Skip to main content
AT THE STATE UNIVERSITY
OF NEW YORK
DEPOS/r ,,„ 2 , .76
A report of the New York State Advisory
Committee to the United States Commission
on Civil Rights prepared for the information and
consideration of the Commission. This report
will be considered by the Commission, and
the Commission will mai<e public its reaction.
In the meantime, the recommendations in this
report should not be attributed to the Com-
, ^ mission, but only to the New York State
L Advisory Committee.
^j.L ' August 1976
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
AT THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
--A report prepared by the New York State Advisory
Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
The findings and
recommendations contained in
this report are those of the
New York State Advisory
Committee to the United States
Commission on Civil Rights and,
as such, are not atrributable
to the commission.
This report has been prepared
by the Srate Advisory Committee
for submission to the
Commission, and will be
considered by the Commission in
formulating its recommendations
to the President and the
RIGHT OF RESPONSE:
Prior to the publication of a
report, the State Advisory
Committee affords to all
individuals or organizations
that may be defamed, degraded,
or incriminated by any material
contained in the report an
opportunity to respond in
writing to such material. All
responses have been
incorporated, appended, or
otherwise reflected in the
NEW YORK STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE
UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
Hon. Franklin H. Williams, Chairman
R. Val Archer, Vice Chairman ***
Domingo A. Garcia, Vice C hairman
Dr. Setsuko Matsunaga Nishi, Vice Chairwoman**
Dorothy A. Kirsch, Secretar y**
Samuel F. Abernethy**
Dr. Walter Cooper***
Dr. Michael H. Alderman*
Matilde P. DeSilva**
Kathleen M. DiFiore***
Dr. Samuel F. Babbitt***
Dr. John J. Beatty**
Elizabeth B. DuBois*
Sandra L. Bird*
Edward W. Elwin*
Dr. Algernon Black**
Marshall C. England
Isabel D. Brookfield*
Douglas P. Fields**
Minna R. Buck*
Hilda E. Ford***
W. Haywood Burns*
Marilyn G. Haft*
Sande R. Jones
L. Harriett Henderson*
i-aith A. Seidenberg***
Loida N. Lewis**
Portia A. Smith*
Ronni B. Smirh***
Lita M. Taracido**
Prof. William M. Murphy***
Peter J. Wallison*
Gladys E. Rivera**
Steven H. Rubin*
Charles P. Wang**
Robert Takashi Yanagida*
Nancy O. Sachtjen**
Dr. Willie K. Yee*
*No longer a member of the Advisory Committee.
"''Members appointed since the informal hearing.
^''♦Subcommittee on SUNY.
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
NEW YORK STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TO THE U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION
Arthur S. Flemming, Chairman
Stephen Horn, Vice Chairman
Frankie M. Freeman
Manuel Ruiz, Jr.
John A. Buggs, Staff Director
Sirs and Madam:
The New York State Advisory Committee submits this report on
equal employment opportunity at the State University of New
York (SUNY) as part of its responsibility to advise the
Commission on relevant civil rights problems within the
This report reviews the status of minorities and women in
professional positions at SUNY and the progress achieved by
the university's affirmative action program since 1971. At
the Advisory Committee's request, SUNY conducted its first
ethnic census in 1971. Shortly thereafter, SUNY issued a
policy statement on equal employment opportunity and began
its affirmative action efforts. In 1973 the Advisory
Committee reviewed these affirmative action programs and
held informal, public hearings in Albany, N.Y. Testimony
was received from staff at the central administration and
individual SUNY campuses as well as from State and Federal
officials and representatives of minority and female
In the 1973-1974 school year, the university employed 14,815
faculty and administrative personnel. Of that total, about
4.8 percent were black, and 0.9 percent were Puerto Rican;
approximately 24.3 percent were women. Minorities and women
held a higher percentage of the lower paying professional
In January 1975 SUNY submitted a report to the Advisory
Committee updating its EEO achievements.
The Advisory Committee concludes that SUNY's affirmative
action efforts have not been adequate. More than 4 years
after issuing its policy statement on equal employment
opportunity, SUNY has failed to implement and enforce its
policy statement. Since 1973 SUNY has not fulfilled its
legal obligations to complete campus affirmative action
plans as required under Federal regulations. Funding and
staffing for the central EEO office have not been adequate,
The Advisory Committee is forwarding a series of
recommendations to SUMY and to the State and Federal
agencies responsible for enforcing EEO regulations. It is
our hope that the Commission will support our
recommendations and use its influence to help initiate
change in the SUNY system.
Franklin H. Williams
The Advisory Committee wishes to thank the staff of the
Commission's Northeastern Regional Office, New York, N.Y.,
for its help in the preparation of this report. Research
and writing assistance was provided by Milta Torres and
Linda Dunn. Legal assistance prior to and during the
informal hearing was provided by Eliot H. Stanley. Legal
review was provided by Eugene Bogan, staff attorney.
Additional staff support was provided by Diane Diggs, Yvonne
Griffith, and America Ortiz. All worked under the guidance
of Jacques E. Wilmore, Regional Director.
Preparation of all State Advisory Committee reports is
supervised by Isaiah T. Creswell, Jr., Assistant Staff
Director for Field Operations.
Final edit and review was conducted in the Commission's
Publications Management Division, Washington, D.C., by
editor Laura Chin, assisted by Audree B. Holton.
THE UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
The United States Commission on Civil Rights, created by the
Civil Rights Act of 1957, is an independent, bipartisan
agency of the executive branch of the Federal Government.
By terms of the Act, as amended, the Commission is charged
wi-ch the following duties pertaining to denials of the equal
protection of the laws based on race, color, sex, religion,
or national origin: investigation of individual
discriminatory denials of the right to vote; study of legal
developments with respect to denials of the equal protection
of the law; appraisal of the laws and policies of the United
States with respect to denials of equal protection of the
law; maintenance of a national clearinghouse for information
respecting denials of equal protection of the law; and
investigation of patterns or practices of fraud or
discrimination in the conduct of Federal elections. The
Commission is also required to submit reports to the
President and the Congress at such times as the Commission,
the Congress, or the President shall deem desirable.
THE STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEES
An Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on
Civil Rights has been established in each of the 50 States
and the District of Columbia pursuant to section 105(c) of
the Civil Rights Act of 19 57 as amended. The Advisory
Committees are made up of responsible persons who serve
without compensation. Their functions under their mandate
from the Commission are to: advise the Commission of all
relevant information concerning their respective States on
matters within the jurisdiction of the Commission; advise
the Commission on matters of mutual concern in the
preparation of reports of the Commission to the President
and the Congress; receive reports, suggestions, and
recommendations from individuals, public and private
organizations, and public officials upon matters pertinent
to inquiries conducted by the State Advisory Committee;
initiate and forward advice and recommendations to the
Commission upon matters in which the Commission shall
request the assistance of the State Advisory Committee; and
attend, as observers, any open hearing or conference which
the Commission may hold within the State.
I. Introduction 1
A. Profile of the SUNY System 1
B. The Advisory Committee's Concern 3
II. EEO Activities at Central SUNY 7
A. Early developments 7
B. Equal Employment Opportunity at SUNY 9
1. Budget 9
2. Staffing 10
3. EEO Committees ■ H
U. Affirmative Action Plans ]_2
5. Recruitment 14
6. SUNY Image in and Liaison with the
7. The Role of the State Division of
Human Rights at SUNY 17
8. The Role of the Office for Civil Rignts
of the U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare 19
III. Minorities and Women at SUNY: A Statistical
A. Minorities 28
B. Women 34
C. Change over Previous Years 37
IV. Findings and Recommendations 41
A. Statistics on SUNY's Professional Staff: 1973-1974 46
B. Status of Campus Affirmative Action Plans, April 197 5-- c/-
C. Letter from Jacques E. Wilmore, Regional Director,
USCCR, to Joel Barkan, Regional Director, Office
for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, March 31, 1975, and
response from Joel Barkan to Jacques Wilmore,
April 7, 1975 52
I. Faculty and Administrative Staff: White and
Minority: Fall 1973 29
II. Faculty and Administrative Staff by Race/Ethnic
Group: Fall 1973 30
III. Stony Brook Faculty and Available Pools of
IV. Minority Administrative Staff by Grade Level:
Fall 1973 33
V. Minority Faculty by Tenure Status:
Fall 1973 34
VI. Faculty and Administrative Staff by Sex:
Fall 1973 35
VII. Administrative Staff by Sex and Grade Level:
Fall 1973 36
VIII. Faculty by Sex and Tenure Sratus:
Fall 1973 37
IX. Minority Faculty at SONY: 197C and 1973 37
X. Minority Women Faculty at SUNY: 1970 and
197 3 38
XI. Women Faculty at SUNY: 1970 and 1973 39
I . INTRODUCTION
A. A Profile of the SUNY System
The State University of New York (SUNY) was created in
19U8 by the State legislature to develop and administer a
statewide system of higher education.* Since its founding,
STTNY has grown from 2 9 State-supported but unaffiliated
campuses to an organized system of 7 2 institutions. It is
the largest, multilevel, centrally-managed system of public
higher education in the United States.
