To the Editor:

In all likelihood, there would be little disagreement with the view that human relations constitutes the crucial challenge of our time. But there is insufficient awareness of the high sensitivity that surrounds discussion of any facet of this complex and delicate area of our social organization. A difference of emphasis in formulation or a modicum of imprecision in language can create grave misunderstanding resulting in hostility, suspicion, and embarrassment. The term “quota” as recently employed by both proponents and opponents [Earl Raab, “Quotas by Any Other Name,” January; Paul Seabury, “HEW & the Universities,” February; Letters from Readers, May, June, July; and Elliott Abrams, “The Quota Commission,” October] has been responsible for just these undesirable consequences.

This designation, naturally, calls forth memories of harsh realities of the past—the restrictions on admission to universities based on religious affiliation that continued into the 30’s; the rejection for the same reason by medical schools of applicants, no matter how well-qualified, that persisted until the early 40’s, and, above all, the restriction of immigration to the United States on the ground of ethnic origin which culminated in the unjust and cruel quota-immigration law of 1924.

But the common designation of “quota” is not related to these past tragic experiences. Advancement is the objective in the current instance, not restriction. As a matter of fact, those who are now opposed to what is loosely termed “quotas” for the most part support the fundamental policies which, if implemented, would in the long run render unnecessary the utilization of measures which might be termed “quota.”

I list the principles in the order of the magnitude of adherence which many right-thinking and civic-conscious American citizens, especially those directly engaged in human-relations programs, support in one form or another:

1. No person’s life chances should be affected by his race, his religion, his national origin, or his class status.
2. Since for more than three hundred years, blacks (as well as other non-white groups) have been disadvantaged as a group through deprivation, discrimination, neglect, and cruelty, it is now incumbent upon all of us, both by law and human-heartedness, to do everything in our power to advance the condition of the members of these depressed groups and to expedite their entry into the mainstream of American society.
3. To achieve this result it is not sufficient to avoid utilizing discriminatory procedures on entry into employment, educational institutions, the civil service, and the academic fraternity, but to engage in affirmative action to mitigate the injury inflicted by these destructive practices.

It is in the implementation of “affirmative action” that we squarely face our difficulties. For here we enter the realm of practice. It was Bismarck who is credited with the observation: “If someone tells me that he agrees with me in principle, I feel pretty certain that he has no intention of agreeing with me in practice.”

The following, in my view, are essential to the fulfillment of the goal of affirmative action:

A search for desirable applicants among the blacks and other disadvantaged groups should be conducted. Not so long ago Jewish organizations were told by banks and utilities that the reluctance of Jews to apply for positions in these corporations explained the meager representation of Jews in their executive suites. Since then, some of these companies have shown that it is possible to conduct a successful “search” for applicants from this group.

Members from the disadvantaged groups should be trained in the required skills in a specific industry; there are still government funds available to industrial establishments for this purpose.

Compensatory services in education should be maintained for disadvantaged individuals through concentrated and innovative educational programs, thus preparing them for entry into higher educational pursuits—not on a preferential basis of color, race, or ethnic identity; not to lower admission requirements, but to make available the special services that would prepare them to function on an equal footing with their colleagues. Programs such as these would tend to compensate for past deprivations and discrimination.

We should make certain that, in job recruitment, the tests employed to determine qualifications for hiring purposes do not include built-in discriminatory elements that are, in fact, of little or no value in predicting quality of performance. For instance, the best test for a teacher with the culturally disadvantaged may actually be sample performance on the job, not simply the possession of a certificate.

Lastly—and this I believe to be the crux of this involved matter—we must utilize the “pattern” approach and not just the nature of the practice as a criterion for ascertaining the presence or absence of discriminatory practices. We should not be satisfied merely with examining the procedures employed in hiring, but we should look to see how many blacks there are in the factory or among the university faculty. Do we have a situation where practically all workers are black and none is in a supervisory post? Are 90 per cent of the teachers in a school black, but very few or none in administrative or supervisory posts? If these conditions prevail, then we should resort to the search and to the training of prospective black personnel to correct this unsatisfactory existing “pattern.”

It may take time to do this, but it is our obligation to demonstrate our good faith in our goals and in the guidelines that we set for ourselves. And we should welcome the objective review of our “pattern” of performance and the efforts we put forth to achieve our stated goals by an outside agency, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. We must not be rushed by extremists; responsible minority leadership will support our position if We demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt genuine good faith in carrying out our commitments.

This “pattern-goal-guideline” approach does not constitute a “quota” system. It is compensatory action, not preferential treatment. It will make possible in the long run the retention of a fundamental attribute of democracy—individual merit—and concomitantly advance the condition of the depressed minority group.

