(The following are excerpts from a 22 page letter from John Bynoe, HEW's Regional Civil Rights Director, to former President Pusey detailing the ways in which Harvard's hiring plans discriminate against women within the University. The tables are taken from Harvard's Affirmative Action Plan as accepted by HEW February 11, 1971. "C.A.'s" refers to Corporation Appointments. "S&W" refers to salary and wage employees.)

OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS December 31, 1970

Dr. Nathan M. Pusey

President

Harvard University

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

Dear Dr. Pusey:

On September 28, 1970, Harvard University received the first installment of deficiencies revealed in the compliance review which began in the Spring of 1970. At our September meeting it was brought to your attention that this office had received a number of allegations of sex discrimination in employment opportunities at Harvard. At that time you were advised that the review would continue until these allegations were investigated. This letter addresses itself to findings made to date in the area of sex discrimination.

In September the review team was told that the administrative structure of your institution was of unusual complexity, and that it was administered on the concept of departmental autonomy, especially in areas related to the compliance review. The statement that (at Harvard) "every tub sits on its own bottom" (referring to departments) has been substantiated by our experience in acquiring and assembling data during the review.

This office has received many inquiries concerning the period of time it has taken to complete this review in relation to the length of time needed at other institutions. The comparison can easily be made that the review at Harvard is similar to reviewing 22 separate colleges or universities.

Equal Opportunity for Women in Academic Positions

An analysis of computer-printouts furnished by the University, review of personnel records, and information acquired through interviews has generally substantiated several allegations of unequal employment opportunity for women at Harvard.

Many of the recruitment, placement, promotional and staffing practices at the University appear to be discriminatory purely because of sex. These practices have resulted in a definite underutilization of women in faculty positions at Harvard.

Of particular concern is the matter of women in the graduate degree programs at Harvard. Our findings support the charge that although 15 to 19 per cent of the Ph.D.'s awarded annually at Harvard to women, there exists an almost complete absence of tenured women on Harvard's faculty. Yet, many chairmen interviewed stated there was no pool of qualified women applicants for academic positions. This scarcity of women faculty in general is especially noticeable in the School of Education, in which roughly one third of the candidates for the Ed.D. are women; yet, women are only slightly more than 10 per cent of the school's teaching faculty. It appears, unquestionably, that Harvard looks with more favor upon the hiring of its male Ph.D. and other advanced degree recipients than it does upon the employment of its female Ph.D.'s. To deny employment opportunity to women graduates simply because they are women constitutes an undeniable violation of Executive Orders 11246 and 11375.

Admission to Ph.D. Programs