On the basis of your letter and that of President Benezet, in addition to the enclosures, we assume that the review of your affirmative action policy was designed in part to preclude any future instances of discriminatory hiring under which, for instance, certain positions may be "earmarked" for minority persons in the sense that other persons may not apply or be considered for those positions. However, neither your letter nor the "Statement on Affirmative Action" makes specific reference to this and other alleged discriminatory policies cited in the report of the Anti-Defamation League and in the inquiry we sent to the University on December 14. I hope that you will understand that, as a law enforcement agency, the Office for Civil Rights must seek out the facts in connection with complaints submitted for review. Therefore, I would like to request that you address yourself to the specific instances of alleged discrimination noted in our earlier inquiry. If the statements and polcies attributed to the University by the ADL are correct, we would like such confirmation, including an indication as to whether and by what means the policies have since been modified, if at all. Permit me to add that the University's commitment to affirmative action, as broadly set forth in your correspondence, including the establishment of goals and timetables, is not in question here. Your correspondence indicates an awareness of the distinctions between an affirmative action program that is acceptable and one that has the effect of discrimination in violation of the Executive Order. We would not want to give the impression, by this inquiry, that the Office for Civil Rights is disputing here your expressed understandng in this regard. We merely wish to ascertain the facts with respect to the specific action the University has undertaken to modify those policies cited in the report. I trust that we will hear from you shortly. If I may be of assistance in expediting your response, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely yours,

SAMUEL H. SOLOMON,

Special Assistant to the Director, Office for Civil Rights.

Mr. SAMUEL H. SOLOMON,

STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT ALBANY,

February 26, 1973.

Special Assistant to the Director, Office for Civil Rights, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. SOLOMON: I have your letter responding to our explanation of the alleged discrimination in employment charges made by the Anti-Defamation League. You have asked that we reply more directly to the specific charges cited in the report of the Anti-Defamation League, so let me attempt to do that.

First, may I say that the instances which the Anti-Defamation League has cited all occurred in the very early stages of the development of our Affirmative Action Program. I think I must concede that in the spirited drive to get the Affirmative Action Program working to correct the imbalance of employment at this University there may have been some statements made which perhaps went beyond the intent of the program. But let me emphasize again that there has not been at any time any policy to employ anything less than the best qualified people for any position. We do wish to assure ourselves that minority and women candidates are solicited and considered for each job opening.

All of the incidents cited by the Anti-Defamation League reflect the urging of our principal administrators to their staffs to improve the employment situation with regard to women and minorities and are not examples of official policy. Let's look at each of the alleged discriminatory actions.

We did request that deans and department heads anticipate vacancies over a five year period and indicate how many could be allocated to minority members. This was a matter of setting goals for the employment of minorities. We were not establishing quotas. I am sure you know the subtleties in distinguishing be tween goals and quotas and the controversy which has arisen around this. Our language may have left something to be desired but our intent was to set goals. The language has been made clearer in the subsequent official policy.

The Anti-Defamation League cites a directive which recommends that no fewer than one of every three new vacant administrative positions dealing with student affairs be filled with minority group members. Let me say again that this was not a policy but only the urging of one of our senior administrators to correct the employment imbalance. The language may have been broader than it

should have been but this was early in the development of Affirmative Action. We needed to get people's attention.

The same is true for the news story in the campus newspaper reporting that I had announced a policy of one-to-one hiring of minorities. Again, this was a device to bring to the attention of our administrative departments that we were serious about implementing the Affirmative Action Program, as we still are. We wanted to be sure that minority candidates were interviewed for jobs. I think the ADL charges take these statements out of the context in which they were made. This gives a distorted perspective.

You have copies of our Affirmative Action Program. You have copies of the actions taken by the University Senate. These reflect the development of the Affirmative Action Program and are the official policies of the University. The urgings of members of the administration to try to implement the policy were necessary in the early days in order to get the program moving.

Finally, the chairman of the Judaic Studies Department, Professor Eckstein, did write to a professional association that the department was searching for a biblical scholar who is either female or a member of a minority group. Again, Professor Eckstein was attempting to assure that we would receive applications from women and minority candidates and the steps he followed seemed necessary to accomplish that.

Overall, it seems to me that the Anti-Defamation League is splitting hairs on this issue. I am quite willing to say that we were making concerned efforts to get minority candidates and women candidates to apply for jobs at this University and that we may have over-stepped a little in some instances to assure that this was done. Let me reiterate, however, that we do not intend to hire unqualified people. We do intend to have every job open to all candidates without discrimination. We think we are beginning to accomplish this. Our record shows that progress hac been made in the past two years. It does not show, by any stretch of the imagination, that we have discriminated on behalf of women and minorities. We still have a long way to go to bring employment in balance.

I hope that this clears up the matters which you have inquired about. Please let me know if you would like further information from us. We would like to get the arguments settled and get on with the job of establishing equal employment opportunity.

DEAR MR. HARTLEY: Thank you for your letter of February 26. I appreciate your taking the time to set forth a more detailed response to the allegations cited in the report of the Anti-Defamation League.

