49 100 In Table 4.6, EEO Officers in Industry appear to hold this position for a long period of time, 76 percent for four or more years; while in Education, only 47 percent occupied this position for more than four years. 75 Table 4.7 Distribution of EEO Officers by Levels of Management Level of Management Education Industry Number Percent Num ber Percent Upper 30 67 33 67 Lower 1 5 33 16 33 Total 45 100 49 100 By level of management, the term ”Upper,” represents those EEO Officers who report directly to the chief executive officer (CEO), i.e., president, and ”Lower,” represents those EEO Officers who report to a level of management other than the CEO. Table 4.7 exhibits an even distribution by this grouping with two-thirds or 67 percent of all EEO Officers in both Education and Industry reporting directly to the CEO. 76 Table 4.8 Distribution of EEO Officers by Size of Facility Size Education Industry Employes Number Percent Number Percent 50— 100 10 22 3 6 101— 200 17 38 10 20 201— 500 15 34 13 27 501-1000 1 2 12 25 1001—5000 2 4 8 16 5001— 0 0 3 6 Total 45 100 49 100 By size of facility, Table 4.8 shows that 92 percent of the sampled Educational facilities employed 500 or fewer employes while in the Industrial facilities 53 percent employed 500 or fewer. 77 Testing of Research Hypotheses By Multivariate Analysis of Variance In this section, the reasearch hypothesis is presented for each of the seven categories, followed by the Multivariate Analysis of Variance Test for each category. Where there is a significant difference found, a table for the Sum of Means is presented, followed by the Univariate Test for the items within the category. Research Hypotheses for Category A — Intake Hypothesis 1: There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers for the category ”Intake” for colleges and universities and in the Industrial setting based on institutional type. Hypothesis 2: There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers for the category ”Intake” for colleges and universities and in the Industrial setting based on levels of management to which the EEO Officer reports. Hypothesis 3: There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers for the category ”Intake” for colleges and universities and in the industrial setting based on years of experience in the EEO position. Hypothesis 4: There will be no interaction effects between EEO Officers for the category ”Intake” based on institutional type, levels of management, and years of experience on the job. 78 Table 4.9 Multivariate Analysis of Variance Category A — Intake Source F P Institution (I) 2.744 .07 Management (M) 1.692 .19 Experience (E) .622 .54 I * M .388 .68 l * E 2.065 .13 M * E .080 .92 I * M * E .130 .88 Category A — Intake, explores the type of job elements that would involve bringing new employes into the work force who because of past employment practices were excluded. An analysis of the category shows that there was no significant difference in the perception of EEO Officers for Category A — Intake based on institutional type, levels of management, years of experience, and there was also no interaction effect. The research, ** Significance at .05 therefore, supports the null hypotheses. 79 Research Hypotheses for Category B — Internal Structure Hypothesis 1: There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers for the category ”Internal Structure” for colleges and universities and in the Industrial setting based on institutional type. Hypothesis 2: There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers for the category "Internal Structure” for colleges and universities and in the Industrial setting based on levels of management to which the EEO Officer reports. Hypothesis 3: There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers for the category ”Internal Structure” for colleges and universities and in the industrial setting based on years of experience in the EEO position. Hypothesis 4: There will be no interaction effects between EEO Officers for the category ”Internal Structure” based on institutional type, levels of management, and years of experience on the job. 80 Table 4.10 Multivariate Analysis of Variance Category B — Internal Structure Source F P Institution (I) 4.365 .01 ** Management (M) .767 .52 Experience (E) .696 .56 l * M .119 .95 l * E .490 .69 M * E .393 .76 l * M * E .367 .78 ** Significance at .05 Category B — Internal Structure, pertains to the internal structure of the organization that indicates to the facility the progress or lack of progress it is making. An analysis of this category shows that there was a statistically significant difference in the perception of EEO Officers for Category B — Internal Structure based on Institution. In Table 4.11 the Sum of Means is presented to determine which EEO Officer perceived Internal Structure to be more crucial to their facilities affirmative action program. 81 Table 4.11 Sum of Means Category B — Internal Structure Education Industry 1.984 1.875 An inspection of the Sum of Means for this category indicates that EEO Officers in the Industrial setting perceived Internal Structure to have more of a crucial impact on the progress or success of their facilities affirmative action program than EEO Officers in Education Table 4.12 represents the Univariate Test to determine which item in Category B was significant. 82 Table 4.12 Univariate Test Category B — Internal Structure Variable Univariate F P Item — 2 .917 .34 Item — 3 .466 .50 Item — 5 6.625 .01 ** Item - 6 .245 .88 Item — 19 .000 .99 Item — 30 1.604 .21 ** Significance at .05 An examination of the Univariate Test for each item in Category 8 indicates that Item — 5 is significant at P .01. Item — 5 reads, ”Perform monthly or quarterly analysis of minority and female goal attainment.” Table 4.13, indicates which EEO Officers perceive Item - 5 to be more crucial to their facilities affirmative action program. Table 4.13 Sum of Means Item 5 — Internal Structure Education Industry 3.000 2.306 An inspection of the Sum of Means for Item — 5 indicates that EEO Officers in the Industrial setting perceive Item — 5 to have a more crucial impact on the progress or success of their facilities affirmative action program than EEO Officers in Education. Research Hypotheses for Category C — Policy Making Hypothesis 1: There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers for the category ”Policy Making" for colleges and universities and in the Industrial setting based on institutional type. Hypothesis 2: There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers for the category "Policy Making” for colleges and universities and in the Industrial setting based on levels of management to which the EEO Officer reports. Hypothesis 3: There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers for the category ”Policy Making" for colleges and universities and in the industrial setting based on years of experience in the EEO position. Hypothesis 4: There will be no interaction effects between EEO Officers for the category "Policy Making” based on institutional type, levels of management, and years of experience on the job. 85 Table 4.14 Multivariate Analysis of Variance Category C — Policy Making Source F P Institution (I) .597 .55 Management (M) .323 .73 Experience (E) .243 .79 I * M .211 .81 l * E .499 .61 M * E .109 .90 I * M * E .674 .51 Category C — Policy Making, is concerned with targets or objectives the facility ** Significance at .05 establishes and the overall guidelines to be used. There was no significant difference in the perception of EEO Officers for Category C — Policy Making, based on institutional type, levels of management, years of experience, and there was also no interaction effect. The research, therefore, supports the null hypotheses. 86 Research Hypotheses for Category D — Program Development Hypothesis 1: There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers for the category "Program Development” for colleges and universities and in the Industrial setting based on institutional type. Hypothesis 2: There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers for the category ”Program Development” for colleges and universities and in the Industrial setting based on levels of management to which the EEO Officer reports. Hypothesis 3: There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers for the category "Program Development” for colleges and universities and in the industrial setting based on years of experience in the EEO position. Hypothesis 4: There will be no interaction effects between EEO Officers for the category "Program Development” based on institutional type, levels of management, and years of experience on the job. 87 Table 4.15 Multivariate Analysis of Variance Category D — Program Development Source F P Institution (I) 1.131 .33 Management (M) .377 .69 Experience (E) 1.44 .24 l * M .031 .99 I * E .534 .59 M * E .111 .90 I * M * E .290 .75 ** Significance at .05 Category D — Program Development, focuses on the plan to be followed to report and implement programs to change and alter employe relationships. There was no significant difference in the perception of EEO Officers for Category D — Program Development based on institutional type, levels of management, years of experience, and there were also no interaction affects. The research, therefore, supports the null hypotheses. 