The university encompasses 4 university centers, 2
medical centers, 13 colleges of arts and science, 1
nonresidential college, 5 statutory colleges, 3 specialized
colleges, 6 agricultural and technical colleges, and 38
locally-sponsored community colleges. A total of 12
campuses offer graduate studies at the doctoral level and 22
at the masters level.
In 1973 the State University employed 28,132 persons,
of whom U,156 were administrative staff and 10,659 were
faculty members. Of the professionals ,2 90.5 percent were
white, U.8 percent were black, 0.9 percent were of Spanish-
speaking background, and U.9 percent were members of other
minority groups. About 24.3 percent were women. ^ clerical
and support staff are not within the scope of this report.
SUNY is governed by a 15-member board of trustees
appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the
State senate. The board is empowered to appoint its own
officers, the chancellor, and the central administration
staff. The trustees exercise direct control over 2 9 of the
72 units. Excluded from this direct control are the 5
statutory colleges and 38 community colleges. The five
statutory colleges are governed by the board of trustees of
the universities under which they operate Cornell and
Alfred. The community colleges are governed by their own
guasi-independent boards of trustees.
The chancellor of the State xiniversity is appointed by
the board of trustees and has final administrative
responsibility for the entire university system. The
chancellor is responsible for recommending and implementing
policies for the board of trustees, formulating and
implementing personnel regulations, offering guidelines for
budget and program development, establishing academic
priorities, and other matters.* The campus presidents have
the responsibility for daily administration and the
implementation of statewide policies on their campuses. The
campus president thus becomes an important figure, both as
head of a local unit of the university and as an
administrator of systemwide policy.
The chancellor and the campus presidents serve for 5-
year terms. A community council is responsible for
recommending candidates for president of its campus to the
chancellor and the board of trustees. At the end of each 5-
year term, a performance evaluation is completed by the
chancellor who recommends to the board of trustees whether
or not a president should be reappointed. These procedures
have been initiated to make the appointment process more
sensitive to the interests of the college community and to
permit active involvement by the office of the chancellor.
However, the final power of appointment rests with the board
of trustees. s
The central administrative staff of the university
system is located in Albany. The chancellor has final
administrative responsibility, while a deputy chancellor
directs the day-to-day operations. The central staff is
divided into 13 divisions, each headed by an associate,
deputy, or vice chancellor. Of importance to this report is
the division for faculty and staff relations and one of its
subdivisions, the office of equal opportunity programs.
Directors of offices within divisions of the central staff,
such as the director of the office of equal opportunity
programs, must go through supervisory channels to
communicate with the chancellor.*
Every year SUNY receives millions of dollars in public
funds from Federal, State, and local governments. SUNY
officials estimated that the university received
approximately $70,500,000 or 9.7 percent of its total funds
from the Federal Government in fiscal year 197U-75. For the
same fiscal year, the State appropriated $533,700,000 to the
SUNY system. An additional $13,700,000 was received from
the State through grants other than direct appropriations.
Approximately $75,500,000 was received from other sources, ^
The 38 community colleges receive funds amovinting to 50
percent of their capital budgets and approximately two-
thirds of their operating budgets from the local governments
where they are situated.
B. The Advisory Committee's Concern
Because of the size and importance of SUNY, the New
York State Advisory Committee to the U. S. Commission on
Civil Rights has been concerned for several years with equal
employment opportunities in the system. In 1969 the
Advisory Committee appointed a subcommittee to monitor
plans, policies, and practices related to equal employment
opportunity for minorities and women. The Committee decided
to limit its inquiry to faculty and administrative positions
within the university.
In the fall of 1969, the subcommittee met with the then
Chancellor Samuel B. Gould to discuss the university's
policies. The Advisory Committee learned that SUNY did not
have a written policy on equal employment opportunity (EEO)
or an affirmative action program. The university had not
collected detailed statistical data on the numbers and
status of minorities and women in the various units of the
Since 19 69 Advisory Committee members have had numerous
conferences with the chancellor, central SUNY officials, and
staff at several units of the university system. In June
197 3 the Advisory Committee held a 2-day informal, public
hearing in Albany to assess progress and problems relating
to equal employment opportunities at SUNY.'
In the early years, the Advisory Committee restricted
its inquiry largely to the analysis of statistics presented
by SUNY and of EEO policies at the central administration.
Later, members of the Advisory Committee and Commission
staff visited nine local units of SUNY and reviewed
affirmative action procedures. * o Conferences were held with
local presidents, equal employment opportunity officers, and
members of the faculty and administration in an effort to
determine how policies were being transmitted and
implemented on the local level.
In November 197U the Advisory Committee sent Chancellor
Ernest L. Boyer, who was appointed in 1970, a draft of its
findings and recommendations on central SUNY for his
comments. 11 In response to the draft report, the chancellor
submitted in January 1975 a statement to the Advisory
Committee listing SUNY's recent EEO achievements. i 2 The
chancellor also met with the Advisory Committee Subcommittee
on SUNY to discuss current EEO developments . »3 Appropriate
references to SUNY's response have been incorporated into
This report analyzes the extent to which the State
University of New York has developed a program to assure
equal opportunity in faculty and administrative employment.
It summarizes the progress made in the past 4 years and
points out the failures in SUNY's program. It measures the
promises made against the "bottom line" of its employment
statistics on faculty and administrative positions.
It is the Advisory Committee's hope that this report
will be used by SUNY officials, as well as groups interested
in EEO, to promote equality of employment opportunity in the
New York State university system.
NOTES TO INTRODUCTION
1. N.Y. Ed. Law, Article 8, Chap. 695, § 350-362 (McKinney
2. Throughout this report, "professionals" is used to
denote both teaching and administrative staff.
3. State of New York, Department of Civil Service, 1973
Seventh Annual Report on the Occupations, Job Status and
Ethnic Characteristics of Employees in New York State
Agencie s (Albany, N.Y.).
4. State of New York, SUNY, Policies of the Board of
Trustees 1 972 (June 1972), p. 3.
5. The appointment and evaluation process is authorized
under the following: State of New York, SUNY, "Guidelines
for the Review Process for the Chancellor and Presidents,"
Oct. 22, 197U.
6. Dr. C. Eugene Kratz, director of equal employment
opportunity programs, SUNY, interview in Albany, N.Y. , Apr.
7. Dr. C. Eugene Kratz, director of equal employment
opportunity programs, SUNY, letter to Jacques E. Wilmore,
Apr. 2U, 1975, p. 13. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,
Northeastern Regional Office (USCCRNERO) files.
8. Samuel B. Gould, chancellor, SUNY, interview in Albany,
N.Y., fall 1969.
9. U.S., Commission on Civil Rights, New York State
Advisory Committee, Transcript of Open Public Meeting, June
6 and 7, 1973, Albany, N.Y., USCCRNERO files.
10. The institutions were: Binghamton (university),
Buffalo (college) , Buffalo (university) , Cobleskill
(agricultural and technical college) , Oswego (college) ,
Plattsburg (college) , Purchase (university) , Stony Brook
(university) , and Upstate Medical Center. In addition.
Commission staff reviewed the complaints of and met with
employees at a 10th unit of the system, Downstate Medical
11. Jacques E. Wilmore, regional director, USCCRNEPO,
letter to Ernest L. Boyer, chancellor, SUNY, Nov. 15, 1971,
12. State of New York, SUNY, "State University of New York
Response to the Draft Report, New York State Advisory
Cominittee, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights" (January 1975).
13. Chancellor Ernest Boyer, meeting with SUNY Subcommittee
in New York, N.Y., Jan. 20, 197 5.
II. EEO ACTIVITIES AT CENTRAL SUNY
Since SUNY is a centrally managed system, the
chancellor has overall responsibility for EEO policy at all
colleges and campuses. Therefore, the development and
implementation of EEO programs and affirmative action
procedures in the system are highly dependent upon programs
and policy directives emanating from central SUNY in Albany.
