EEOC is investigating the complaint, which could result in litigation if it determines that there is a basis for the allegations, and if Harvard and NOW fail to negotiate an agreement.
Many women have decided that they do not want to wait for the HEW-approved El Dorado--which gives no promise of being achieved in spite of all the rhetoric and over 1500 pages of University proposals. Women Employed at Harvard have taken their complaint of salary discrepancies to the Department of Labor, which is now investigating.
The Labor Department decision potentially could have the most far-reaching effects on the treatment of women at Harvard. No one disputes the fact that women working at Radcliffe receive lower salaries than the men working in the corresponding Harvard offices. The issue is whether Radcliffe is a separate employer which has has retained responsibility for hiring and setting salaries. However, it will be difficult to decide--Radcliffe's budget is reviewed by Harvard, for one thing, even though Radcliffe suggests salary levels. If Radcliffe is considered part of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, then the pay difference is in violation of the 1963 Equal Pay Act.
Essentially, then, the Labor Department lawyers must decide what the corporate relationship between Harvard and Radcliffe is--a decision which could greatly short cut the work of those charged with negotiating the non-merger merger next year, to say the least.
Compared to the plethora of complaints from women, there have been surprisingly few complaints from blacks and other minorities in regard to the University's affirmative action plan. It is doubtful that the plan is any more adequate for minorities than for women. Women have chosen to attack affirmative action more or less directly, reflecting a basic faith in the government's executive orders. As far as University affirmative action goes, blacks presumably are more concerned about getting the credentials, which means gaining and increasing admissions and other educational opportunities.
Where does all this leave us? Pretty much in the middle of the mire of complaints, investigations and red tape that it appears. The University has met its requirements for the time being and can receive its money in peace until its hiring proposal comes up for review two years from now.
Presumably, we are picking up a few new women deans--although appointment of a women to a newly-created Office of Women's Education hardly seems to amount to encroachment on a traditionally male field. We should be gaining a few more female instructors, although most appointments are junior faculty; the University's plan emphasizes junior faculty positions since "in this way, faculties can develop a group of proven ability to be promoted from within to more senior positions." And the women who still hold close to 90 per cent of the clerical posts in the University, should receive more equal benefits and chances for promotion.
Hopefully, we can look forward to more minority group members in tenured positions in conventional as well as non-traditional fields; perhaps the mere acceptance of Harvard's affirmative action plan will make minority group scholars more optimistic about receiving equal consideration for posts.
As for the complaints which have been filed, it was inevitable that there would be disagreement as to what amounted to a "good faith" effort. There is little doubt that everyone involved has good intentions; affirmative action has brought out the affirmative in everybody as surely as it has brought about little action. Perhaps what is most at issue is the question of how fast an institution can change. A look at much of social science scholarship at Harvard will reveal that the University has an academic interest, as well as any material interests, at heart here.