88 Research Hypotheses for Category E — Public Relations Hypothesis 1: There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers for the category "Public Relations” for colleges and universities and in the Industrial setting based on institutional type. Hypothesis 2: There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers for the category ”Public Relations” for colleges and universities and in the Industrial setting based on levels of management to which the EEO Officer reports. Hypothesis 3: There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers for the category "Public Relations” for colleges and universities and in the industrial setting based on years of experience in the EEO position. Hypothesis 4: There will be no interaction effects between EEO Officers for the category "Public Relations” based on institutional type, levels of management, and years of experience on the job. 89 Table 4.16 Multivariate Analysis of Variance Category E — Public Relations Source F P Institution (I) 1.053 .41 Management (M) .784 .62 Experience (E) .436 .90 l * M .791 .61 l * E .601 .77 M * E .746 .65 I * M * E .553 .81 Category E — Public Relations, consisted of items that promote good will among employes, the general public, ethnic groups, potential employes, and community organizations. There was no significant difference in the perception of EEO Officers for Category E — Public Relations based on institutional type, levels of management, years of experience, and there was no interaction affects. The research, therefore, supports the null hypotheses. ” Significance at .05 90 Research Hypotheses for Category F — lnservice Training Hypothesis 1: There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers for the category ”lnservice Training” for colleges and universities and in the Industrial setting based on institutional type. Hypothesis 2: There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers for the category "lnservice Training” for colleges and universities and in the Industrial setting based on levels of management to which the EEO Officer reports. Hypothesis 3: There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers for the category ”lnservice Training” for colleges and universities and in the industrial setting based on years of experience in the EEO position. Hypothesis 4: There will be no interaction effects between EEO Officers for the category ”lnservice Training” based on institutional type, levels of management, and years of experience on the job. 91 Table 4.17 Multivariate Analysis of Variance Category F — lnservice Training Source F P Institution (I) .856 .55 Management (M) .203 .95 Experience (E) .503 .83 I * M 1.215 .30 I * E 2.218 .04 ** M * E .730 .65 l * M * E .998 .44 ** Significance at .05 Category F — lnservice Training focused on items that probed the use of existing mechanisms to further enhance the opportunities for minorities and women. An examination of this category shows that there was a statistically significant difference in the perception of EEO Officers for Category F — lnservice Training, based on the interaction of Institution (I) and Experience (E). In Table 4.18, the Sum of Means was presented to determine which EEO Officers perceive lnservice Training to be more crucial to their facilities affirmative action program. 92 Table 4.18 Sum of Means Category F — lnservice Training Years Education Industry 0 — 3 2.6 1.9 4 or More 1.5 2.6 An inspection of the Sum of Means for this category indicates that EEO Officers in the Industrial setting with 0 — 3 years of experience in the job perceived lnservice Training to have a more crucial impact on the progress or success of their facilities affirmative action program than EEO Officers in Education with 0 — 3 years of experience. EEO Officers in Education with four or more years of experience on the job perceived lnservice Training to have a more crucial impact on the progress or success of their facilities affirmative action program than EEO Officers in the Industrial work setting with four or more years of experience. EEO Officers in Education with four or more years of experience on the job perceived lnservice Training to have a more crucial impact on the progress or success of their facilities affirmative action program than EEO Officers in Education with 0 — 3 years of experience on the job. 93 EEO Officers in Industry with four or more years of experience on the job perceive lnservice Training to have more of a crucial irmact on the progress or success of their facilities affirmative action program than EEO Officers in Industry with 0 — 3 years of experience on the job. The Newman-Keuls Test, a post-test to differentiate between significant levels of means was incorporated to determine where the significant mean lies. The test indicated that EEO Officers with four or more years of experience in Education (1.5) was the significant subgroup. Table 4.19 represents the Univariate Test that determines which item in Category F was significant. 94 Table 4.19 Univariate Test Category F — lnservice Training Variable Univariate F P Item — 8 .264 .61 Item — 16 .072 .79 Item — 18 .813 .37 Item — 21 .021 .23 Item—27 11.154 .01 ** Item — 28 1.512 .22 An examination of the Univariate Test for each item in Category F indicates that Item 27 was significant at P .01. Item 27 reads, "Make supervisors and department heads aware of their responsibility to take action where necessary to prevent harrassment of ** Significance at .05 employes placed through affirmative action efforts.” Table 4.20 indicates which EEO Officers perceive Item 27 to be more crucial to their facilities affirmative action program. 95 Table 4.20 Sum of Means Category F — lnservice Training Years Education Industry 0 — 3 2.567 1.533 4 or More 1.939 2.625 An inspection of the Sum of Means for Item 27 indicates that EEO Officers in the Industrial setting with 0 — 3 years of experience in the job perceived Item 27 to have a more crucial impact on the progress or success of their facilities affirmative action program than EEO Officers in Education with 0 — 3 years of experience. EEO Officers in Education with four or more years of experience on the job perceived Item 27 to have a more crucial impact on the progress or success of their facilities affirmative action program than EEO Officers in the Industrial work setting with four or more years of experience. EEO Officers in Education with four or more years of experience on the job perceived Item 27 to have a more crucial impact on the progress or success of their facilities affirmative action program than EEO Officers in Education with 0 -— 3 years of experience on the job. a. If... . u final: 62:61)) , 96 EEO Officers in Industry with four or more years of experience on the job perceive Item 27 to have more of a crucial impact on the progress or success of their facilities affirmative action program than EEO Officers in Industry with 0 — 3 years of experience on the job. The Newman-Keuls Test, was also incorporated here to determine where the significant mean lies. The test indicated that Item 27 was Significant in the case of EEO Officers with four or more years if Education. 