As indicated in my correspondence of January 31, we are not questioning the University's commitment to affirmative action or the overall intent of its affirmative action program. The April 1972 "Statement on Affirmative Action" is generally sound. However, there is some difficulty with the rationale of your most recent correspondence. You seem to justify overstatement of purpose on the grounds that it has been utilized in pursuit of a positive end. You acknowledge statements which have gone “beyond the intent of the program," language that leaves "something to be desired," and language that "may have been broader than it should have been." These, you say, have been attention-getting devices, whose purpose has been to urge upon your administrators the seriousness of your equal employment opportunity efforts. I would suggest that if your administrators were to accept your urgings with the same seriousness with which they have been proffered and if they were to attain the objectives as set forth, then the result could conceivably be precisely that about which the ADL complains, namely quota hiring and reverse discrimination in recruiting. One-in-three or one-for-one hiring of minorities reflects quotas in employment. You indicate that this was not univer

sity policy, but certainly when it comes at the urging of senior administrators it has the effect of policy. Seen in this light, it is perhaps inappropriate to view the ADL allegations as "splitting hairs."

We believe that a strong affirmative action plan, implemented in a nondiscriminatory manner at the behest of a well-motivated and effective leadership, such as has been demonstrated at SUNY-Albany, develops its own momentum. As a major university administrator who deals with the problems of equal employment opportunity on a continuing and regular basis, you certainly recog nize the sensitivity of the issues involved.

We want to encourage you in what appears to be a very comprehensive affirmative action program to expand employment opportunities for women and minorities. We hope, too, that you will be mindful of the concerns and potential repercussions that can result from over-statements, such as those cited in your letter. Your revision of the University's affirmative action plan appears to have been part of an effort to eliminate sections that might be subject to misunderstanding and to make the program's structure more responsive to the University's needs and to Federal regulations.

Once again, thank you for amplifying on your earlier comments. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we may be of further assistance.

Sincerely yours,

SAMUEL H. SOLOMON,

Special Assistant to the Director, Office for Civil Rights.

STATEMENT OF KENNETH B. LITTLE, PH. D., EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN

PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

On behalf of the American Psychological Association, I would like to share with the Special Subcommittee on Education some of the experiences our organization has had with affirmative action and to compare this experience with some information we have developed on the subject for psychology in general. Our own experience suggests that affirmative action is a positive step not only for the women involved, but also for the organization undertaking it. On the other hand, while affirmative action regulations have sensitized the psychological community to the operation of sex bias in research, the process of education, and hiring practices, actual changes in these practices themselves have not lived up to expectations. Hopefully, hearings such as these conducted by the committee will result in efforts to actualize the intentions of affirmative action regulations.

Since 1970 the American Psychological Association has moved to ensure that women psychologists would be fully enfranchised members of the psychological community. Within our organization that has meant the development of a Committee on Women in Psychology as well as other committees formed in response to affirmative action issues. These include a Committee on Academic Freedom and Conditions of Employment, a Committee on Equality of Opportunity in Psychology, a Task Force on Issues of Sexual Bias in Graduate Education, and a Task Force on Sex Bias and Sexual Stereotyping in Psychotherapeutic Practice. In reviewing the operations of the American Psychological Association for the period 1968-73, the Executive Officer was able to demonstrate significantly increased participation of women psychologists on various committees and boards of the organization as well as within the office staff of the Association.

This increased interest, concern, and gradual progress has been heartening and quite directly traceable to the impact of a general government commitment to affirmative action. On the other hand, the report, Doctoral Scientists and Engineers in the United States, 1973 Profile, from the Commission on Human Resources, shows that in the scientific community in general, "Women constituted about 9% of the science and engineering doctoral population-2,300. Their median salary was $17.620-$3.500 less than the median salary for men. Women reported an unemployment rate of 3.9%, while the rate for men was 0.9%." The position of women within psychology reflects this poor showing for science in general. This was clearly demonstrated among academic psychology programs. Attached is the "Survey of Departments of Psychology-1972 and 1973"

developed by the Committee on Women in Psychology of the American Psychological Association to evaluate the progress of women psychologists as faculty members of academic departments. Summary Table 4 on page

shows that although the percentage of women instructors on full time faculties increased from 36% to 43% between 1972 and 1973, the percentage of women professors decreased from 8% to 7% from 1972 to 1973. From academic year 1970-71 to 1973-74 there has been increased enrollments of both women and minorities in doctoral programs in psychology. (APA Manpower Survey). At the same time, as Summary Table 4 demonstrates, there has been a small increase in the number of women at the lowest ranks on psychology faculties. This is an initial step in equalizing opportunities for women within the profession of psychology, but in many ways is a misleading one. The Committee on Women in Psychology has received informal reports from numerous women who have been offered one year appointments at various universities. In this respect the universities are attempting to comply with the affirmative action regulations. At the same time the spirit of the regulations is being avoided since, regardless of the women faculty member's performance during her year's appointment. many of them have been notified that the university will be unable to continue that appointment. They thus have no opportunity of becoming a part of the regular tenured faculty. Increasing the input of women and minorities at the lowest level (graduate student and instructor) of the psychological profession without any parallel commitment to following through with increased representation at every level of the instructional staff creates a deceptive picture of progress in coping with sex discrimination.

