Affirmative action is a funny name for a plan whose acceptance was one of the bigger non-events of the year. When the Federal government finally accepted the University's hiring proposal, it essentially said "We have faith that you will make a good faith effort to make a good faith effort" to end discrimination in employment of women and minorities.

The government's acceptance of the plan marked the end of an effort to meet non-discriminatory hiring requirements which extended over three years and cost about a quarter of a million dollars. Failure to devise an acceptance plan would have resulted in an estimated loss of $60 million a year, or one-third of Harvard's annual income--the approximate value of the University's federal contracts.

Needless to say, the University was pretty happy when the plan was accepted. Perhaps because it was November, Bok and other administrators said things like "Today's letter of acceptance is a mandate for us to continue--and in some cases, accelerate--our efforts to attract and include women and minority groups at all levels of University activity."

Bok also said at the time: "Although many parts of the affirmative action program are already in process, this is not a time for relaxation of our efforts."

However, officials at the Department of Health, Education and Welfare were more cautious in their statements. The letter of acceptance cited 13 items requiring modification, including a program to insure salary equity. The acceptance was less than enthusiastic, the plan's most exuberant endorsement stating that it forms "an acceptable standard upon which the University can build and implement an effective affirmative action program."

John Bynoe, the director of the regional office for HEW, had always said that it was possible for an institution to lay down acceptable statistical analyses and target figures, act in good faith and "still end up with no more women or minority group members." The law itself is not very strong, so plans must be strong to give it any impact at all. After reviewing an earlier version of the accepted proposal, he emphasized "We have to make them [Harvard] tighten up their programs as much as possible."

It is somewhat curious, then, that the plan was accepted with the number of modifications it demands. The explanation seems to lie in the fact that affirmative action does not become policy for the University until the plan is accepted by HEW. At the time of the acceptance, Walter Leonard, special assistant to President Bok and the University's coordinator for affirmative action, said that now that the government had endorsed the plan, the University could begin to implement the program. Perhaps HEW's feeling was that any plan was better than no plan. The University's willingness to spend thousands of dollars putting together plans which continually came up deficient must have discouraged HEW and predisposed it to accept anything approaching a workable proposal.

However, HEW's acceptance of the plan has outraged several women's groups. Criticisms from women of the first draft of the present proposal, submitted last year, were incorporated into HEW's findings in its letter of rejection last June. Those groups now feel betrayed by the government's acceptance of the plan, and turning to other government channels for redress.

A case in point is the "charge of discrimination" which has been filed against Harvard with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) by the National Organization of Women (NOW).

The complaint cited several deficiencies in the University's hiring plan which allegedly "discriminate against women as a class." The organization charged that Harvard's goals and timetables for hiring and promotion are too low to compensate for previous underemployment of women. "It is clear Harvard is below national levels in the employment of women in high level positions," a spokesman said at the time. The group further alleged that

--management training programs are offered only on demand--no attempt is made to encourage employees to apply to the programs;

--grievance procedures are cumbersome and intimidating;

--no guarantee is made that Harvard will conduct the complete review of salary equity which HEW cites as a deficiency;

--misleading and inaccurate job titles disguise the range of pay discrepancy; and

--"vague and obscure" language provides loopholes for administrators.