A. Early Developments
In 1970, following a request from the Advisory
committee for statistical data by race and sex of SUNY's
professional staff, the university conducted its first
ethnic census of professional staff. Survey results for the
fall of 1970 showed that minorities and women were
underrepresented and indicated a pattern of de facto
discrimination against minorities and women. *
Of the 9,492 full-time faculty members in 27
institutions surveyed at that time, there were only 158
black men and 80 black women. Blacks were 2.5 percent of
the faculty members; Puerto Rican faculty members, 20 men
and 12 women, were about 0.3 percent. The 1,939 women made
up about 20 percent of the SUNY faculty. 2
Figures for full-time administrative staff indicated
similar underrepresentation. Only 257 or 8.U percent of the
total were black, 14 or .01 percent were Puerto Rican, and
9 69 or 31 percent were women. 3
After SUNY reviewed the results of the census,
university officials took the first steps in setting up an
affirmative action program. In February 1971 the office of
equal employment opportunity programs was created at the
central administration, with Dr. C. Eugene Kratz named
director.* At the same time. Chancellor Boyer called for the
appointment of EEO officers at each of the 29 campuses. ^
On June 30, 1971, the board of trustees issued a policy
statement calling for equal opportunity in SUNY employment.
The statement called for the development of affirmative
action programs with goals and timetables and the commitment
of the necessary staff and support to assure the
effectiveness of these programs.
The statement read, in part:
...It is the policy of State University of New
York to provide equal opportunity in employment
for all qualified persons; to prohibit
discrimination in employment; and to promote the
full realization of equal employment opportunity
through a positive, continuing program for the
university as a whole and for each constituent
unit of the university.
...Full, immediate, and continuing realization of
this policy in State university is to be
1. Developing affirmative action programs which
will: detail actions designed to realize the
university' s commitment to equal employment;
analyze employment patterns within the university;
set forth plans to rectify any deficiencies;
identify and remove impediments to equal
employment opportunity; establish goals and
timetables for affirmative action; provide for the
internal and external dissemination of university
policy; pursue the commitment to equal employment
opportunity throughout the institution; and
provide for the review, assessment, evaluation,
and improvement of university action in carrying
out this policy and affirmative action programs.
2. Committing staff and support necessary to make
effective the equal employment policies and
programs of the university, . . .
...In support of this policy. State university
affirms its right to take appropriate action if it
or other duly constituted authority should
determine that applicable Federal and State equal
employment opportunity laws and regulations have
been violated, or that the effect and intent of
this policy has been willfully or habitually
B. Equal Employment Opportunity at SUNY
The following section includes a summary of SUNY's
equal employment opportunity programs at the time of the
Advisory Committee's informal hearing in June 1973, and the
program's status in January 1975. The 1973 information was
obtained at the informal hearing and through the Advisory
Committee's investigation. The 1975 data were included in a
written statement by Chancellor Boyer to the Advisory
Committee in January of that year.^
1 . Budget
The 1971 policy statement of the board of trustees
specifically called for "staff and support" for EEO
programs. In 1972, however, the Governor's budget staff cut
an item of $167,000 for EEO from the budget initially
proposed by SUNY. According to Dr. Harry Spindler, vice
chancellor for finance and administration, this cut was made
to keep the 1971-72 budget at the 1970-71 level. 8
In 1973 SUNY reguested approximately $900,0 00 to
finance the central EEO staff and activities at all
university campuses. * The allocation was reduced in the
Governor's executive budget to $150,000, with funds limited
to staffing and operating expenses for the central EEO
office. Chancellor Boyer appeared before the legislative
appropriating committees to support the Governor's reduced
budget figure of $150,000, and to make an additional request
for funds in a supplementary budget. Both requests to the
legislature were denied. »o Thus, in 1973 the office of equal
employment programs did not have and had never received a
direct budget allocation.
Chancellor Boyer reported that in February 197 4 the
executive budget office authorized each campus to upgrade an
existing professional position for a full-time affirmative
action officer and to reallocate funds for the salary and
office.il The chancellor also requested each campus to fund
campus equal employment opportunity activities through its
local campus budget. 12 He estimated that the total direct
affirmative action expenditures for all the campuses were
approximately $1,250,000 for the 1974-1975 school year.
Expenditures were made for EEO offices, officers, data
analysis, workshops, and recruitment. The chancellor also
cited free "computer operation time, space, and significant
contribution of personal time" given by the numerous
committees operating on local campuses.* 3
In 1973 the central EEO office consisted of a director
and a secretary. At that time, a second professional
position was authorized but had not been filled.
The EEO office operated in the office of the vice
chancellor for personnel and employee relations, who
reported to the deputy chancellor. The EEO director's
policy recommendations had to be approved by a vice
chancellor and a deputy chancellor before reaching the
chancellor. At that time, Dr. C. Eugene Kratz, director of
EEO programs, recommended that the EEO officer be directly
responsible to the chancellor. * ♦
In January 1975 Chancellor Boyer reported that the
second professional position had been filled. One of the
responsibilities of the new central staff person was to
provide liaison with women's groups. In addition, a
position of assistant vice chancellor for affirmative actiori
had been established. * s The assistant chancellor serves as
special assistant to the chancellor, reporting to the vice
chancellor on routine matters and to the chancellor on
questions of policy. Thus, for the first time, a direct
line of communication was established between the EEO office
and the chancellor.** The position was filled in early 1975.
In February 1971 Chancellor Boyer sent a memorandum to
all campus presidents asking them each to appoint an equal
employment opportunity officer "to provide liaison on EEO
activities on that campus."*^ Since the request was not
accompanied by an allocation of funds to finance EEO
activity or by a mandatory recfuirement to assign at least
one full-time staff person to EEO responsibilities, many
campuses attempted to meet their responsibilities by
appointing an EEO officer who had major assignments in other
areas. Some, however, used existing budget lines for full-
time EEO staff.
In February 1974 SUNY obtained approval from the budget
division to establish the position of campus-level
affirmative action officer. It became possible to
legitimize in this position appointments which, until that
time, could be made only by "borrowing some other title to
perform the function. "i^
In January 197 5 Chancellor Boyer reported that all SUNY
campuses had affirmative action officers and that three-
fourths of these officers worked full time on EEO
3. EEO Committees
Several ad hoc EEO committees were established
throughout the university system during the early 1970s to
meet specific reguirements, such as the development of the
preliminary phases of the affirmative action plan. In
addition, two formally constituted EEO committees were
considered: a Chancellor's Panel on Equal Employment
Opportunity and an Equal Employment Opportunity Office
Advisory Group. However, according to Dr. Kratz, "to retain
flexibility and guarantee access to a variety of opinions
and reactions, neither group was ever organized. "20
At the time of the informal hearing, a number of EEO
committees operated on individual campuses. In 197U all
SUNY campuses had one or more committees on affirmative
action. In general, these committees included
representatives of the president's office, operating
departments, the affirmative action office, and the
personnel office. 21
In September 197U the State University Board of
Trustees created a subcommittee on affirmative action "to
evaluate the progress" made by the university. 22 The six-
member Affirmative Action Progress Review Committee has met
extensively with the central SUNY EEO director,
representatives of the Caucus on women's Rights, and campus
EEO staff. In early 1975 it was in the process of
collecting reports evaluating affirmative action from each
campus pr es ident . 2 3
U. Affirmative Action Plans
At the time of the New York Advisory Committee's
informal hearing, 2 years after the board of trustees had
issued a policy statement calling for an affirmative action
plan, the university still had not implemented a plan. The
central EEO office, however, had written four reports which
were described by Dr. Kratz as "working documents" for
affirmative action. 2* Three volumes entitled Equal
Employment Opportunity Plan, State University of New York
were published in July 197 2. A fourth document, summarizing
and updating the original three, was published in December
1972.25 This document consisted of guidelines within which
to develop an EEO plan similar to those in a Federal
document Higher Education Guidelines; Executive Order
1 12U6 . 26 The SUNY guidelines call for the development of the
actual EEO plan in the following three steps:
Step 1 - University Descriptive Plan: This step
consists of basic guidelines for the development
of each campus plan. Essentially, it seeks to:
a. Develop philosophical bases for university
participation in an equal employment plan.
b. Provide a prescriptive outline for local
c. Identify certain activities which can best be
conducted on a university wide basis.
d. Suggest analyses which might determine
accuracy of conclusions reached in tentative
studies of university-wide figures.
Step 2 - Individual Campus Plan: Each State-
operated campus will develop its own EEO plan
a. Follow the overall organization, format and
philosophical thrust of the university-wide
b. Collect and analyze employee data, compare
availability of staff, and develop necessary
employment programs for that particular campus.
