35 United States EQUALITY
In
AND BUREAUCRACY
Congress passed the Equal Employment Opporforbade discrimination on account of race, which tunity Act, national and sex, origin. In itself this piece of legislareligion, tion seemed innocuous and somewhat overdue. Certainly it was true that many minority groups had for years been shamefully discriminated against, and both Congress and the general public felt that the time had come to rectify the situation. But unfortunately the federal bureaucracy took over, and the regulations that have come into existence as a result of the legislation in no way represent the will either of Congress or of the people. Nowadays every Government agency has to have an equal employment opportunity (E.E.O.) officer; he is in addition to and not in place of the personnel officer, and his sole function is to ensure that a suitable proportion of minority groups is hired. In one governmental institute in which the total work force includes just over 600 employees, compliance with standard anti-discriminatory practice is effected by an E.E.o. officer at a salary of$28 000 a year, an assistant E.E.o. officer at around$18 000 per year, and a secretary at around$7 000
England
Now
In 1972
per year. E.E.o.
and
regulations apply
to
all industries,
to
all universities
colleges that are in receipt of federal funds (virtually all),
hospitals, and to all Government facilities. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (H.E.W.) is currently conducting a campaign to educate all employers as to their E.E.o. responsibilities. One particular H.E.W. document which has occasioned much critical comment states that it is not justifiable simply to hire the best qualified candidate irrespective of colour, creed, and so on. If the best applicant happens to be White, but in addition there is a Black or Puerto Rican applicant, one must make allowances for the effects of "cultural, to
verbal and literary deprivation" on the applicant’s qualifications. Just how one does this is left in the air, but any rejected applicant can lodge a complaint, and it then becomes the responsibility of the employer or supervisor who made the appointment to justify his choice-in short, he is presumed guilty until he proves himself innocent. Good faith in itself is insufficient. By the same token, if the employer hires a member of a minority group and overlooks a better qualified White applicant, he is likely to find himself sued by the aggrieved party. The ne plus ultra came about when several Black applicants and a Government official brought a complaint of discrimination against a Black supervisor who had appointed a White E.E.o. officer. The appointment was only of one of four positions, all the others being awarded to Blacks; after long and expensive legal proceedings, the supervisor was acquitted in a federal district court. H.E.W. officials have let it be known that it may be illegal to refuse employment to a person with a previous criminal record or with a history of drug addiction, but they do not seem to have considered the possible consequences of such directives. And, despite these noble sentiments, many Government application forms specifically ask if the applicant has been convicted of a criminal offence. Furthermore, discrimination and the most overt type of nepotism are all too common in many governmental and congressional appointments; indeed, the Constitution requires that the President must be 35 years of age or over and a native-born American. In order to avoid falling foul of anti-discrimination legislation, employers have taken to devising job descriptions which are unduly restrictive and which are based strictly on educational qualifications. While complying with the federal regulations, such subterfuge thwarts the intention of the original law. Were Congress to write their laws in language that was clear and comprehensible there would be no need of a third party to enact regulations which misrepresent the spirit of the original legislation. For every law that Congress passes, the federal bureaucracy publishes an average of 40 regulations, which are bureaucratic interpretations of the law and are not
necessarily binding.