97 Research Hypotheses for Category G — Maintenance Hypothesis 1: There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers for the category ”Maintenance” for colleges and universities and in the Industrial setting based on institutional type. Hypothesis 2: There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers for the category "Maintenance” for colleges and universities and in the Industrial setting based on levels of management to which the EEO Officer reports. Hypothesis 3: There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers for the category ”Maintenance” for colleges and universities and in the industrial setting based on years of experience 'n the EEO position. Hypothesis 4: There will be no interaction effects between EEO Officers for the category ”Maintenance” based on institutional type, levels of management, and years of experience on the job. 98 Table 4.21 Multivariate Analysis of Variance Category G — Maintenance Source F P Institution (I) .973 .45 Management (M) .337 .92 ExperiencelE) 2.207 .05 ** l * M .387 .89 l * E .664 .67 M * E 1.000 .43 l * M * E 1.773 .12 ** Significance at .05 level Category G — Maintenance, focuses on the upkeep or support elements to assure the success of employes already in the workforce. An examination of the Multivariate Analysis of Variance Test for this category showed that there was a statistically significant difference in the perception of EEO Officers for Category G — Maintenance based on Experience. In Table 4.22, the Sum of Means was presented to determine which EEO Officers perceive Maintenance to be more crucial to their facilities affirmative action program. 99 Table 4.22 Sum of Means Category G — Maintenance 0 — 3 Years 4 or More Years 1.482 1.263 An inspection of the Sum of Means for this category indicates that EEO Officers with four or more years of experience perceived Maintenance to have a more crucial impact on the progress or success of their facilities affirmative action program than EEO Officers with 0 — 3 years of experience. Table 4.23 represents the Univariate Test to determine which item in Category G was Significant. 100 Table 4.23 Univariate Test Category G - Maintenance Variable Univariate F P Item —- 15 3.380 .05 ** Item — 20 .444 .51 Item — 22 .818 .37 Item — 25 .789 .37 Item — 26 .294 .59 An examination of the Univariate Test for each item in Category G indicates that Item 15 was Significant at P .05. Item 15 reads, ”Review your facilities personnel practices to assure that the practices comply with the Sex Discrimination Guidelines set forth in the ** Significance at .05 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 6020." Table 4.23 indicates which EEO Officers perceive Item 15 to be more crucial to their facilities affirmative action program. 101 Table 4.24 Sum of Means Item 15 — Maintenance 0 — 3 Years 4 or More Years 1.683 2.355 An inspection of the Sum of Means for Item 15 indicates that EEO Officers with 0 — 3 years of experience on the job perceived Item 15 to have a more crucial impact on the progress or success of their facilities affirmative action program than EEO Officers with four or more years of experience. 102 Summary In this chapter, a report of the demographic characteristics of the EEO Officers and an analysis of the data from the Multivariate Analysis of Variance Test was presented. Demographic data was presented on the various titles held by EEO Officers, a comparison by job discription, a distribution by age, sex, ethnic background, experience, levels of management, and size of facility. The questionnaire was designed to collect and analyze Significant elements and behavior of the EEO Officer's job which have a crucial impact on the progress or success of their facilities affirmative action program. The perceptions of the EEO Officers were presented on the following seven categories: Intake, Internal Structure, Policy Making, Program Development, Public Relations, Inserv'ice Training, and Maintenance. The categories were analyzed on the basis of institution, levels of management, years of experience on the job, and for any interaction effect. The research hypotheses were presented before each category was tested. In Chapter V, the conclusion and discussion of these findings are presented. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In this chapter, the problem and method used in the investigation are summarized. Important findings of the study are presented and discussed in further detail. Finally, implications for further research are d iscussed. Problem The problem explored in this investigation was to discover what Equal Employment Opportunity Officers perceive to be the significant elements and behaviors of their job which have a crucial impact of the progress or success of their facility’s affirmative action program. An attempt was made to identify the various dimensions or behavior of the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer in a selected sampling of postsecondary educational institutions and industrial work facilities. If an affirmative action program is effectively accomplishing what it has been structured to do, the EEO Officer should be able to identify and perceive those key elements that lead to the progress or success in the program. Methodology A self-administered questionnaire was developed with a five point rating scale ranging from always necessary to not necessary. Sources for item content in the survey instrument were personal experience, review of literature, and professional colleagues in the field of EEO. The final questionnaire, after pretesting and revision, consisted of 30 items. The items were divided into the following seven categories for the purpose of analysis: Intake, Internal Structure, Policy Making, Program Development, Public Relations, lnservice Training, and Maintenance. 103 104 The sampling used in this study was limited to 89 postsecondary educational institutions as listed in the 1974-1975 Educational Directory for the State of Michigan and a random sample of 100 industrial facilities listed in a publication entitled, 30,000 Leading U.S. Corporations for the State of Michigan. The items were analyzed on the basis of institution, levels of management, years of experience on the job and for any interaction effect. Comparison of responses using the Multivarate Analysis of the Variance Test was used to determine the significant difference in perception of EEO Officers from the two types of facilities. The level at which the response of EEO Officers to any category was said to be significant because of factors other than chance was the .05 level of Significance. If a significant difference was found, a table for the Sum of Means was used to determine which source in the category was significant. This was followed by a Univariate Test for the items in the category. In the case of an interaction effect, the Newman-Kuels Test was used to determine where the significance lies. Summary of Demographic Findings Although there were only two types of organizations sampled, the diversity of titles reflected in the responses demonstrate the wide variety of administrators and managers who are responsible for the EEO function. Of the 45 educational facilities that responded 30 different titles were represented. Of the 49 responses from the industrial facilities, 36 different titles were given. Job descriptions are almost universally accepted as necessary elements of effective management. Although job description can be general or vague, they can provide direction for the employe. Eight-two percent of the EEO Officers in education reported they had job descriptions while only fifty-five percent in industry reported having one. This would give indication of the educational facilities attempting to define managerial roles. 105 A fairly even distribution of EEO Officers based on age was found in the educational facilities. The largest number, eighteen percent, was found between the ages of 41-45. In the industrial facilities, a heavier emphasis was placed in the middle and latter part of the age range. The largest number in this type of facility, twenty-seven percent, was located between 36-40. The findings with regard to distribution by sex, showed that seventy-eight percent of the EEO Officers in education were male. An even larger percentage was reported in industry which reported a finding of eighty-Six percent male. Middle and upper level management are target areas for affirmative action. The above statistics exemplify the historical imbalance in the workforce that women are attempting to penetrate. Although one of the main purposes of affirmative action is to assist minorities and women both in and out of the workforce, the distribution of EEO Officers by ethnic back- ground showed that the overwhelming majority of the EEO Officers were caucasian. In the education facilities, thirteen percent were Afro-American, eighty percent were Caucasian, two percent were Orientals, five percent were Spanish-American, and there were no American-Indians. In the industrial facilities, four percent were Afro-American, ninety-six percent were Caucasian, there were no Spanish-Americans, and American-Indians and no Orientals reported. The distribution of EEO Officers by level of management reflected a remarkable similarity between the two types of facilities. Sixty-seven percent of the EEO Officers in education reported to the chief executive officer (CEO) and thirty-three percent reported to a level of management other than the CEO. Likewise sixty-seven percent of EEO Officers in industry reported to the CEO and thirty-three percent of those responding reported to someone other than CEO. Finally, by Size of facility, ninety-four percent of the EEO Officers in education represented facilities with a workforce between 50 and 500. In the industrial facilities seventy-three percent of the EEO Officers represented facilities with a workforce between 101 and 1,000. 