Step 3 - University Action Plan: When campus
plans are completed, a composite plan will be
developed at central staff level with campus
consultation. It will integrate elements of all
sub-plans into one master equal employment
opportunity plan for the State University of New
York. 2 7
At the time of the informal hearing, both Federal and
State governments required SUNY to develop a written
affirmative action plan. The U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and welfare (DHEW) required all institutions of
higher education contracting with the Federal Government to
develop plans with goals and timetables by May 15, 1973.28
Officials from the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of DHEW
testified at the informal hearing that no plan had been
submitted as of June 1973.29
Shortly after the informal hearing, SUNY submitted its
guidelines to OCR as an interim step in meeting the Federal
reauirements. However, in November 1973, OCR informed the
Advisory Committee that the document was not acceptable
either as a plan or an interim plan.^o
A year later, OCR again reported on the status of
SUNY's affirmative action plan: "To date (December 30,
1974) no SUNY affirmative action plan has been formally
submitted and/or reviewed by our office. "3*
Since 1973 the State Division of Human Rights (SDHR)
has required SUNY to develop an affirmative action plan.
However, Commissioner Ruperto Ruiz of SDHR told the Advisory
Committee that he had received only a planning document less
than 3 weeks before the informal hearing. 3 2
At the informal hearing. Dr. Boyer refused to commit
himself as to when the plan would be completed and fully
operational. He said, however, that it was his "hope and
intention" that the campus plans would be finished by the
1973-1971 year. 33
In January 1975 Chancellor Boyer reported that the
statewide affirmative action plan had not been completed.
In his statement, however, he said that the plan would be
finished by June 1975. He explained the delay by saying
that the individual campus plans had to be completed and
incorporated into the statewide plan.'*
According to SUNY's December 1972 guidelines, each
campus was to have submitted an affirmative action plan to
the central EEO office by May 31, 1973.35 At the 1973
informal hearing, university officials stated that the
deadline had been extended to October 31, 1973.^6
According to Chancellor Boyer's statement, the deadline
for filing campus plans was extended to January 1975.37 Nine
campuses filed their plans by that time; eight more filed
plans between February 1 and March 31, 1975. The remaining
12 campuses were in the process of completing revised plans
in April 1975. A list of those campuses and the reasons for
their delay is included in Appendix B. Of the 17 plans
filed, 12 contained goals and timetables. Of the remaining
12 draft plans, 3 contained goals and timetables. ^e Because
the Advisory Committee study was limited to central SUNY,
neither the plans nor the goals were examined by the
5 . Recruitment
Several methods of recruitment were being used by the
central administration and individual campuses at the time
of the informal hearing. According to Dr. Kratz, the
primary method was the "academic grapevine" 3' or personal
referral through the academic community. In addition, the
central personnel office received resumes from interested
persons and distributed them to the individual campuses. ♦<>
In 1972 the university expanded its efforts and began
advertising in minority publications and education journals.
According to Chancellor Boyer's 197 5 statement, the
individual campuses retain the primary responsibility for
recruitment. He said, however, that 75 percent of the
campuses had adopted procedures requiring adequate
recruitment of minority and female applicants and had
written justifications for hiring decisions.**
6. SUNY Image in and Liaison with the Community
At the time of the informal hearing, minority and
womens' groups representatives criticized their under-
representation at SUNY. They questioned the commitment made
by SUNY officials to EEO, and said that the university's EEO
and liaison programs were not effective.
Hector Vasquez, executive director of the National
Puerto Rican Forum, said: "SUNY has stated that they are
committed to an equal employment opportunity program. The
Puerto Rican community has no reason to believe this is
so."*2 He specifically criticized SUNY for failing to
consider the Puerto Rican community as a minority group.
Rosalina Martinez, director of ASPIRA of New York,
Inc., a Puerto Rican organization concerned with education,
analyzed the effects of the underrepresentation of Puerto
Ricans at SUNY, saying:
Those of our students who go on to the State
university come back to us with an almost
universal complaint: Puerto Rican teaching,
counselling, and administrative personnel are
virtually nonexistent. There is no one they can
relate to, no one who understands where they're
coming from, their school problems, and personal
needs. The result is that Puerto Rican students
and their needs are virtually ignored on campus.
The results are easy to predict. *3
To remedy the situation, ASPIRA offered to help set up
a central recruiting office and to maintain close liaison
SUNY's Caucus on Women's Rights was also critical of
the university's EEO program. Joan Schulz, co-chairperson
of the caucus, said:
The State university has in fact engaged in
footdragging and delaying tactics. ... It has shown
almost no evidence of an understanding of or a
commitment to affirmative action, and so far all
the commitment has been mainly vocal and/or
The caucus was particularly critical because SUNY had
failed to provide basic employment statistics and had not
asked minority and women groups to comment on the
affirmative action guidelines. Ms. Schulz said many of its
efforts to communicate with the central SUNY administration
were not successful. ♦*
By 1974, according to Chancellor Boyer, "frequent and
substantive communication" had taken place between the
central administration and womens' and minority groups. As
the director of equal employment opportunity programs, he
and other central administration staff had regular meetings
with the Caucus on women's Rights and had worked with the
fair employment practices committee of the university's
faculty senate. The board of trustees' affirmative action
committee was also in communication with concerned
university groups . ♦ f
In his January 1975 statement. Chancellor Boyer cited
programs initiated by the central EEC office to improve the
university's program and its relationship with the
community. In October 1974 the university held its first
affirmative action conference to educate EEO officers. A
series of such workshops was scheduled for 1975, he said.**
In April 1975 the caucus updated its criticisms of
SUNY's affirmative action position in a letter to the
Advisory Committee. The caucus criticized SUNY for "the
lack of clear, concise guidelines on implementation of
affirmative action from central SUNY, the lack of completed
and approved written programs, delay in developing a data
collection system throughout the SUNY system," and the lack
of "adequate child-care services on local campuses. "♦»
The caucus wrote:
Unfortunately, we can note no great change in the
patterns of underutilization of women at all
levels of campus involvement. we encourage a more
aggressive stance toward upgrading competent on-
the-job staff persons. so
The caucus did credit the chancellor and other SUNY
staff for setting up more meetings with the caucus to
discuss affirmative action and for other changes, including
those in the maternity leave policy. si
7. The Role of the State Division of Human Rights at SUNY
Separate informal and formal procedures have been
established at SUNY to resolve individual or group
complaints of discrimination. Under the informal system, an
employee may discuss the grievance with an immediate
supervisor and seek resolution without a written complaint.
The employee also may go outside the university structure
and file a formal complaint with the New York State Division
of Human Rights (SDHR) and/or the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) .
If the complaint initially is filed with EEOC, it is
referred to SDHR, which has 60 days to act on it under a
formal "deferral" arrangement between the two agencies. S2
After EEOC notifies SDHR that a complaint has been filed,
SDHR sends a letter to the complainant asking him or her to
"verify" the complaint by filing it anew with SDHR.53
However, the form letter sent to the complaining party fails
to mention that verification is required for SDHR to act on
the compl aint . s ♦
According to SDHR officials, two-thirds of the
complaints deferred by EEOC are never verified and no action
is taken. 55 if the complainant fails to verify with SDHR
after 60 days, SDHR notifies EEOC to proceed with its
investigation. Thus, because of the verification
requirement, action on a complaint is frequently delayed for
60 days until EEOC regains jurisdiction.
If complaints are filed first with SDHR, the State
office does not inform the complaining parties of their
rights to also file with EEOC, or to proceed to EEOC after
60 days if SDHR has not acted to the satisfaction of the
At the informal hearing, the Advisory Committee,
convinced that many persons may be confused about their
rights, criticized the apparent lack of coordination between
SDHR and EEOC. Assistant Commissioner Ruperto Ruiz said he
would take up the matter with the SDHR commissioner and
report back to the Advisory Committee. S7 jn the following
months, no report was received. Commissioner Ruiz stated at
a later date that increased funds would be needed from EEOC
to enable SDHR to improve the notice procedures. ss
In August 1973 SDHR entered into a "liaison agreement"
with SUNY whereby they both would designate liaison officers
to facilitate the handling of complaints against SUNY.s? The
SUNY liaison officer is the university counsel rather than a
staff member in the EEO program area.*o
The liaison agreement provides, among other things,
that SDHR withhold documents from the complainant at SUNY's
Where the university liaison officer advises the
division that any university documents are
confidential or where the university requests that
university's reasons for nonappointment,
reappointment, or promotion not be disclosed to
the complainant, the division agrees that it will
respect such confidentiality and will not,
directly or indirectly, divulge to the complainant
the contents of such confidential documents or
such reasons. 61
SDHR's rules of procedure provide, however, that
"complainants, respondents, and their attorneys may examine
everything in their files, except internal working
papers. .. ."62 The rules of procedure are thus at variance
with the nondisclosure provision in the liaison agreement.