TROUBLE IN THE NATIONAL LEGAL SERVICE
A Case of Professional Transvestism The Lord High Physician-Lord Bonaria-was proud of his ancient office, proud even of his right by bizarre tradition to sit in the House of Lords on the healthsack-said to be stuffed with foxglove leaves. Nevertheless, he could unbend, and he was in jocular vein as he chatted to the ConsultantGeneral, Sir Ian Grist, and the Practitioner-General, Sir John Slane. They were discussing Government business, and Lord Bonaria was inveighing against the lawyers. "Always cause trouble, the lawyers," he began; "now the junior lawyers are at loggerheads with the senior lawyers, and the Government are going to apply the standard divide and conquer tactics. Of course, there may be some merit in the seniors’ stand against the separation of private legal work from National Legal Service work-but I’m afraid it’s political necessity. Not only will there be separation, but the Government intend to license only a certain quota of private legal work." Grist whistled softly. "That seems a rather over-zealous approach," he commented. "Why such stringency?" "Well, the trouble is", came the reply, "that the demand for private legal work will be so great that unless we take this line the National Legal Service might suffer. Besides, the Confederation of Legal Service Employees insist on it-and you know the trouble they can cause. By the time we have pushed all this through, though, the lawyers--especially the barristers-will virtually be Civil Servants under the control of the legal service administrators; you could say we will have finished the job we started with the reorganisation of the legal service." "Yes, I see that", said Grist, helping himself to another drink, "and I couldn’t ask this except privately over a gin and tonic, but is all this really benefiting the legal rights of the average citizen?" Bonaria leaned forward. "If I could reply in the same spirit," he replied, "the confidential answer is-no, not at all, perhaps even the reverse. However, you must know that when things are going badly for a Government it may become necessary to divert public attention. We chose the image of the grasping barrister as our Aunt Sallie, and here again the lawyers played right into our hands. They claimed the professional right to manage their own affairs-went on and on about the sanctity of the lawyer-client relationship, and not only did nothing about the blatant abuses that obviously existed, but even denied them. You could say that they have lost their credibility and we have gained the credit we needed." Slane, well on his way through his fourth gin, nodded pompously. "Yes, I see all that, but don’t you think that the lawyers themselves should be allowed a little more say than their articled clerks in running the legal profession-is there any chance of this?" "Very little," replied Bonaria. "I suppose that if all the lawyers-junior and senior, solicitors and barristers--could get together, agree on a common policy, speak with one voice, admit to malpractices, and actually do something about them, they would regain credibility and influence. But the chances of that happening seem so remote as to be non-existent for practical purposes." The Consultant-General drained his glass and got up to go. "It is tragic to watch the decline of a proud and honourable profession," he declared, "but I accept these measures as politically advantageous, and the profession has only itself to blame." The Practitioner-General also rose, slightly unsteadily, to join him. "One last question, Bonaria, you don’t think we should learn from the lawyers, and look into our profession, do you?" "My dear Slane," replied the Lord High Physician, "you have obviously had far too much gin. As long as doctors form the largest professional group in the House of Commons, and as long as our three offices exist-ensuring that medical affairs are controlled in Government by doctors we have nothing to fear."
In
AND BUREAUCRACY
Congress passed the Equal Employment Opporforbade discrimination on account of race, which tunity Act, national and sex, origin. In itself this piece of legislareligion, tion seemed innocuous and somewhat overdue. Certainly it was true that many minority groups had for years been shamefully discriminated against, and both Congress and the general public felt that the time had come to rectify the situation. But unfortunately the federal bureaucracy took over, and the regulations that have come into existence as a result of the legislation in no way represent the will either of Congress or of the people. Nowadays every Government agency has to have an equal employment opportunity (E.E.O.) officer; he is in addition to and not in place of the personnel officer, and his sole function is to ensure that a suitable proportion of minority groups is hired. In one governmental institute in which the total work force includes just over 600 employees, compliance with standard anti-discriminatory practice is effected by an E.E.o. officer at a salary of$28 000 a year, an assistant E.E.o. officer at around$18 000 per year, and a secretary at around$7 000
England
Now
In 1972
per year. E.E.o.
and
regulations apply
to
all industries,
to
all universities
colleges that are in receipt of federal funds (virtually all),
hospitals, and to all Government facilities. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (H.E.W.) is currently conducting a campaign to educate all employers as to their E.E.o. responsibilities. One particular H.E.W. document which has occasioned much critical comment states that it is not justifiable simply to hire the best qualified candidate irrespective of colour, creed, and so on. If the best applicant happens to be White, but in addition there is a Black or Puerto Rican applicant, one must make allowances for the effects of "cultural, to
verbal and literary deprivation" on the applicant’s qualifications. Just how one does this is left in the air, but any rejected applicant can lodge a complaint, and it then becomes the responsibility of the employer or supervisor who made the appointment to justify his choice-in short, he is presumed guilty until he proves himself innocent. Good faith in itself is insufficient. By the same token, if the employer hires a member of a minority group and overlooks a better qualified White applicant, he is likely to find himself sued by the aggrieved party. The ne plus ultra came about when several Black applicants and a Government official brought a complaint of discrimination against a Black supervisor who had appointed a White E.E.o. officer. The appointment was only of one of four positions, all the others being awarded to Blacks; after long and expensive legal proceedings, the supervisor was acquitted in a federal district court. H.E.W. officials have let it be known that it may be illegal to refuse employment to a person with a previous criminal record or with a history of drug addiction, but they do not seem to have considered the possible consequences of such directives. And, despite these noble sentiments, many Government application forms specifically ask if the applicant has been convicted of a criminal offence. Furthermore, discrimination and the most overt type of nepotism are all too common in many governmental and congressional appointments; indeed, the Constitution requires that the President must be 35 years of age or over and a native-born American. In order to avoid falling foul of anti-discrimination legislation, employers have taken to devising job descriptions which are unduly restrictive and which are based strictly on educational qualifications. While complying with the federal regulations, such subterfuge thwarts the intention of the original law. Were Congress to write their laws in language that was clear and comprehensible there would be no need of a third party to enact regulations which misrepresent the spirit of the original legislation. For every law that Congress passes, the federal bureaucracy publishes an average of 40 regulations, which are bureaucratic interpretations of the law and are not
necessarily binding.
