A program for enforcement of nondiscrimination 141

ROLE OF

DATA

COLLECTION

AND

ANALYSIS

existing knowledge, the ability to use that knowledge, and the competence to develop new knowledge

(c) The training of students in professional schools in the understanding and practice of a systematic body of specialized knowledge

Care should be taken that government regulations and enforcement demands do not adversely affect a university's ability to pursue those basic objectives. It should be recognized that the quality of mind of the faculty member, of his or her faculty colleagues, and of the students (as well as the academic atmosphere and opportunities in the department and the institution) affect the quality of the results achieved through both teaching and research.

Those five points or considerations should be carefully taken into account in framing and enforcing federal guidelines for nondiscrimination and appropriate affirmative action at institutions of higher education. The program presented below has been designed with them firmly in mind.

Proper reporting by all universities and colleges covered by HEW regulation could provide the basis for the development and operation of a more intelligent, equitable, effective, and economical program of federal antibias regulation of institutions of higher education than the present one. Comparative analyses of the faculty data so collected would help the federal government to monitor the program on a nationwide basis and by separate parts of higher education as well as by individual institution.

For the most part the reports from individual institutions would supply quantitative data, accompanied by explanations for certain figures. More descriptive would be reports on recruitment efforts and complaints. Comparative analyses of both quantitative and qualitative material in reports would enable government analysts to draw general conclusions on the mismatch between demand and supply by discipline and subfield, broken down by race and sex for assistant professor positions and tenure openings. Such analyses could be used to draw conclusions about the extent and nature of discrimination against or in favor of different races and sexes, in different disciplines, in different categories of institutions, and in different regions.

The kinds of data and information that would be most helpful to collect and analyze for program and enforcement purposes (including leads for field investigations) are the following:

43-979 O 75 pt. 2B - 27

Antibias regulation of universities 142

1 Each institution would be required to report each July the numerical hiring goals for the nontenure ranks in its affirmative action plan, by race and sex for the succeeding two years.

2 Each institution would report each January its faculty hires and terminations for the previous six months (July to December), and each July its faculty hires and terminations for the preceding six months' period from January through June, giving the salary and rank offered to each new minority person or woman hired and the salary and rank for each nonminority male hired. For the same periods, all faculty terminations would be reported with a brief comment concerning each termination.

3 Each institution would report each year in July the number of faculty in each department (and professional school) by rank, broken down by race and sex, who were employed on May 1.2 4 Each institution that grants an average of 10 or more Ph.D.'s a year would report in June each year (a) the number of such degrees granted by department, broken down by race and sex, and (b) the experience in placing its Ph.D. candidates and recipients in academic positions outside the institution.

5 Each institution should gather and maintain in one office a full record of the recruitment efforts, the selection process, and the offer or offers made for each faculty opening.3 In that way the material would be well organized and readily available for examination by compliance officials checking on the compliance of that institution with respect to faculty hiring.

6 Each institution should report to HEW4 whenever a faculty member (or applicant for a faculty position) lodges a complaint of discrimination in employment against the institution with a federal or state agency or a court, giving the essentials of the allegation. HEW would arrange for reporting by other federal agencies of faculty complaints of discrimination in employment filed with them.

2 Salary is not asked for existing employees as it is for new hires, because comparisons of salary figures, apart from a knowledge of individual qualifications and experience, are not very meaningful or informative, especially where the numbers are too small (particularly for minority persons and women by rank in most departments) to calculate statistically valid averages for comparison by sex and race.

3 A form for organizing such material could be adopted by the federal government for use by the institutions.

4 This assumes that HEW would be the central agency for antibias regulation of institutions of higher education.

A program for enforcement of nondiscrimination 143

The institutions would report to HEW periodically with respect to progress in settlement of each case and its final disposition. 7 HEW would add up the projected nontenure hiring goals in affirmative action plans by race and sex and the total nontenure hires by race and sex for the same period, and compare and analyze them by category of institution. HEW would also analyze for faculty the terminations by race and sex and type of institution, and the terms of offers made and accepted by persons coming from a regular faculty position in another institution.

8 HEW would classify and analyze individual complaint data to determine the incidence of such complaints, the experience with their settlement, and the implications of the data and experience for government antibias programs and for enforcement policies and practices.

Such a set of reports and their analysis would have a number of advantages from the point of view of intelligent operation of the program and equity in the functioning of compliance review and analysis. A systematic program for data reporting would put all covered institutions on a par in terms of reporting requirements, timing of a review of their data, and analysis of their relative standing and rate of progress.

