Affirmative Action: what is it?
iat is Affirmative Action? What is
IX? How do they affect CCC? This is
irst in a series that will deal with the
miration issue as it affects CCC, and
steps are being taken to comply with
nment regulations and guidelines.
this is extremely dry reading, it will
to show why so few people are in
edias to the rights and responsibilities
;ademic administration.
is difficult, if not impossible, to make
" interesting. Unless we have been dis-
inated against, we tend to have little
for compassion.
,et us hope that ten percent of the stu-
: body (wishful thinking?. . .perhaps.)
Johnson on Sept. 24, 1965, the Department
of Labor became the sanctioning body of
Title VI.
The same Executive Order (Part IV, Sec
tion 401) allowed the Secretary of Labor to
delegate to any officer or agency of the
Executive branch any "function or duty of
the Secretary, except authority to promul
gate rules and regulations of a general na
ture."
Thus the Department of Health Educa
tion and Welfare (HEW) became the "moni
tor" of higher education under the sanction
of the Department of Labor authority.
On June 23, 1972, President Nixon
signed into law the Education Amendments
By Joe McFeron
Staff Writer
find the time to struggle through these
¡sties in search of further understanding.
Jnfprtunately, statistics deal with num-
>, seemingly a contradiction in terms
;n we attempt to apply them to such
ividual liberties as are implied in civil
its j
It-islnecessary though, to create an aware-
s of what the law is to accurately de
mine, as Lincoln suggested, "whither we
tending."
It ts historically probable that the Civil
jhts Act of 1964 is the most comprehen-
s legislation to concern itself with indivi-
al equality in America since the ratifica-
n of the Nineteenth Amendment.
To gain a perspective of Affirmative
tion, and to understand Title IX, requires
at we go back to the Civil Rights Act of
64, and trace the history of each.
The Civil Rights Act directed itself ex-
jsively to discrimination based on race,
JorB religion, and national origin, in areas
numerated under the following titles:
I. Voting Rights
I II. Injunctive Relief Against Dis
crimination in Places of Public
Facilities
■ III. Desegregation of Public Facili
ties
I IV. Desegregation of Public Educa
tion
I V. Commission on Civil Rights (to
oversee and regulate)
I VI. Nondiscrimination in Federally
Assisted Programs
'VII. Equal Employment Opportunity
VIII. Registration and Voting Statis
tics
I IX. Intervention and Procedure Af
ter Removal in Civil Rights Cases
X. Establishmentof Community Re
lations Service
Title IV has an obvious bearing on edu
cational institutions. Less obvious, but eq
ually important, is Title VI.
Section 601 of this title prohibits "dis
crimination under any program or activity
receiving federal financial assistance."
Section 602 directs "federal departments
or agencies which are empowered to extend
federal financial assistance" to "effectuate
thelprovisions of Section 601 by issuing
regulations consistant with achievement of
the objectives of the statute."
¿Compliance with any requirement adop
ted pursuant to this section may be affected
by the termination of federal assistance," it
reads.
Under provision of Executive Order 112-
461 signed by former President Lyndon B.
Clackamas Community College
of 1972. Here, finally, is Title IX.
Title IX of the Education Amendments
provides: "No person in the United States
shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefit of, or
be subjected to discrimination under any
education program or activity receiving fed
eral assistance."
Title IX of the Amendments, as it exists
today, did not become law until it was
signed by President Ford on May 27, 1975.
The effective date of Title IX was July 21,
1975.
It is to be noted that the fabric of "Civil
Rights" runs, as a thread, through three
separate administrations.
Acting on Title IX legislation, HEW
issued 45 CFR-86.3. This, in a nut-shell, is
what the educational institutions of Amer
ica must wrestle with.
It generally requires that by July 21,
1976, educational institutions must carefully
evaluate current policies and practices (in
cluding those related to the operation of
athletic programs), and, where such policies
or practices are inconsistant with the regu
lation, conform current policies and prac
tices to the requirement of the regulation.
On March 24, 1972, the Equal Employ
ment Opportunity Act of 1972 was passed
by Congress. This Act up-dated Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
which deals with fair hiring practices.
In addition to securing equal employ
ment opportunity without regard to race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin, it pro
vided that no federal funding should be
denied an employer by the government if
that employer has an Affirmative Action
Plan that has previously been accepted by
the government within the last 12 months,
except through proper hearing.
Tv better understand the meaning of
affirmative action we must examine the
conditions set down in the Equal Employ
mentopportunity Act of 1972. This requires
a dispassionate discussion of sex; an aw
kward proposition.
The Office of Federal Contract Compli
ance, Equal Employment Opportunity, De
partment of Labor, provides the following
as a means of implementing Executive Or
der 11246 and Executive Order 11375;
Employers engaged in recruiting activity
must recruit employes of both sexes for all
jobs.
The employer must not make any dis
tinction based upon sex in employment
opportunities, wages, hours, pensions, re
tirement age, insurance premiums or bene
fits, and other fringe benefits.
Seniority lines and lists must not be
based on or related to tne sex of the em
ploye.
The employer must make jobs available to
all qualified employes in all classifications
without regard to sex.
The employer shall take affirmative ac
tion to recruit women to apply for those
jobs where they have been previously ex
cluded.
An important element of affirmative ac
tion shall be to a commitment to include
women candidates in consideration for man
agement positions.
Employers must demonstrate that both
sexes have equal access to all training pro
grams.
Executive Order 11246 embodies two
concepts: nondiscrimination and affirmative
action.
Nondiscrimination requires the elimina
tion of all existing discriminatory conditions,
whether purposeful or inadvertent.
A university contractor must carefully
and systematically examine all of its em
ployment policies to be sure that they do
not, if administered as stated, operate to the
detriment of any persons on grounds of
race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
The contractor must also ensure that the
practices of those responsible in matters of
employment, including all supervisors, are
nondiscri minatory.
Affirmative Action requires the contrac
tor to do more than ensure employment
with regard to race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin.
As the phrase implies, affirmative action
requires the employer to make additional
efforts to recruit, employ and promote quali
fied members of groups formerly excluded,
even if that exclusion cannot be traced to
particular discriminatory action on the part
of the employer.
The premise of the affirmative action con
cept of the executive order is that unless
positive action is taken to overcome the
effects of systematic institutional forms of
exclusion and discrimination, employment
practices will tend to perpetuate the "status
quo ante" indefinitely.
In 1972, Governor McCall issued Execu
tive Order EO-72-7 which requires that all
state agencies prepare and file "affirmative
action plans."
In 1973, the Oregon Legislative Assembly
passed two bills - patterned after the fed
eral government's Rehabilitation Act, Sec
tion 504 - which extended all civil rights
protections to handicapped and ill persons.
(ORS 659.400 to 659.435 cover civil righ
of the handicapped, and ORS 339.030 pro
tects the physically and/or mentally ill stu
dent.)
Oregon Administrative Rule 21-040 of
the Oregon Board of Education requires
"equal employment and educational oppor
tunities for all persons, whether on the
basis of age, handicap, national origin, race,
religion or sex."
In a January 1975 bulletin, the Depart
ment of Education went on record as being
"committed to developing, implementing,
and evaluating its Affirmative Action Plan
to achieve parity."
"Without such parity," they said, "fed
eral funds may be withheld under the laws
of the land."
The next issue of the Cougar Print will
examine what has been done, what is being
done, and what plans exist for future imple
mentation at CCC, toward achieving that
parity.
Page 5