The "Survey of Departments of Psychology," Summary Table 5 on page 6 of the attchment, also points up the fact that even when women do attain appropriate positions within the psychological heirarchy, they continue to be paid at a lower salary than their male colleagues. In fact, between 1972 and 1973 the salary differential between men and women increased. In 1972 male full professors received $1,720 more than their female colleagues; in 1973 that differential increased to $2,357. Thus, although it may be generally believed that women have made significant progress, particularly within the professions, in the past few years, for psychology the statistical data simply do not support this impression.

The lack of women scientists in the major positions of responsibility in psychology has had a significant impact on the development of psychology as a science. Psychology, as it relates to women, has been permeated with unexamined biases which may distort scientific conclusions. In addition to the fact that psychological theories are usually conceived by men with men in mind, women are used much less frequently as subjects in psychological experiments and their psychology is often inferred by reference to a male model. Moreover, whole areas of inquiry of importance to women are not researched at all, and the whole process of the research enterprise is frequently distorted by the sexually biased value orientation of the scientist without his/her awareness of such bias. The presence of women in the field of psychology on an equal footing with men would be a significant corrective for this distortion in the science of psychology.

In summary, a review of our organization's experience over the past few years with affirmative action demonstrates its importance as a spur to increasing the involvement of women in the psychological profession. At the same time it is clear that greater government action is necessary to promote an actualization of equal opportunity for women within psychology and society in general.

SEPTEMBER 20, 1974.

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

As staff liaison for the Committee on Women in Psychology of the American Psychological Association I am very concerned about the on-going hearings of the Special Subcommittee on Education on civil rights compliance on eligibility for federal assistance by institutions of higher education.

I am attaching a statement from the Executive Officer, Kenneth B. Little. Ph.D. of the American Psychological Association concerning the experience of our organization with affirmative action regulations that I would like to submit for the committee's record. In addition, in this letter I should like to share my personal experience with the importance of affirmative action.

In addition to my position here as staff liaison for the Committee on Women in Psychology, I am Administrative Officer for Policy Studies, a senior staff position. This position became known to me in an advertisement in the American Psychological Association Monitor. The policy of advertising such positions and encouraging the response of minority and women candidates is a clear result of affirmative action input to the American Psychological Association. In the past four years there has been a move away from filling positions of responsibility with "friends of friends" to a new awareness that since the friends of "white males" tend also to be "white males" such recruitment results in excluding qualified women and minority doctorates from positions of responsibility in the organization.

After taking my position as Administrative Office for Policy Studies and being invited to serve as staff liaison for the Committee on Women in Psychology, my own awareness of sexual bias was strikingly enhanced. Stimulated by affirmative action requirements, colleges, universities, and organizations such as ours have been polling our own memberships to determine what qualified individuals are available. In doing so I have been astonished to find the large number of well trained, competent and interested women available for positions of responsibility who until recently were simply assumed not to exist. The attached statement will more carefully delineate the impact of affirmative action on the operations of the American Psychological Association. Thank you very much for your consideration of this material. Sincerely,

SERENA STIER, PH. D.,

Administrative Officer, Committee on Women in Psychology.

SURVEY OF DEPARTMENTS OF PSYCHOLOGY-1972 AND 1973

Data have been collected for the last three years from graduate departments of psychology to assess the status of women. The SPSSI (Division 9) Committee on Sex Discrimination Survey in the Spring of 1971 drew a response from 74 percent of the total 231 deparments. In Spring 1972 the Task Force on the Status of Women in Psychology modified the questionnaire to reflect the issues spelled out in its Guidelines to Department Chairpeople, and this mailing drew an 83 percent response from the population surveyed, which consisted of APAaccredited departments, and the largest Ph. D. and M.A. granting departments. With minor changes, the 1973 Survey Questionnaire was sent to the same institutions, yielding an 86 percent response rate of those who answered in 1972.

These data have been collected in order to monitor to what extent the Guidelines formulated by the earlier Task Force are being implemented. Thus, the reports serve the purpose of providing feedback for the Council of Representatives, boards and committees in the APA governance structure, as well as for relevant government agencies and psychology departments. Moreover, these data continue to point out the necessity of further actions in order to remedy the existing inequity in the status of men and women psychologists.

Data comparing academic years 1971-72 and 1972-73 are included in the attached tables. An examination of these data does not show apparent changes in the reward structure, such as rank and salaries. However, there are some positive changes noted with respect to institutional policies-e.g., parental leaves granted working parents, anti-nepotism regulations, and the offering of women's studies courses.

After three years, it is a well-documented fact that a great deal of work remains to be accomplished in order to effect change and achieve our goal. New measures must and will be sought to overcome the patterns of discrimination which have prevented equality for men and women psychologists.