106 Summary of the Principal Findings The items in the questionnarie were developed to test the following four hypotheses for the seven categories relevant to the EEO Officers perception of the significant elements and behaviors of their job which have a significant impact on the progress or success of their facility’s affirmative action program. Hypothesis 1: There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers for colleges and universities and in the industrial setting based on institutional type. Hypothesis 2: There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers for colleges and universities and in the industrial setting based on levels of management to which EEO Officers report. Hypothesis 3: There will be no difference in the perception of EEO Officers for colleges and universities and in the industrial setting based on years of experience in the EEO position. Hypothesis 4: There will be no interaction effect between EEO Officers based on institutional type, levels of management, and years of experience on the job. Results of the statistical analysis for each of the seven categories did not support the null hypotheses for the following: Category B — Internal Structure based on institution, Category F— lnservice Training based on the interaction effect of institution and experience. Category G — Maintenance based on experience. 107 Category B — Internal Structure consisted of the following items. Item 2 — Develop internal and external communication techniques. Item 3 — Assist in the identificationand solution of underutilization of females and minorities. Item 5 — Perform monthly or quarterly analysis of minority and female goals and attainment. Item 6 — Implement and monitor your facilities internal audit and reporting system. Item 19 — Prepare periodic reports on Equal Employment Opportunity statistics and affirmative action undertaken for the chief executive at your facility. Item 30 — Review of employment and related pre-employement forms to assure compliance with federal legislation. For this category, it was found that EEO Officers in the industrial setting perceive Internal Structure to have a more crucial impact on the success of their facility’s affirmative action program than EEO Officers in educational facilities. It was also found that the EEO Officers in the industrial setting felt that performing monthly or quarterly analysis of minority and female goal-attainment was significantly more crucial than the EEO Officers in educational facilities. 108 Cateogry F — lnservice Training consisted of the following items. Item 8 — Meet with staff heads to discuss problems and solutions regarding accomplishing yourfacility’s affirmative action program. Item 16 — Provide career counseling to minorities and females. Item 18 — Assist line supervision or department heads in arriving at solutions to problems regarding the implementation of the affirmative action program. Item 21 — Keep managers and administrators at your facility informed of the latest developments in the entire equal opportunity area. Item 27 — Make supervisors and department heads aware of their respon- sibility to take action where necessary to prevent harrassment of employes placed through affirmative action efforts. Item 28 — Assist in creating an understanding with members of supervision and department heads that their work performance is evaluated on the basis of their equal employement opportunity efforts and results as well as other criteria. It was found in this category that, (1) EEO Officers in the industrial setting with zero to three years of experience in the job perceive lnservice Training to have more of a crucial impact on the success of their facility’s affirmative action program than EEO Officers in education with zero to three years of experience. (2) EEO Officers in education with four or more years of experience on the job perceive lnservice Training to have more of a crucial impact on the success of their facility’s affirmative action program than EEO Officers in the industrial work setting with four or more years of experience. (3) EEO Officers in education with four or more years of experience on the job perceive lnservice Training to 109 have more of a crucial impact on the success of their facility’s affirmative action program than EEO Officers in education with zero to three years of experience on the job. (4) EEO Officers in industry with four or more years of experience on the job perceive lnservice Training to have more of a crucial impact on the success of their facilities affirmative action program than EEO Officers in industry with zero to three years of experience on one job. Within the category, it was found that, (5) Item 27, "Making supervisors and department heads aware of their responsibility to take action where necessary to prevent harrassment of employes placed through AAP efforts” was crucial to the EEO Officers to the same degree as the category lnservice Training was to the EEO Officers. The post-test indicated that Item 27 was significant with EEO Officers with four or more years of experience in education. Category G — Maintenance consisted of the following items. Item 15 — Review your facilities personnel practices to assure that the practices comply with the Sex Discrimination Guidelines set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Paragraph 6020. Item 20 — Assist in the investigation and resolution of complaints regarding alleged discrimination. Item 22 — Review of qualifications of minorities and females to ensure they are given full opportunities for promotions and transfers. Item 25 — Make periodic audits of training programs, hiring, and promotion patterns to remove any impediments to the attainments of goals and objectives. 110 Item 26— Assist in making periodic checks to insure that comparable facilities, training programs, recreational and social activities are made available to minorities and members of both sexes. For this category based on experience, it was found that EEO Officers with four or more years of experience perceived the category, Maintenance, to have a more crucial impact on the success of their facility’s affirmative action program than EEO Officers with zero to three years of experience. It was also found that EEO Officers with zero to three years perceived Item 15 as significantly more crucial than EEO Officers with four or more years of experience. In the following categories, the Null Hypothesis was supported. That is, no significant difference was found between the perception of EEO Officers based on institution, level of management, and experience. Cateogry A — Intake Item 10 — Review all applications and other related materials to determine whether a qualified minority or female is available. Item 13 — Assist in recruitment of minority and female college graduates. Category C — Policy Making Item 1 — Assist in the establishment of your facilities Equal Employment Opportunity policy and preparation of the affirmative action program. Item 4 — Assist in the establishment of minority and female goals. 111 Category D — Program Development Item 7— Assist in the development of a minority and female skills inventory. Item 14 — Encourage minorities and females to participate in tuition refund plans, open staffing programs, recreational and social activities, etc. Item 17— Assist in the development of training programs to change attitudes and behavior relative to Equal Employment Opportunity. Category E — Public Relations Item 9 — Serve as a liaison between your facility and minority and female community organizations concerned with employment opportunities of minorities and females. Item 11 — Serve as a liaison between your facility and government enforce- ment agencies during a compliance review. ltem12— Insure that all appropriate governmental posters are properly displayed. Item 23— Serve as a liaison between your facility and minorities and females in the workforce. Item 24 - Coordinate your facility’smanpower and/or monetary support to local and national community oriented programs designed to improve the employment opportunities of minorities and females. 