TROUBLE IN THE NATIONAL LEGAL SERVICE
A Case of Professional Transvestism The Lord High Physician-Lord Bonaria-was proud of his ancient office, proud even of his right by bizarre tradition to sit in the House of Lords on the healthsack-said to be stuffed with foxglove leaves. Nevertheless, he could unbend, and he was in jocular vein as he chatted to the ConsultantGeneral, Sir Ian Grist, and the Practitioner-General, Sir John Slane. They were discussing Government business, and Lord Bonaria was inveighing against the lawyers. "Always cause trouble, the lawyers," he began; "now the junior lawyers are at loggerheads with the senior lawyers, and the Government are going to apply the standard divide and conquer tactics. Of course, there may be some merit in the seniors’ stand against the separation of private legal work from National Legal Service work-but I’m afraid it’s political necessity. Not only will there be separation, but the Government intend to license only a certain quota of private legal work." Grist whistled softly. "That seems a rather over-zealous approach," he commented. "Why such stringency?" "Well, the trouble is", came the reply, "that the demand for private legal work will be so great that unless we take this line the National Legal Service might suffer. Besides, the Confederation of Legal Service Employees insist on it-and you know the trouble they can cause. By the time we have pushed all this through, though, the lawyers--especially the barristers-will virtually be Civil Servants under the control of the legal service administrators; you could say we will have finished the job we started with the reorganisation of the legal service." "Yes, I see that", said Grist, helping himself to another drink, "and I couldn’t ask this except privately over a gin and tonic, but is all this really benefiting the legal rights of the average citizen?" Bonaria leaned forward. "If I could reply in the same spirit," he replied, "the confidential answer is-no, not at all, perhaps even the reverse. However, you must know that when things are going badly for a Government it may become necessary to divert public attention. We chose the image of the grasping barrister as our Aunt Sallie, and here again the lawyers played right into our hands. They claimed the professional right to manage their own affairs-went on and on about the sanctity of the lawyer-client relationship, and not only did nothing about the blatant abuses that obviously existed, but even denied them. You could say that they have lost their credibility and we have gained the credit we needed." Slane, well on his way through his fourth gin, nodded pompously. "Yes, I see all that, but don’t you think that the lawyers themselves should be allowed a little more say than their articled clerks in running the legal profession-is there any chance of this?" "Very little," replied Bonaria. "I suppose that if all the lawyers-junior and senior, solicitors and barristers--could get together, agree on a common policy, speak with one voice, admit to malpractices, and actually do something about them, they would regain credibility and influence. But the chances of that happening seem so remote as to be non-existent for practical purposes." The Consultant-General drained his glass and got up to go. "It is tragic to watch the decline of a proud and honourable profession," he declared, "but I accept these measures as politically advantageous, and the profession has only itself to blame." The Practitioner-General also rose, slightly unsteadily, to join him. "One last question, Bonaria, you don’t think we should learn from the lawyers, and look into our profession, do you?" "My dear Slane," replied the Lord High Physician, "you have obviously had far too much gin. As long as doctors form the largest professional group in the House of Commons, and as long as our three offices exist-ensuring that medical affairs are controlled in Government by doctors we have nothing to fear."
