A contractor's policies and practices on promotion should be made reasonably explicit and should be administered to ensure that women and minorities are not at a disadvantage. A contractor is also obligated to make special efforts to ensure that women and minorities in its work force are given equal opportunity for promotion. This result may be achieved through remedical, work study and job training programs; through career counseling programs; and by the validation of all criteria for promotion. Yet promotional opportunities are often not posted in areas where current employees who are eligible for promotion circulate. Last year two Cook I openings were not posted; two (white male) employees were informed of the promotional opportunities, the two employees applied for the job and were promoted. Other employees were not informed of the promotional opportunities until after the hiring had taken place. Experienced and capable women and minorities in the same kitchen were not informed and could not apply for the positions.
The grievance procedures in the University discourage employees from complaining about such injustices. If an employee, having complained to the supervisor or Personnel Office, is dissatisfied with the results, the employee's only recourse is to appeal to the "Hearing Committee." This Hearing Committee is composed of three people. One is chosen by the employee, one is chosen by the dean or department chairman, and the third is selected by those two from a list compiled by the University administration. This Hearing Committee reaches its findings by a majority vote and its decisions are binding. In light of the 2 to 1 administration majority which is built into the procedure, it is not surprising that this arrangement is viewed as unsatisfactory by most employees who know of its existence. The entire grievance procedure is devoid of safeguards for the employee and is ultimately a travesty on the concept of justice. It is not commonly used precisely because of these characteristics and cannot be described as having either "sound standards" or "due process."
As a result of such grievance procedures and the general fear of losing one's job, employees at Harvard are reluctuant to talk for the record about the instances of discrimination they witness. In recent weeks, the Task Force has been interviewing employees in an effort to gather data on discrimination occurring in the work place. These interviews reveal a much wider practice of discrimination than use of the grievance procedure would indicate.
Revised order No. 4 also requires that an institution include in its operation an office to assist in the implementation and monitoring of the affirmative action program. But Walter Leonard, special assistant to the president in charge of overall implementation of the plan, repeatedly refers to the decentralized character of the University and the troubles which Harvard's "decision-making procedures" pose to effective design and implementation of affirmative action.
The Task Force concurs with Leonard in this. It is clear that the affirmative action office does not have the power to effectively promote equal employment opportunity for women and minorities. According to Leonard, some of the substantial discrepancies between the requirements of Revised Order No. 4 and the submissions of the autonomous schools and departments have been repeatedly drawn to the attention of the deans and department chairmen, yet the deficiences have not been corrected. The problem with affirmative action at Harvard University has very little to do with Leonard. The problem has to do with a generalized resistance to progress for women and minorities here at Harvard at every level.
One could add many examples. The point, however, is that Harvard is not taking affirmative steps to end its past practice of discrimination against minorities and women. Furthermore, the HEW office in Boston, which is charged with responsibility for monitoring the affirmative action laws is itself being sued for not enforcing the law. So the affected parties are left to fend for themselves. Once again women and minorities must create pressure on the federal government and on institutions like Harvard to end their practice of discrimination and to enforce the laws.
It is with this in mind that the Task Force on Affirmative Action looks forward to the visit of the compliance review officer from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare next month.
William G. Fletcher Jr. '76 is press spokesman for the Task Force on Affirmative Action, a coalition of Harvard women and minority students and workers.