The stress placed, by both opponents and supporters, on the so-called “quota” approach confuses the basic issue. We should emphasize what we are genuinely for and not what we are against, thus avoiding the mistaken impression that we are solely concerned with our own particular bailiwick and only secondarily with the moral and ethical fiber of society as a whole.

There will of course be certain inevitable displacements due to increased competition from newly qualified minority-group members. But this has always occurred in the history of the United States during the process of immigrant adjustment and the upward climb of our various ethnic groups. Teaching jobs may become less plentiful for certain minorities as a result of this competition, but jobs in desirable posts of the industrial corporation may become more readily available. The latter is, as a matter of fact, taking place. The temporary displacement will eventually become a replacement.

John Slawson
Columbia University and Hunter College School of Social Work
New York City

_____________

To the Editor:

In connection with your continuing discussion of affirmative action and quotas, I thought you might be interested in the following correspondence.

Jack Hirshleifer
University of California,
Los Angeles
Los Angeles, California

_____________

State University of New York At Buffalo

Department of Economics
June 19, 1972

Dear Professor—:

It is highly probable that all universities are being subjected to pressures (from HEW and elsewhere) to pay more attention to the hiring of faculty members from minority groups (viz. blacks, Puerto Ricans, and women). In effect, this seems to have become a national policy.

Accordingly, the earlier policy of not identifying on curricula vitae race and sex, at least, would appear to have become outdated. At any rate, continuation of this earlier policy has the effect of making more difficult implementation of the new one; for we are put in the ofttimes embarrassing position of inquiring about the race of Mr. or Ms. X, or bluntly, whether Department Y has any good blacks (or women, etc.) available.

As an alternative to such questions, and in recognition of the new policy, I propose that henceforth all curricula vitae of new Ph.D.’s coming onto the market contain identifications of race and sex. . . .

Sincerely,
[signed] D. Hamberg¹
Chairman

_____________

University of California Los Angeles

Department of Economics
July 12, 1972

Dear Professor Hamberg:

As I have been Placement Officer of the UCLA Economics Department for the past academic year, my department chairman has passed on to me your letter of June 19, 1972. You will recall that you proposed there that all job candidates be labeled as to race and sex, evidently for the convenience of employers engaging in race and sex discrimination. . . .

You are evidently de facto correct that preferential hiring has become “national policy” (as have race and sex quotas in the form of targets or goals). A certain lag in following this policy is perhaps excusable; it is a bit confusing that our obsolete non-discrimination legislation does not seem to have been repealed or invalidated. Regardless of merely pro forma law, however, the actual practices now demanded of us are clear enough. I do not see, therefore, why you or anyone should feel “embarrassed” about carrying out the new policy. Still, I admit that there would be a saving of time and convenience if we were to adopt race and sex labeling.

But I am afraid that your letter adopts a rather cavalier attitude toward something which, upon due reflection, you will realize merits more careful attention. While the question does not seem to arise with respect to sex, there is a very serious problem about race labeling. If our department happened to mis-label a candidate racially, we might well be leaving ourselves open to a lawsuit. For as you know, the lifetime earnings differential of preferential access to desirable employment may amount to no mean sum. On the other hand, allowing the candidate to label himself—in effect, to award himself the racial qualifications necessary for employment—would be an invitation to abuse. (Indeed, we have already experienced here a mini-scandal: a Jew of Sephardic origin attempted to pass himself off as a genuine member of a Latin minority!)

I do not mean to be entirely un-constructive. If there were objective or legally established definitions of race, together with a legal requirement of full disclosure of racial origins, we would be in the clear. I understand that a number of steps in this direction were achieved by the “Nuremberg laws” of Nazi Germany. And in the Soviet Union, I am told, all individuals carry their racial identifications on their internal passports. Similarly for blacks in South Africa. So there are precedents. I would suggest that the American Economic Association call upon the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), and other bureaucratic agencies now engaged in promoting racial discrimination, for assistance. We should ask them to establish legal “guidelines” as to: (1) Which races are to be preferred, and which discriminated against; (2) what criteria (how many grandparents?) determine racial qualifications for employment; (3) what administrative procedures must be set up for appeals against arbitrary classification.

With guidelines like these, you and other department chairmen would suffer neither embarrassment nor inconvenience in employing some individuals, and refusing to hire others, on the grounds of their race and sex. And you will have the peace of mind of knowing that the authenticity of racial labelings have in effect been guaranteed by an agency of the federal government.

Jack Hirshleifer
Professor

_____________

¹ Professor Hamberg has written us as follows: “Nothing in my letter is to be construed as implying support or approval of the affirmative-action programs currently being pushed by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Quite the contrary, I endorse the reservations raised by Jack Hirshleifer.”—Ed.