Information pertinent to proof of employment discrimination,
i.e., the "university's reasons for nonappointment,
reappointment, or promotion," are not disclosed, if SUNY so
At the time of the informal hearing, 90 employment
discrimination complaints had been filed against SUNY with
the SDHR between 1966 and 1972.63 of these, 58, or 64
percent, were dismissed after a finding of "no probable
cause"; 5 were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; 16 were
withdrawn; 3 were "open" pending further determination; 6
were ordered for public hearing; 1 was dismissed for
"administrative convenience"; and 1 was designated as
"probable cause" and resolved through conciliation. *♦ Four
of the six ordered for hearing were sex discrimination
complaints filed by women. Thus, 64 complaints or 71
percent were dismissed, while 6, or approximately 7 percent,
were ordered for public hearing.
During 1973 and 1974, a total of 95 complaints were
filed with SDHR against SUNY. 65 Of these, 42, or 44 percent.
were (iismissed for lack of probable cause; 16 were
withdrawn; 23 were "open" pending determination; 5 were
ordered for hearing; and 9 were dismissed for lack of
iurisdiction. The percentage of those dismissed was about
54 percent. All five complaints ordered for hearings were
sex discrimination complaints filed by women.
In 1974, 442 or 14.6 percent of 3,078 employment
complaints filed with the SDHR, were ordered for hearing.
In comparison, only 6 percent of all SUNY's complaints were
ordered for hearing. No probable cause was found in 1,758
or 57 percent of the employment complaints filed.** The
percentage of "no probable cause" findings for SUNY
complaints for the 6 years prior to 1973 was 64 percent.
However, the percentage dropped sharply in the 2 years
following to 44 percent (although cases still "open" will
affect the latter figure) .
Affirmative Action Plans
In March 197 3 SUNY became a member of the State's
Interdepartmental Committee on Human Rights, an organization
made up of representatives of 34 State agencies whose stated
purpose is to promote affirmative action in State
government.*^ Set up by an executive order in 19 68, the
committee required affirmative action plans of all State
agencies. The SDHR, the committee's administrative arm,
reviews and approves those plans. *»
At the Advisory Committee's informal hearing.
Commissioner Ruiz stated that the division had received
SUNY's affirmative action plan.*^ He later modified his
statement to say that he had received only the first part of
a three-part plan.^o m January 1975 Commissioner Ruiz said
that he had not received any further affirmative action
documents from SUNY.''*
In June 1975 an SDHR official said that a final
affirmative action plan had never been received from SUNY.
The spokesperson said, however, that SDHR had made no
further requests to SUNY for the plan and that the
division's "activity in the area of affirmative action" was
limited due to budget limitations and other
8. The Pole of the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
The office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (DHEW) is
charged with enforcing equality of employment opportunity in
institutions of higher education receiving Federal funds.
It enforces Executive Order No. 11246 and Revised Order No.
Hf m C.F.E.§60-2, which require affirmative action plans
with goals and timetables and periodic compliance reviews of
all contractors with the Federal Government, including
institutions of higher education. ^3
SUNY officials estimated that the system received
approximately $70,500,000 in Federal contracts in fiscal
year 1974-75. ^4
In early 1971 OCR initiated compliance reviews at four
campuses not previously inspected. However, the review at
Brockport was discontinued in March 1971 after OCR was
denied access to personnel records on the grounds that an
agreement with the faculty prohibited Federal inspection.
Similarly, a review at Buffalo was discontinued when OCR
staff were denied access to records. ''s The denial of access
by the two campuses was in direct violation of Federal
regulations. ^ *
In an effort to break the impasse, OCR officials met
and corresponded with Chancellor Boyer during the summer of
1971. The chancellor wrote to OCR specifying conditions
under which he would permit access to personnel records.
OCR did not find those conditions acceptable. ''^
In a subsequent letter, OCR stated that in 1971 the
regional office referred the problem of access to the
national office in Washington, "with a recommendation that
enforcement action be instituted. "''« Because of a change of
national staff leadership, no further action was taken until
At the time of the Advisory Committee's hearing, OCR
was still being denied access. No compliance reviews had
been conducted for over 2 years, and a complaint filed as
early as 1970 was still pending because of SUNY's refusal to
give access to personnel records. *<>
Following the June informal hearing, the national
office of OCR negotiated a "Memorandum of Understanding"
with SUNY stipulating conditions under which OCR would be
given access to records. At that time, OCR decided to focus
its limited staff and resources to eliminate the backlog of
complaints rather than conduct compliance reviews or review
affirmative action plans. si
Affirmative Action Plans
Federal regulations effective May 15, 1973, require
institutions of higher education receiving Federal contracts
to develop affirmative action plans. Under these
regulations, individual campus or facilities are required to
develop such plans.* 2
At the informal hearing in June, William Valentine,
OCR's deputy regional civil rights director, said that the
agency had not requested or received a plan from SUNY. In a
followup letter in April 1975, OCR officials said that there
still had been no formal request for a plan. According to
Joel Barken, OCR regional director, institutions of higher
education are not required to submit plans until requested,
and no time limitation is placed on OCR to request such
plans. 83 However, Federal regulations do call for "regular
conduct of compliance reviews" which include a review of
affirmative action plans. ^4
Shortly after the informal hearing, however, SUNY did
submit its document containing affirmative action guidelines
to OCR. In November 1973 OCR informed the Advisory
We have decided to advise SUNY that their
submission will be accepted by this office as a
good faith effort to develop a plan, but we cannot
accept it as a plan or even an interim plan.^s
According to the 197 5 letter, OCR emphasized to SUNY
that a "complete and acceptable plan must be developed
expeditiously. "8* As of April 1975, however, no such plan
had been completed and OCR was unable to specify when it
would request one.^^ Furthermore, OCR had not requested or
reviewed any campus affirmative action plans. se
Notes to Chapter II
1. William M. Murphy, Subcommittee Chairperson, New York
State Advisory Committee, USCCR, "Preliminary Report," June
18, 1971, p. 3, USCCRNEKO files (hereafter cited as Murphy
2. Ibid., p. 3.
4. State of New York, SUNY, "Central Administration
Appointment In Equal Employment Opportunity Programs," by
Ernest L. Boyer, chancellor, Feb. 3, 1971, USCCRNERO files.
5. State of New York, SUNY, "Memorandum to Presidents,"
from Ernest L. Boyer, chancellor, Feb. 3, 1971, USCCRNERO
files (hereafter cited as EEO Officer Memorandum) .
6. State of New York, SUNY, Resolution of the Board of
Trustees, "Equal Employment Opportunity in State University
of New York," June 3C , 1971.
7. State of New York, SUNY, "State University of New York
Response to the Draft Report of New York State Advisory
Committee, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights" (January 1975)
(hereafter cited as SUNY Response) .
8. Dr. Harry Spindler, interview in Albany, N.Y., Apr. 23,
1973 (hereafter cited as Spindler Interview).
9. State of New York, "SUNY 1973-1 97 <* Budget Request for
Equal Employment Opportunity Programs" (January 1973) ,
10. U.S., Commission on Civil Rights, New York State
Advisory Committee, Transcript of Open Meeting, June 6-7,
1973, Albany, N.Y., June 6, pp. 64-6 (hereafter cited as
Transcript) ; Dr. C. Eugene Kratz, director of equal
employment opportunity programs, SUNY, interview, Albany,
N.Y., Apr. 23, 1975 (hereafter cited as Kratz Interview).
11. SUNY Response, pp. 14-15.
12. Ibid. , p. 2.
13. Ibid. , p. 3.
14. Kratz Interview.
15. SUNY Response, p. 3.
16. Ernest L. Boyer, chancellor, interview in New York,
N.Y., Jan. 29, 1975.
17. EEO Officer Memorandum.
18. State of New York, SUNY, "Affirmative Action Officers,
Memorandum to President," from James F. Kelly, vice
chancellor, Jan, 8, 1971, USCCRNERO files.
19. SUNY Response, p. 5.
20. Dr. C. Eugene Kratz, director of equal employment
opportunity programs, SUNY, letter to Jacques E. Wilmore,
Apr. 24, 1975, p. 3 (hereafter cited as Kratz Letter) .
21. Ibid., pp. 3-5.
22. SUNY Response, p. 9.
23. Kratz Letter, p. 2.
24. Kratz Interview.
25. State of New York, SUNY, Equal Employment Opportunity
Plan State University of New York (July 197 2) , and Equal
Employment Opportunity in State University of New York
(December 1972) (hereafter cited as SUNY's EEO Guidelines ) .
26. U.S., Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Office for Civil Rights, Higher Education Guidelines;
Executive Order 11246 (October 1972) (hereafter cited as
Highe r Education Guidelines ) .