112 Conclusions and Discussion In view of the principal findings of this study with respect to the EEO Officer in the two types of organizations under investigation, several conclusions have been drawn. These conclusions center around elements of an EEO Officers job performance and the pro- cedures and methods used to get the job accomplished. 1. With a few exceptions, EEO Officers in education and industry are using the same approach in implementing their organization's affirmative action program. In response to the seven-category framework of accessing the EEO Officer’s technique and approach to the position, it can be concluded that similar approaches are being used. The study attempted to determine the differences in the approaches of EEO Officers in education and EEO Officers in industry. However, based on the response to the questionaaire, there was more evidence to conclude that approaches are the same. The EEO Officer’s position historically is new in both higher education and industry. Many EEO Officers in both these organizations believe they are facing the same problem even though their organizations differ. The evidence found in this study that similar approaches are being used supports this thinking. 2. The more experience the EEO Officer has in educational facilities, the more valuable they perceive the training function in making the affirmative action program successful. By its very nature, one of the main goals in education is to maximize human effectiveness through facilitating human growth and development. It is therefore not surprising that the EEO Officers in an educational environment find the lnservice Training category to be significant in the overall approach to affirmative action. The experienced EEO Officers in educational institutions seem to have recognized that the educational process in a changing society can assist the organization to adapt more effectively in meeting its objectives and utilizing its human resources. 113 3. The more experience the EEO Officers have on the job, the more concerned they are about employes already in the workforce. Built into this analysis is the idea that the experienced EEO Officer will emphasize building the program around experienced workers. They will examine minorities and women within the workforce to ensure that they are given full opportunities for promotions and transfers within depart- ments. They will make periodic checks, audit training programs, and examine the promotion patterns to remove any of the impediments that would prevent the attainment of the organization ’5 goals and objectives. 4. From an industrial perspective, the internal structure of an organization in regard to affirmative action is a key in accomplishing the organizations’ goals. From the extent to which the EEO Officers responded to the category Internal Structure, it would be fair to conclude that the effectiveness of persuing or attaining a goal or output can depend Significantly on the way in which the organization is internally structured to reach its objective. Industry has a more recognizable or well-defined output, i.e., product being manufactured — car, television sets, furniture, or service rendered. Therefore each part of the Structure can have Significance, given the specified output. EEO Officers in the educational institutions however, did not view this as being significant. This may be due to the way institutions of higher education can be characterized based on different educational philosophies. For example, educational facilities can be progressivist or experimentalist. These schools tend to be more student centered. Thus the education of the Student is planned by making him the focus in building his program according to his needs, plans and hopes.1 The reconstructionist or dualist emphasis more society centered. As the needs of society change, so will the curriculum change.2 The realist or essentialist school would tend 1W. Johnson, ”Contemporary Philosophies of Higher Education in Colleges and Universities and Student Personnel,” (mimeographed material from researcher’s chairman). 2loid. 114 to emphasize the fields of knowledge. They tend to leave to the scholars, the professors, the researchers, the field itself, the determination of what is good, what should be passed along, and what should be modified.3 Under the Idealist or Perennialist philosophy there is the assumption that the great truths already exist. Here, education is a matter of learning these truths and learning how to adapt them to a changing society and changing needs.4 It would be inaccurate to sterotype educational institutions by placing them categorically under any given philosophy.5 However, to the extent that the final output of educational facilities are nebulous, EEO Officers in educational facilities did not view the category, Internal Structure, as being significant. 5. EEO Officers in both education and industry are of similar demographic background with respect to sex and race. The overwhelming majority of individuals who occupy these positions and responded to the study were cau- casian males. In the required contents of an affirmative action program, it was suggested that the person be sensitive to the needs of minority and women and be a member of the affected group. This would suggest that many of the individuals occupying this position would be female or members of some minority group. The study did not find this to be the case. This would give some indication that there are too few minorities and women in these organizations at levels that would qualify them to be EEO Officers or then, it is felt that white males can adequately represent the interest of minorities and women in their quest for equal opportunity. 3Ibid. 4lbid. 5W. Johnson, ”Student Personnel Work in Higher Education Philosophy and Frame Work," College Student Personnel, ed. by L. Fitzgerald, W. Johnson, W. Norris, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company), p. 8. 115 Implications for Student Personnel Because of the writers’ interest and background in student personnel, it was felt that this study has relevance and implications for student personnel administrators. Studies have shown that the field of student personnel has changed and is continuing to change. The changes have been determined largely by changing societal demands on institutions and by expressions of new and diverse student need and interest.6 In 1972, two significant papers were published by the Division of Professional Development and Standards of the National Association of Student Personnel Administration (NASPA). Approved by the Executive Committee in May of 1972, the publication entitled, "Desirable Hiring Practice for Minority Group Members in Student Personnel Work,” attempted to urge all NASPA member institutions to commit themselves more fully to affirmative action action programs, and to establish goals and priorities that will result in the employment of minority group professionals. In this publication, the following guide- lines were encouraged:7 1. Committment to an action program that develops and encourages the creation of a truly heterogeneous academic faculty and professional staff. 2. Adoption of the principle of opening all positions to minority applicants rather than assigning minority staff to serve only the needs of minority group members. 6National Association of Student Personnel Administration, "Desirable Hiring Practice for Minority Group Members In Student Personnel Work," (Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, 1972). 7National Association of Student Personnel Administration, Educational and Social Needs of Minority Students,” (Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, October, 1972). 116 3. Implementation of full participation in establishing all policies, procedures, and regulations designed for the entire academic community, especially since these equally affect minority group students. 4. Provision by the chief Student personnel administrator for open com- munication avenues for minority staff consonant with those for all staff. 5. Accrual of staff benefits such as promotions, sabbaticals, leaves of absence, and salary increments to all Staff members whether minority or non-minority. 6. Membership in professional associations should be encouraged for all staff without qualification. 