The preparation and findings of periodic reports can stimulate thought and discussion concerning the institution's efforts and relative position, by the administration, faculty, and others in the university community. No university or college will have reason to lack concern because of apparent neglect by HEW. Without such a reporting system, it will be years before HEW makes any significant contact with all of some 900 universities and colleges, or even half of them, that it covers.

Such systematic reporting would facilitate intelligent and objective selecting and scheduling of institutions for field investigation. Comparative analysis of submitted data, and not such factors as nearness to the regional office or militancy of particular advocacy groups, would provide the basis for determining the timing and frequency of HEW field investigations at particular institutions. The collection and analysis of such comparable data should also serve to reduce the time spent by HEW staff in field investigation. Such a system of periodic data reports might seem to place a heavy burden on colleges and universities. If the other federal agencies could work out with HEW a standard form for such data

Antibias regulation of universities 144

ESSENTIALS

OF AN APPROPRIATE, EFFECTIVE PROGRAM

that would meet the needs of all of them, and perhaps the state agencies as well, that would reduce the time university personnel spend on separate, uncoordinated reports in connection with antibias regulation. Also, lessening the time spent by university administrators and faculty with field investigations would mean added saving for the institutions. On net balance, such a data reporting system could prove economical for most institutions.

The chief benefit provided by such data and analyses of them would be a better factual basis for guiding administration of the program, for drawing conclusions about the impact of the program, and for making appropriate revisions and improvements in the program and its enforcement.

This section presents the substance of a positive program for both the development of larger numbers of highly qualified female and minority-group faculty and the enforcement of equal opportunity in faculty employment, with major universities especially in mind. In developing this program, attention has been given to the five considerations discussed earlier in this chapter, and the program assumes that a data-reporting system such as the one just outlined is in operation.

First, the main components or features of the program are presented in outline form. They are six in number. The reasoning or basis of support for those components has, for the most part, been given in the preceding chapters. For some elements or aspects further elaboration may, however, be needed. Such elaboration is presented sequentially after the outline statement of the six components, which follows.

An affirmative action program for increasing the supply of highly qualified female and minority-group teacher-scholars in certain academic disciplines and fields of professional practice where the supply of teacher-researchers is exceedingly thin. The mechanism for developing much larger numbers of supply qualified for highlevel faculty appointments in selected fields is competitive submission of "affirmative action supply programs" by universities for HEW selection and approval. The plans would provide for unrestricted selection by the university of those female and minoritygroup applicants to participate in that university's program for supply development. (This proposal is explained in some detail in an appendix to this chapter.)

A program for enforcement of nondiscrimination 145

2 Use of availability-utilization analysis and numerical goals to achieve "proportionality" to be confined to first regular appointments of new and prospective Ph.D. holders to the position of assistant professor or advanced instructor on the ladder of professional advancement. Thus, "affirmative action demand plans" would be focused on those who are at the same stage of career development, namely, recent completion or practical completion of Ph.D. requirements.

3 For enforcement of nondiscrimination for faculty appointments other than first appointment as assistant professor and for promotions within the professorial ranks, use of (a) analysis of data in the periodic reports of institutions, (b) field examination of the institution's central file of information on each faculty appointment and promotion, (c) the procedures for settling individual faculty complaints of discrimination, including the system of mediationarbitration presented in Chapter 6, (d) the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and state agencies for antidiscrimination enforcement, and (e) the courts.

4 Concentration in a single agency (HEW) of the administrative oversight of affirmative action plans and compliance, as applied to faculty (including professional research staffs) in higher education. That would mean removing faculty of colleges and universities from the Department of Labor's jurisdiction for contract compliance and, thus, from the provisions of Revised Order No. 4. Supporting staffs generally would, on the other hand, remain under Revised Order No. 4 as long as it applies to similar operations and occupations in industry.

5 HEW regulation for the faculty of major universities and other institutions that recruit a majority of their faculty in the national market to be handled by one well-qualified unit instead of ten regional offices. That would mean central handling of such faculty with respect to affirmative action supply plans and affirmative action demand plans, data analysis, and compliance enforcement.

6 A restructuring and strengthening of the staff of the Higher Education Division of the Office for Civil Rights in HEW, so that it is suited to meet the added responsibilities and functions to be placed upon it, especially the central unit to handle major universities and other institutions recruiting nationally, and to analyze the data reports.