27. SUNY's EEO Guidelines , p. 18 and Higher Education
28. See Section 7 of this chapter for more information on
the Federal affirmative action requirement.
29. Transcript, June 7, pp. 94-95.
30. Joel W. Barkan, regional director, OCR, DHEW, letter to
Franklin Williams, Chairperson, New York State Advisory
Committee, Nov. 1U, 1973, USCCRNERO files (hereafter cited
as Barkan Letter, Nov. 14, 1973).
31. Joel W. Barkan, letter to Jacques E. Wilmore, regional
director, USCCRNERO, Dec. 30, 197a, USCCRNERO files.
32. Transcript, June 7, p. 105.
33. Transcript, June 6, pp. 19-20.
34. SUNY Response, p. 7.
35. SUNY ' s EEO Guidelines , p. 20.
36. Transcript, June 6, p. 19.
37. SUNY Response, p. 6.
38. Kratz Letter, pp. 9-10.
39. Dr. C. Eugene Kratz, director of equal employment
opportunity programs, letter to Dr. William M. Murphy, New
York State Advisory Committee, Mar. 24, 1971, p. 2.,
40. Ibid., pp. 2-4.
41. SUNY Response, pp. 16-17.
42. Transcript, June 7, p. 236.
43. Transcript, June 7, p. 168.
44. Transcript, June 7, pp. 171-17 2.
45. Transcript, June 7, pp. 199-200.
46. Ibid., pp. 199-201.
47. SUNY Response, p. 18.
48. Ibid., p. 5.
49. Sheila J. Nickson and Karen Davidson, co-chairpersons
for the Caucus on women's Rights at SUNY, letter to Jacques
E. Wilmore, regional director, USCCRNERO, Apr. 1, 1975,
51. Prior to June 1973, SUNY's maternity leave policy
permitted leave without pay until 1 year after the birth of
the child. In June 27, 1973, the policy was liberalized to
allow pregnant employees to use accumulated sick leave
credits. In July 1974, in a second revision, paternity
leave was included in the definition of "temporary
disability." Under this policy, employees may receive
additional sick leave credits not to exceed 6 months (Kratz
Letter, pp. 10-12) .
52. EEO Act of 1972, §706 (C) and (D) , U2 U.S.C. 2000e-5
(b) and (c) .
53. Ruperto Ruiz, assistant commissioner, regulatory
operations bureau, SDHR, interview in New York, N.Y. Jan.
20, 1975 (hereafter cited as Ruiz Interview).
54. Assistant Commissioner Ruiz, letter to Eliot H.
Stanley, USCCRNERO staff. Mar. 6, 1975.
55. Ruiz Interview; See also State of New York, SDHR, 1974
Annual Report , which states that in the first 8 months
following May 1, 1974 the SDHR received 817 notifications of
deferred charges from EEOC, but only 353 were verified.
56. Transcript, June 7, pp. 130-131.
58. Ruiz Interview.
59. "Liaison Agreement Between the SDHR and SUNY," signed
by Jack M. Sable, commissioner, SDHR, Aug. 6, 1973, and by
Ernest L. Boyer, chancellor, SUNY, July 6, 1973, USCCRNERO
files (hereafter cited as Liaison Agreement) .
60. State of New York, SDHR, "Inter-Office Memorandum to
Regional Directors" from Assistant Commissioner Ruiz, June
22, 1973 (prior to formal signing of liaison agreement),
61. Liaison Agreement, clause 4, p. 2.
62. State of New York, SDHR, Office of the Commissioner:
"Policy — Information and Publicity,". §001, 5(b) (Apr. 12,
197 2) .
63. Statement by Ruperto Ruiz, assistant commissioner,
SDHR, "Attachment No. 4 - Complaint Record" sub-hearings,
June 7, 1973, Albany, N.Y.
65. Ruperto Ruiz, assistant commissioner, SDHR, letter to
Eliot Stanley, USCCRNERO staff, Jan. 30, 1975, USCCRNERO
66. State of New York, SDHR, 1974 Annual Report , Appendix
B, Table 4 (January 1975).
67. State of New York, Executive. Order No. 27, May 7, 1968.
68. Transcript, June 7, 1973, pp. 104-105.
69. Ruperto Ruiz, assistant commissioner, SDHR, prepared
statement for the Advisory Committee's informal hearing,
June 1, 1973, Albany, N.Y. pp. 7-8.
7C. Transcript, June 7, 1973, p. 105.
71. Ruiz Interview.
72. Lydia Clark, liaison officer, SDHR, telephone
interview, June 24, 1975.
73. Higher Education Guidelines , pp. 1-4.
74. Kratz Letter, p. 13.
75. Transcript, June 7, pp. 12, 42, 47-48, 53.
76. 41 C.F.R. 60-1.4 (a) (5) .
77. Transcript, June 7, p. 6.
78. Joel W. Barkan, regional director, OCR, to Jacques E.
Wilmore, Apr. 8, 1975, USCCRNERO files, p. 2 (hereafter
cited as Barkan Letter, Apr. 8, 1975).
80. Transcript, June 7, pp. 29-30, 88-89,
81. Barkan Letter, Apr. 8, 197 5, p. 1.
82. 41 C.F.R. § 60.2 (1973) .
83. Barkan Letter, Apr. 8, 197 5, pp. 1-2,
84. 41 C.F.R. 60-1.20 (c) .
85. Barkan Letter, Nov. 14, 1973.
86. Barkan Letter, Apr. 8, 1975, p. 3.
87. Kratz Letter.
88. Barkan Letter, Apr. 8, 1975, pp. 1-2.
Ill MINORITIES AND WOMEN AT SUNY
A S-tatistical Analysis
According to the most recent figures available, the
State university system employed approximately 14,815
persons in faculty and administrative positions in the fall
of 1973. Approximately 90.5 percent were white, and 9.5
percent were minority. Of the minorities,* 4.8 percent were
black, 0.9 percent were of Spanish origin, 0.7 percent were
Asian American, and 3.1 percent were members of other
minority groups. (See Tables I and II) .
The above data were not included in the State's annual
ethnic survey. Because of delays in collecting the data,
SUNY did not file the required information in time to meet
the State's deadline in the fall of 1974. The 1973 data
were given to the Advisory Committee in April 1975.2
Faculty and Administrative Staff: White and Minority
Facult y Administrative Total Professional
Total 10,659 4,156 14,815
White 9,713(91.12%) 3,702 (89. 08X) 13,415(90.55%)
Minority 946(8.88%) 454(10.92%) 1,400(9.45%)
Source: State University of New York (See Tables B and E in
Appendix A) .
Faculty and Administrative Staff by Race/Ethnic Group
Faculty Administrative Total
Total academic staff 10,039 U,156 ia,195
Percent of total 100.0* 100.0% 100. OX
Total White 9,137 3,702 12,839
Percent of Total 91.02% 89.08% 90.U5%
Total Minority 902 U54 1,356
Percent of Total 8.98% 10.92% 9.55%
Black 324 357 681
Percent of Total 3.23% 8.59% 4.80%
Puerto Rican 23 28 51
Percent of Total C.23% 0.67% 0.36%
Spanish-surnamed 61 11 72
Percent of Total 0.61% 0.26% 0.51%
American Asian 100 3 103
Percent of Total 1.00% 0.07% 0.73%
American Indian 11 6 17
Percent of Total 0.11% 0.14% 0.12%
Other Minorities 383 49 432
Percent of Total 3.82% 1.18% 3.04%
Source: SUNY (See Table A in Appendix A) .
According to the 1970 census, blacks make up 1 percent
and Puerto Ricans are 3.3 percent of the vrark force in the
State. 3 Blacks held 6.2 percent and Puerto Ricans held 0.9
percent of the State's 1,192,000 professional and technical
jobs and 3.8 percent and 1.4 percent, respectively, of the
State's 607,000 managerial and administrative jobs.
Because of the higher educational qualifications for
many SUNY positions, the available pool for minority staff
may not correspond with census work force statistics.