7. Establishment and promotion of a campus atmosphere conducive to optimal professional and educational growth of all staff members. This attempt, although in the right direction, was vague and weak. Although targeted for minorities, it was too general to be effective. In an effort to strengthen this, the Division of Professional Development and Standards published another paper entitled, ”Educational and Social Needs of Minority Students,” in October of 1972. This paper addressed itself to the compelling. need for higher education to be in the vanguard of needed social Shifts, and to respond more effectively to changing educational needs, rather than perpetuating outmoded patterns. Taking an even tougher stand, the paper recommended than NASPA institutions take the following steps: 8 8Minority Enrollment and Representation in Institutions of Higher Education, A Report to the Ford Foundation, (New York: 1974). p. 172. Institute for the Study of Educational Policy, Equal Educational Opportunity for Blacks in U. S. Higher Education: An Assessment, (Washington D. C.: Howard University Press, 1976), p. 70. 117 Initiate programs and strategies to encourage minority students to pursue the challenges and demands of higher education. Academic advisement, personal counseling, career guidance, study skills, tutorial assistance, and positive attitudes toward learning are suggestive of such programs. Institute greater flexibility in time demands for meeting degree require- ments, so that minority students as well as all others may adjust their pace of development, if necessary, to the academic expectations and demands of the institution. Accord real attention to the culture and heritage of minorities, as this relates to each group and interfaces with other members within the larger academic community. Special attention through effective programs of social and cultural activities, designed and planned with full involvement of each group, should strengthen each participant’s sense of identity. Establish programs to address the particular educational and social needs of minorities, and to include support for essential personal and appropriate social needs, where this is clearly indicated as well as financial assistance to meet the necessary fees and tuition costs. Establish procedures to assess academic areas in which minority Students need assistance. Present evaluative techniques, such as standardized tests, are often not designed to take into account the uniqueness of many minority students and should be used primarily for diagnostic purposes. 118 6. Establish an awareness program to acquaint other members of the college/university community with the special needs and problems of minority group members. Although the initial opportunity may already have been lost, an appropriate major task of student affairs is to more clearly, reflect and interpret these needs so as to lead to greater under- standing by the larger institutional community. 7. Enable minority students to be involved equally with other members of the college or university community in campus decision making. Special emphasis Should be toward direct involvement in all decisions that uniquely affect their welfare and interest. 8. Develop sensitivity toward problems that develop when minorities are introduced into a previously segregated society. A basic effort of Student affairs programming Should be to ascertain ways to meet the diverse life styles of increasing numbers of students with differing educational back- grounds and expectations. 9. Recruit and train qualified minority and third-world faculty and staff, as well as improve the utilization of those who can be most effective in implementing newly emerging educational patterns and opportunities. 119 Five years later, there is evidence 9 to indicate that even after a stronger and more defined approach, the efforts have fallen short. Clearly, without an available supply of trained minority and women students successfully matriculating in undergraduate and professional education, our present supply of minority faculty, staff, administrators businessmen and managers, will be depleted and the under-representation of minority researchers will be further aacerbated. Educational institutions by their nature are the principal suppliers of skilled personnel for government, business, the science, engineering, and for the technical occupations. Therefore, programs must be developed that would have a greater capacity for expanding in order to meet the needs demanded by the nation and in particular the industrial needs for minorities and women in administrative and executive positions. One way this can be accomplished is to develop an effective partnership between the educational institution’s EEO Officer, the chief Student personnel administrators, and the provost. It was shown in this study that a Significant difference existed between EEO Officers in the category, Internal Structure. This category consisted of such items as: 1. The development of internal and external communication techniques. 2. Assisting in the identification and solution of underutilization of females and minorities. 90. Yeakey and G. Styles, ”The Use of Affirmative Action As A Tool With Government Agencies To Increase Minority Participation In Educational Research and Development,” (Paper presented at the Second Annual Workshop on Educational Research and Minority Concerns," Sponsored by the American Educational and Research Association and the National Institute of Education on April 4, 1977). 120 3. The performing of monthly and quarterly analysis of minority and female goal attainment. 4. Implementing and monitoring the facilities internal audit and reporting system. 5. Periodically reporting on Equal Employment Opportunity statistics and affirmative action undertaken to the president. If the EEO Officer along with the chief student personnel administrator and provost jointly carried out these items on a regular basis, significantly more progress might have been made. Therefore, it is important at this point for the EEO Officer, the chief student personnel administrator, and the provost or chief academic administrator to be held accountable in terms of their performance on EEO issues. This is also true for industrial facilities. General managers, personnel directors and staff heads must be held accountable for each new hire, promotion transfer or for individuals selected for training in order to be certain that no qualified minorities or women are overlooked. Other issues that will call for an accounting are: 1. The use of resources in relationship to the achievement of specific objectives, i.e., money spent, manpower allocated. 2. Demonstration that the resources available are efficiently used in a way to achieve maximum productivity. 3. Evidence that the institutional objectives selected reflect the needs of minority and women. 121 Recommendations for Future Study This study has demonstrated that EEO Officers in both education and industry are Similar in their views concerning the elements or behavior one must undertake to success- fully carry out an affirmative action program. The study was however limited to EEO Officers in the State of Michigan. The following are being recommended for future study: 1. An investigation should be undertaken with EEO Officers in educational institutions and industrial facilities in other sections of the country using a similar instrument with the same objectives. 2. If a significant number exists, a study should be undertaken that would determine if the sex or ethnic background of the EEO Officer affects the achievements of affirmative action programs. 3. Does the effect of having handicapped and veterans included in the facilities affirmative action program affect the EEO Officer’s overall approach to affirmative action? 4. An analysis of the perception of the EEO Officer’s role in a student personnel program by the chief student personnel administrator on campus and what influence and authority he or she should have. 5. Because the EEO laws are constantly changing, and new approaches are being suggested, an effort should be made to refine the items and categories. A study should be undertaken with EEO Officers in each type of organization. This would allow for an examination of the position separately and would be more beneficial to EEO Officers who share similar experiences because of their environment. BIBLIOGRAPHY 122 123 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books A Digest of Reports of the Carnegie Commission on Higher Edication. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1974. Babbie, E. R., Survey Research Methods. Belmont California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1973. Basil, Douglas 0., Women In Management. New York: Dunellen Publishing Company, 1972. Black Americans: A Chartbook; U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statisics Bulletin 1969, 1971. Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education. Making Affirmative Action Work in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publication, 1975:. Congress and The Nation; Washington D. C.: Vol. III, 1969-1972. Congressional Quarterly Services, Inc. Congressional Quarterly. Washington D. C.: Vol. XXIX, 1973. Congressional Quarterly Services, Inc. Englehart, Max 0., Methods of Educational Research. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1972. Etzioni, Amitai, Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964. Glacer, Nathan, Affirmative Discrimination. New York: Basic Books, 1975. Green, Robert L., ed. Racial Crisis in American Education. Chicago: Follett Educational Corporation, 1969. Havelock, Ronald G., The Change Agents Guide to Innovation In Education. Englewood Cliffs: Educational Technology Publications, 1973. Knowle, Louis L. and Prewitt, Kenneth, eds., Institutional Racism In America. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall., 1964. 124 Loring, Rosalind and Wells, Theodore, Breakthrough: Women Into Management. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1972. Lyons, Paul J.,The College and University Affirmative Action Manuel. Washington D. C.: Executive Enterprises Publications Co. Inc., 1975. Menacker, Julius and Pollack, Erwin., eds. Emerging Educational Issues: Conflict and Contrasts; Boston: Little Brown Company, 1974. Oppenheim, A. N., Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement. New York: Basic Books Inc., 1966. Purcell, Theodore V. and Cananagh, Gerald F., Blacks In The Industrial World. New York: Mackillan Publishing Co. Inc., 1972. Report of the National Advisnry Commission on Civil Rights. Otto Kerner, Chairman. Washington D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1968. Sowell, Thomas, Black Education: Myths and Tragedies. New York: David McKay Company, lnc.,1972. The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Washington D. C.: Bureau of National Affirs, 1964. Wright, Nathan, Jr., ed. What Black Educators are Saying. San Francisco: Leswing Press, 1970. Journals Astin, Helen and Bayer, A. E., ”Sex Discrimination in Academe." The Educational Record 53 (1972): 101-108. Bloch, F. E., ”Demographic Characteristics and Job Success.” Personnel Journal 56 (May, 1977): 223-24. ”Contract Complimce . . .. . The Procedure." EEO Perspective, (June, 1976). Dipboye, R. L., ”Equal Employment and the Interview.” Personnel Journal 55 (October): 520-22. Flast, R. H., "Taking the Quesswork Out of Affirmative Action Planning.” Personnel Journal 56 (February, 1977): 144-47. 125 Gilbreath, J. 0., ”Sex Discrimination and Title VII of The Civil Rights Act." Personnel Journal 56 (January, 1977): 23-26. "Goals and Back Pay In The Contract Compliance System.” EEO Perspective. (December, 1976). Goldstein, J., "Affirmative Action: Equal Employment Rights for Women in Academe.” Teachers College Record 74 (1973): 395-422. Higgins, James M., ”A Manager’s Guide to the Equal Employment Opportunity Laws.” Personnel Journal 56 (August, 1976): 406-18. Kilpatrick, J. J., ”The Defunis Syndrome.” 62 Nation’s Business (June, 1974): 13-14. Ledvinka, J., "Technical lmpliutions of Equal Employment Law for Manpower Planning.” Personnel Psychology 28 (June, 1975): 299-323. Leonard, Walter J., ”Affirmative Action.” Harvard Almanac. Vol. 1. (December, 1975): 48-50. Nash, Peter, ”Affirmative Action Under Executive Order 11246.” New York University Law Review 46 (April 19, 1971): 225-61. Perins, R., ”Computing Minorities.” Change (September, 1972). Robertson, D. E., ”Update on Testing and Equal Opportunity.” Personnel Journal 56 (March, 1977): 68-71. Sape, George P., "T he Educational Institution As An Employer." Federal Regulations and Employment Practices of Colleges and Universities. (November, 1974.) Sowell, Thomas, ”A Black Conservative Dissents.” The New York Times Magazine (August 8, 1976): 14. Strebeigh, Fred, ”Troubled Times With Affirmative Action.” Yale Alumni Magazine (April, 1976): 32-36. "T he Effectiveness of EEO Officers.” Fair Employment Practices (June 24, 1976): 3. 126 Wagner, W. N., ”Programming Failure: Another Look at Affirmative Action.” Personnel Journal 56 (June, 1977): 278-309. Williams, C., ”Employing the Black Administrator. "Public Personnel Management (March/ April, 1975): 76. Litigation Bakke vs The Regents of the University of California, S. F., 23311, (Super, Ct. No. 31287) 1976. Defunis vs Odegaard. Griggs vs Duke Power Company, U. S. S. Ct. 3 FEP Cases 175, 1971. Lisp. and Francis vs Town of Montcla’r, N. J. Super, Ct. A107, September, 1975. McDonald Douglas vs Green, U. S. S. Ct. 5 FEP Cases 965 1973. Newspapers Abzug, Bella, ”Minorities and Affirmative Action.” New York Times, November 7, 1973, p. A27. Benavidez, M. and Vozoff, K. M., ”A Glimpse Into the Corporate Life of Equal Opportunity.” Equal Opportunity Forum Vol. 4. February, 1977. Bender, Marilyn, ”Job Discrimination: Ten Years Later,” New York Times, November 10, 1974. pp. E1-E5. Chalt, R. and Ford, A., ”Can Colleges Have Tenure and Affirmative Action, Too?” The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 1, 1973. p. 16. Cummings, J., ”Blacks Said To Be Falling Behind In College Enrollment." The New York Times, May 5, 1976. p. 51. 127 Fields, Cheryl M., "Affirmative Action Four Years Later” The Chronicle of Higher Education, August 5, 1974. p. 1. Fields, Cheryl M., ”Are Job Goals Quotas?" The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 15, 1974.p.4. Leonard, Walter, ”Affirrnative Action at Harvard.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 31, 1975. p. 12. ”MSU Anti-Discrimination and Affirmative Action Policies.” MSU State News, November 21, 1974. p. 12. Preer, Robert Jr., ”Affirmative Action: A Working Definition.” Equal Opportunity Forum, April, 1977. p. 6. Sandler, Bernice, ”The Day WEAL Opened Pandora's Box.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 22, 1973. p. 8. Shaker, A., ”Affirmative National Leadership Toward Equal Opportunity.” New York Times, November 10, 1974. p. E10. Public Documents Affirmative Action and Equal Employment: A Guidebook for Employers. Vol. I and N. Washington D. C.: U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1974. Board of Trustees, Michigan State University. Anti-Discrimination Policy, Article III, C-3. Civil Rig1ts Act of 1964. Education Amendments of 1972, Title IX, Sec. 901 (a), 373 June 23, 1972. Equal Employment Opportunity Act. Public Law 92-261, 92, Congress. Executive Order No. 11246, 30 Fed. Reg., 12319, 1965. Executive Order No. 11375, 32 Fed. Reg., 14305, 1968. 128 National Program Center for Public Personnel Management, Judical Mandates for Affirmative Action. Washington, D. C., National Civil Service League, 1973. Office of Civil Rights, ”1974 Memorandum To College and University Presidents.” (1974). Unpublished Papers ”Desirable Hiring Practices For Minority Group Members in Student Personnel.” National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Portland State University, Portland, Oregon. (May, 1972.) ”Education and Social Needs of Minority Students.” National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Portland State University, Portland, Oregon. (October, 1972.) Johnson, Walter F. ”Contemporary Philosophies of Education In Colleges and Universities and Student Personnel Student Development Point of View.” Ed. 975. Dr. Walter Johnson — Class presentation. Yeakey, C., and Styles, G. ”T he Use of Affirmative Action as a Tool with Government Agencies to Increase Minority Participation in Education Research and Development.” Paper presented at the Second Annual Workshop on Educational Research and Minority Concerns, April 4, 1977, New York, New York. Sponsored by the American Educational Research Association. APPENDICES 129 APPENDIX A 130 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ° 48824 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION ERICKSON HALL The Department of Administration and Higher Education sponsors research in various areas of higher education. Since we are involved in the graduate preparation of future leaders in higher education, research regarding ad- ministration is a primary concern. Affirmative Action has received much attention in current literature. At the center of this issue is the role and function of the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer who is responsible for administering the program. There appears, however, to be a need for a more systematic study of their role and function. The attached questionnaire is one means of analyzing this position. More precisely we are concerned with comparing the role and function of the EEO Officer or the individual responsible for that program in post-secondary education with his or her counterpart in the industrial setting. Your participation is being