However, according to one SUNY campus, the available
minority pool based on the percentage of minority students
enrolled in an institution granting doctoral degrees is 6.0
percent.* (See Table III)
Except for blacks in administrative positions, blacks
and Puerto Ricans are underrepresented in professional
positions in the State University system in comparison to
the statewide average and national percentages of minority
Table IV indicates that minorities were concentrated in
the lower salaried administrative positions. Minorities
held none of the 10 jobs at the top two grade levels and
only 5 or about 5.2 percent of the 96 next highest jobs. In
contrast they held 375 or 13.6 percent of the 2,759 lowest
grade positions. (See Table IV) ,
Stony Brook Faculty and Available Pools of Minorities
Total Stony Brook Percent Minority
Stony Brook Minority Faculty in Available Pool
Unit Faculty No_^ %
Enaineerina U1.5 10 2H.^ 5.4
College of Arts
and Sciences 560.5
Social and Be-
iThe pool of available qualified minority members for
appointment in the colleges is equated with the percentage
of minority students in each graduate field as reported by
El-Khawas and Kinzer, Enrollment of Minority Graduat e
Students at PH.D. Granting Institutions , Higher Education
Panel Reports, No. 19 (1974) . The pool applicable to
academic appointments in the library is derived from the
percentage of female minorities in urban professional,
technical, and kindred positions in the United States (from
1970 census, 1-392 U.S. Summary).
Minority Administrative Staff by Grade Level
SOURCE: SUNY (Table E in Appendix A) .
Minorities also were more heavily represented among
non-tenured faculty positions. Table V indicates that
minorities held 12.3 percent of the non-tenured positions
and 5.7 percent of the tenured positions.
Minority Faculty By Tenure Status
T otal Minority P ercent Minority
Tenured 5,526 317 5.74%
Non-tenured 5,133 62 9 12.25%
Source: SUNY (Table C in Appendix A) .
In the fall of 1973 women made up 22.5 percent of the
faculty, 29.0 percent of the administrative staff, and 24. 3
percent of the total professional staff. In the State as a
whole, according to the 1970 census, women were 38.5 percent
of the work force. About 39.1 percent of the State's
professional and technical jobs, well above the percentage
of female professionals at SUNY, were held by women.
Faculty And Administrative Staff By Sex
Faculty Administrative Total
Total 10,659 4,156 14,815
Women 2,398 1,205 3,603
Percent 22.5% 29.0% 24.3%
Source: SUNY (Tables B and E in Appendix A) .
As shown in Table VII, women were concentrated in the
lower salaried and non-tenured administrative positions at
SUNY. Women held none of the top 40 administrative
positions. They held only 3 or 3.1 percent of the next 96
positions. Women held 674 or 24.4 percent of the 2,759
lowest grade positions.
Administrative Staff By Sex and Grade Level
Professional Rank Total
All Ranks 4,156
PR Ungraded 116
Source: SUNY (Table E in Appendix A) .
Among the female faculty, women held 14.6 percent of
the tenured positions. In contrast, women held 31.1 percent
of the non-tenured positions. (See Table VIII)
Faculty by Sex and Tenure Status
Total women Percent Women
Source: SUNY (Table B in Appendix A)
Minority women are underrepresented at all levels of
the faculty positions and to an even greater degree in the
tenured positions. They hold 248 or 2.3 percent of the
1C,659 faculty positions and 46 or 0.8 percent of the 5,526
tenured positions. They are also underrepresented among the
higher paying administrative positions and hold only 2 or
0.3 percent of the 688 highest administrative positions
(professional rank 4 or above) . s
C. Change Over Previous Years
From 1970 to 197 3 there has been a net increase in the
percentage of minorities and women on the SUNY faculty. The
overall composition of the staff, however, has been
relatively unchanged. Minority faculty had a net gain of
1.5 percent in 1973; white faculty decreased by 1.5 percent.
But the number of minority faculty increased by 241, while
the number of white faculty members increased by 926. (See
Minority Faculty at SUNY: 1970 and 1973
Year Total Faculty Minority Faculty Percent Minority
1970 9,492 705 7.4%
1973 10,659 946 8.9%
Source: SUNY (Table C in Appendix A) .
The net increase of women on the faculty was 1.5
percent between 1970 and 1973; for minority women the net
qain was 0.5 percent (see Table X). Minority women
accounted for only 10.3 percent of all women faculty members
at SUNY in 1973. (See Table XI.) Although there was an
increase in women and the number of minority women, there
was no significant change in the composition of the faculty.
Women remained approximately one-fifth of the total faculty;
minority women remained about one-fourth of the total
Minority Women Faculty at SUNY: 1970 and 1973
Year Total Minority % Minority Women of % Minority Women of
Minority Women Total Minority Total Faculty
women Faculty at SUNY: 1970 and 1973
Year Women Faculty
Although the nximber and percentages of minorities and
women increased between 1970 and 1973, the State university
system did not make consistent or meaningful progress.
There has been minimal change in the composition of the
faculty even though the university has had a formal policy
of promoting equal employment opportunity since 1971.
Notes to Chapter III
1. The breakdown provided by SUNY for minority faculty
does not include tenured faculty members now holding
administrative positions. The total number on Table II is
approximately 600 less than for Table I.
2. Dr. C. Eugene Kratz, director of equal employment
opportunity programs, SUNY, letter to Jacques E. Wilmore,
Apr. 24, 197 5, Tables A through I, included in Appendix A.
Data on the race/ethnic group and sex of SUNY employees by
department and individual campus are not included since such
information was not within the scope of this report.
3. Statistics for the State include private and public
U. State of New York, SUNY at Stony Brook, Affirmative
Actio n Plan (Feb. 7, 1975) , Figure 36.
5. See Appendix A, Tables B, D, and E.
IV. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The 72 institutions of the SUNY system impact upon
cities, towns, and communities throughout the State. As an
educational institution dedicated to extending the frontiers
of knowledge and preparing young minds for life in a
complex, interdependent, and multiethnic world, SUNY should
be a model of equal employment opportunity. It also should
be subject to close public scrutiny.
The New York Advisory Committee recognizes the
complexity of bringing about change in a modern
"multiversity." Nevertheless, the Advisory Committee
concludes that the slow progress in developing an effective
affirmative action program is unconscionable and unworthy of
a university system of SUNY' s size and importance. Many
changes have taken place since the Advisory Committee began
its study in 1969. For the most part, however, these
changes have been too few and delayed too long.
The Advisory Committee makes the following specific
findings related to EEC activities at SUNY:
The State University of New York
1. In 1973 and 1974, blacks and Puerto Ricans were
underrepresented in almost all levels of SUNY's professional
jobs. The underrepresentation was most serious at the
higher salaried professional positions. Women were also
underrepresented in the higher salaried professional
categories. Further, the State university laaged behind
State government as a whole in hiring minorities and women.
Between 1971 and 1972, the first year in which the
university system had a formal policy of equal employment
opportunity, the number of blacks hired decreased. SUNY
also failed to submit employment data by race and sex for
the State government's 1973 annual census. The Advisory
Committee considers the above indicative of the low priority
assigned to EEO by StTNY.
2. The SUNY Board of Trustees has failed to implement and
enforce its excellent EEO policy statement of June 1971.
For instance, more than 4 years after the board's statement
calling for an affirmative action plan, no systemwide plan
had been completed, and many campus plans were still
3. The chancellor, as chief executive officer, has been
entrusted with carrying out the board of trustees' policies,
and must be held accountable for SUNY's failure to complete
these affirmative action plans.
H, By failing to complete campus affirmative action plans,
by May 15, 1973, SUNY has not fulfilled its legal
obligations and should be declared in noncompliance with
Federal regulations, which include DHEW regulations. Federal
Executive Order No. 11246, and Revised Order No. 4.
5. The Governor and the legislature have failed to provide
adequate funds to finance EEO activities at the central and
6. Until 1974, the chancellor provided only minimal
staffing for the central EEO office and failed to provide
direct access for the EEO director to the chief executive.
Although some improvement has been made, staffing as of
January 1975, was still inadequate to carry out an effective
7. The chancellor did not establish a permanent, broadly-
based, advisory committee to assist in the development,
implementation, and maintenance of affirmative action
procedures. The New York State Advisory Committee does not
consider the a^ hoc subcommittee of the board of trustees or
the various temporary committees as serving this purpose.
The exceedingly slow development of local and
systemwide affirmative action plans may be attributed, in
large part, to the failure of the chancellor to assign
appropriate priority to EEO activities, to obtain adequate
budgeting for EEO programs, to staff the central EEO office
adequately, and to establish a permanent, affirmative action
The U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
1. The regional office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and welfare (DHEW) has
failed to enforce Federal nondiscrimination and affirmative
action requirements with respect to the SUNY system, except
for the investigation of some individual complaints. OCR
has not required SUNY to submit campus affirmative action
plans, which were to be developed by May 15, 1973, and has
failed to conduct any compliance reviews since 1971,
The New York State Division on Human Rights
1. The New York State Division on Human Rights (SDHR) has
not vigorously enforced State requirements for affirmative
action by SUNY. The State's Interdepartmental Committee on
Human Rights (which is chaired by the Commissioner of SDHR)
has not required SUNY to submit an affirmative action plan.