requested. You will be involved for only a short time on just one occasion. Mr. Thomas S. Fortson who is a doctoral candidate in our department, is responsible for this study. Please be assured that your name and facility will in no way be identified with the data which will be analyzed and discussed in the research study. Mr. Thomas Fortson, who will be conducting this study, has an excellent back- ground for this purpose and we believe it will be a useful contribution when it is completed. Sincerely, Halter F. Johnson Professor 131 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING ‘ MICHIGAN ' 48824 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION ERICKSON HALI. Dear Colleague: As Dr. Johnson indicated, I am a doctoral candidate interested in doing a comparative analysis of the role and function of the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer in Post-Secondary Educational Institutions and in the industrial setting. I am presently working at General Motors Institute as the Coordinator of Human Resources Management. Part of my responsibility is the EEO function. Working in this facility gives me an opportunity to observe both Education and Industry at work as they try to establish an Affirmative Action Pro- gram for minorities and women. However, as I read the literature, little attention has been given to the EEO Officer as the agent who administers this change. Although the objectives and environment of both industry and education are somewhat different, the goal of the EEO Officer should still be the same. Through this research, I am attempting to identify what Equal Employment Opportunity Officers or those responsible for this function perceive to be the significant elements and behaviors of their job which have a cru- cial impact on the progress or success of their facilities Affirmative Action Program. If you would like to have a brief summary of the results of this question- naire, please indicate in the space provided in Part I. I wish to assure you that your responses will remain anonymous as the data is being analyzed. Since 91y, ant/00 J / 4 5 135 10. 11. 12. 13. 136 Assist in the establishment of your facilities Equal Employment Opportunity policy and preparation of the Affirmative Action Program. Develop internal and external communication techniques. Assist in the identification and solution of underutilization of females and minorities. Assist in the establishment of minority and female goals. Perform monthly or quarterly analysis of minority and female goals and attainment. Implement and monitor your facilities internal audit and reporting system. Assist in the development of a minority and female skills inventory. Meet with staff heads to discuss problems and solutions regarding accomplishing your facilities Affirmative Action Program. Serve as a liaison between your facility and minority and female community organizations concerned with employment opportunities of minorities and females. Review all applications and other related materials to determine whether a qualified minority or a female candidate is available. Serve as a liaison between your facility and government enforcement agencies during a compliance review. Insure that all appropriate governmental posters are properly displayed. Assist in recruitment of minorities and female college graduates. Always Necessary —— to —— 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Not Necessary 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 137 Encourage minorities and females to participate in tuition refund plans, open staffing programs, recreational and social activities, etc. Review your facilities personnel practices to assure that the practices comply with the Sex Discrimination Guidelines set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60-20. Provide career counseling to minorities and females. Assist in the development of training programs to change attitudes and behavior relative to Equal Employment Opportunity. Assist line supervision or department heads in arriving at solutions to problems regarding the implementation of the Affirmative Action Program. Prepare periodic reports on Equal Employment Opportunity statistics and Affirmative Action undertaken for the chief executive at your facility. Assist in the investigation and resolution of complaints regarding alleged discrimination. Keep managers and administrators at your facility informed of latest developments in the entire equal opportunity area. Review of qualifications of minorities and females to ensure they are given full opportunities for promotions and transfers. Serve as a liaison between your facility and minorities and females in the workforce. Always Necessary —— to —— 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Not Necessary 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 24. 25. 27. 28. 29. 30. 138 Coordinate your facilities manpower and/or monetary support to local and national community oriented programs designed to improve the employment opportunities of minorities and females. Make periodic audits of training programs hiring, and promotion patterns to remove any impediments to the attainments of goals and objectives. Assist in making periodic checks to insure that comparable facilities, training programs, recreational and social activities are made available to minorities and members of both sexes. Make supervisors and department heads aware of their responsibility to take action where necessary to prevent harrassment of employes placed through affirmative action efforts. Assist in creating an understanding with members of supervision and department heads that their work performance is evaluated on the basis of their equal employment opportunity efforts and results as well as other criteria. Involvement with local minority organizations, women organizations, community action groups, and community service programs. Review of employment and related pre- employment forms to assure compliance with federal regulation. Always Necessary —— to —— 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Not Necessary 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 PART III In your many experiences as an Equal Employment Opportunity Officer, you have probably done several things which you would now evaluate as being effective or ineffective in making progress toward your facilities affirmative action program. In this section, think of four such incidents. Two which you evaluate as being effective and two you evaluate as being ineffective. You may wish to refer to the statements in Part II as thought starters. The next four pages are provided for this purpose. 139 . The Circumstance: . What I Did: 140 EFFECTIVE INCIDENT I Something you did that lead to progress in your facilities Affirmative Action Program My Objectives: Person(s) Involved: Results: . The Circumstance: . What I Did: 141 EFFECTIVE INCIDENT ll Something you did that lead to progress in your facilities Affirmative Action Program My Objectives: Person Is) Involved: Results: . The Circumstance: . What I Did: 142 INEFFECTIVE INCIDENT I Something you did that you now evaluate as being ineffective, that is, lead to no progress in your facilities Affirmative Action Program My Objectives: Person Is) Involved: Results: . What I Did: 143 INEFFECTIVE INCIDENT ll Something you did that you now evaluate as being ineffective, that is, lead to no progress in your facilities Affirmative Action Program The Circumstance: My Objectives: Personls) Involved: Results: APPENDIX B 144 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING o MICHIGAN 0 48824 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION ERICKSON HALL Febmary 1, 1977 Dear Colleague: Early in December 1976, you received a letter and questionnaire from Dr. Walter Johnson, Professor of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University. The letter requested your participation in a study of administrators or managers who are responsible for the EEO functions at various facilities. Responses from administrators and managers have been encouraging, however, to date we have not received a response from you. It is essential that we have the cooperation of as many respondents as possible, and we would certainly appreciate your participation. In the event the questionnaire sent earlier is not readily available, I am enclosing another copy. May I emphasize the value of your contribution to this endeavor whether you are new in managing the EEO function or whether you are experienced in this field. If possible, please respond prior to February 25, as we desire to complete the questionnaire process. Sincer ly, N.,] Thomas S. Fortson 145 “iiillillliiiliiili