Furthermore, the liaison system between SUNY and the State
Division on Human Rights for processing complaints filed
against SUNY does not establish an impartial system for
The New York State Advisory Committee to the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights has monitored activities related
to equal employment opportunity of the board of trustees,
the chancellor, the central equal employment opportunity
office, and several individual campuses since 19 69. It has
received information on changes instituted since the
Advisory Committee's open meeting of June 1973. Although
the Advisory Committee has not fully evaluated the most
recent activities, it commends these efforts to make
equality of opportunity a reality in the State university
system. Nonetheless, the Advisory Committee believes that
SUNY has taken far too long to arrive at its present
posture, and feels that this posture still leaves much to be
desired. In view of the foregoing, the following
recommendations are made:
To the Office for Civil Rights, DHEW:
1. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) should immediately
request and review campus affirmative action plans for the
State University of New York. If SUNY fails to submit
satisfactory plans, OCR should initiate administrative
hearings or "show cause" proceedings with a view toward
termination of Federal contracts until SUNY is in full
compliance with Federal regulations.
To the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:
1. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
should investigate EEO at SUNY to determine whether there
are grounds for a charge initiated by an EEOC commissioner
alleging discrimination because of race and sex.
To the Governor:
1. The Governor should direct the State Division of Human
Fights to conduct an investigation into the causes of SUNY's
delay in developing acceptable systemwide and campus
affirmative action plans, with goals and timetables. The
assessment, which should be adequately funded and done in
consultation with minority and womens groups, should include
recommendations for remedies with appropriate personnel
action. A report should be made public within 90 days from
the initiation of the study.
2. The Governor should support adequate funding for SUNY's
To the SUNY Board of Trustees:
1. The board of trustees should immediately seek a meeting
with the Governor and the key leaders of the legislature to
urge that the budget for the next fiscal year include
adequate funds to staff the central and campus-level equal
employment opportunity offices.
2. The board of trustees should take appropriate steps to
realize the goals set forth in its policy statement of June
1971 and assure that the statement is hereafter being
enforced and monitored effectively.
3. The board of trustees should inform the chancellor that
evidence of his ability to implement an effective
affirmative action program will be a significant part of the
board's evaluation of the chancellor during the 5-year
To the Chancellor:
1. The chancellor should submit to OCR and make public a
systemwide affirmative action plan within 60 days or less
from the publication of this report.
2. The chancellor should issue a memorandum to all campus
presidents informing them that evidence of their ability to
produce an adequate affirmative action plan with goals and
timetables and to implement fully such a plan will be a
significant part of the chancellor's evaluation of them
during the 5-year appointment period.
3. The central office of equal employment opportunity
programs should be expanded beyond the present assistant
vice chancellor and two other persons to include personnel
a. help complete the campus-level affirmative
action plans and monitor the implementation of such
b. mount and operate a nationwide outreach and
recruitment-referral program to develop a minority and
female resource pool to be used by local campuses; and
c. assess the affirmative action performance of
each unit of the SUNY system on a regular basis.
U. The chancellor should direct the campus EEO committees
to hold annual hearings to receive testimony from EEO
personnel, staff, and interested groups on progress related
to equality of opportunity and to issue an annual report to
To the State Division on Human Rights:
1. The SDHR should review its procudures for processing
complaints filed against SUNY with particular attention
given to the SUNY liaison officer. The Advisory Committee
believes that investigations would be more impartial if the
liaison person were eliminated.
Statistics on SUNY's Professional
PRELIMINARY SUM>L\RY 0? FULL-TE-tZ AC/u)£.MIC STAFF BY SEX A.\D ETHNICITY
STATE-OPERATED INSTITUTIONS EXCLUDING STATUTORY COLLEGES
STATE UNIVERSirf OF NEW YORK, FALL 1973
Total academic staff
Percent of total (10,039)
Percent of total (10,039)
Percent of total (10,039)
Percent cf total (10,039)
Percent of total (10,039)
Percent of total (10,039)
Percent cf total (10,039)
Percent of total (10,039)
Percent of total (10,039)
These totals are less than the totals for full-
time faculty arrayed on tables 74/901 and 74/900
because they only include persons with academic
titles, excluding tenured faculty who now hold
Less than 0.1 percent.
r^ X rt «
cjy +->+-> ci
I-l -H CO o
- O M
J c; c 2
»J -r-l -rH m
< Sts 2;
-o rH tU
« rt X
>- W >-
E- to E-
J 3 trt •-•
3 +-> C CO
U rt o cs:
< 4-> -H W
tU CO +-> >
ta (u 4-1 2
HH 3 4-)
H C t/1 UJ
1 OJ CH
H-J t- •-•<
3 -'C CO
U- X <u
e: State Un
1 — <
1 — t
FULL-TIME FACULTY FALL 1973 A.'fD FALL 1970 HE-XDCCUNT/PERCE-NT DISTRiaUTION
BY SE.X, TE.NL11E STATUS AMD MINORITY STATUS, STATE-OP£.=-^TED INSTITUTIONS
EXCLUDING STATUTO.W COLLEGES, STATE UNIVt.lSITY 0? NEW YORK
Z of grand total (10,659)
: of grand total (9,492)
Z of grand total (10,659)
Z of grand total (9,492)
Z of grand total (10,659)
Z of noo-ninorlcy total (9,713)
Z of grand total (9,492)
Z of non-minority total (3,787)
Wccea Total j Men
Z of grand total (10.659)
Z of nlnority total (945)
: of grand total (9.492)
Z of minority total (705)
%J . -.
21 • -*
FUtL-TI>E FACULTY FALL 1973 A.ND FALL 1970 HEADCOraT AND PERCENT CH.\.\C£
COMPARED BY SEX, TE.N'URE STATUS A.ND MINORITY STATUS, STATE-OPERATED
INSTITUTIONS EXCLUDING STATUTORY COLLEGES, STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
<M • «M -
O lA -H <M
. r>«. r^ CTn
o . o .
h.. ^ t-H CM
O tn *y o
r> r*. -H -^
ps) t"* (O M
CM • •
r"-. r^ sS CO
^ . o •
eo »n m n
sO • ^ •
CM O ITI •*
-' C <
HI < -
o £ ^
u: c o
- C >.
>- u: 3
<n (-. UJ
to < z
_: in b.
2 >i >•
O 2 !-
= S "
< >J u:
z < 5
o z •-I
" o z
tc *-• 5
b3 to bS
U. U f
c t <
"= S f-
t- e: w
£ Q to
t-i Z UJ
• < o
J X J
-: uo _i
s m o
?: = S
i-t lb o
a: u. H
C < =
2 H t-
•- en <
O E U
>. O w
££ < O
< u =
e < -J
= u X
to z u
>■ o in
— = z
< -: c
z u —
— X H
i: t) 3
— JiA»n iir vc^^ <r^r^ ^<5rH III III III III III
CM . . .H . . . .
CO O -1 o o o
C5t-r~. .c"<r coojin <-^oo .ncr^ rtoo -ii3l~ ill ill III
oo o<-i OO O-H o O O
^esiPM ^^,r ^oys f^^i-i cMfliN ^ a n -i«u-i iii iii iti
w-t r^ Of*^ OiH O*-* O O O
CMOe III NCr-l III III III III III III III
-»-!-( Ill tsie-i imOcj III III III III III III
o o do
%0— I'H III -C»HcsJ <M«CM III III III III til III
do o o o
fi a a III >-ta-( ill ill iii iii iii iii ill
cseo III III III -lorH III rtoui III III III
r-. ^w III rHic^ III '-(O'-l III MRm III III III
o d d d d
■Haa III III III III III III wao ill III
of^o -^co. MO»-< u^fH^ff »HOr^ fWam ill ill ill ill
oo o ooo o o
^<-l<-l ^00^ CMC-"! inw^ r-(i».-l woo III woo III III
■H** • ... • . •
oo o ooo O O »-l
%0<HW III *?W(-| i-lOO wow lOI III 111 III III
o d o o o
cMOvc III cOfMin wpno\ wow (Me\o III III ill III
CM.* •■w** •
oo oooo o o
IOr<^r^ III r<jmco 04(*^0^ rslOrM CMOvO III III III III
oo oooo o o
tMr^r^ ^HOON ccvovo u-im9t i^iMcg worn iii ill ill ill
woo o w<r win ow o
0»- .r*^,.T^..f>4..w.- .. .-
IN**** w w»n wo oo om oo o«^
r«^D\o Of-(\o *3-in»** (MP^'O ^^^rl^o omf^ r^rsi*^ **WfM ill ill
ococo o<^ woo> worsi o«J om oo o«*
fn^^vj -Hccr* ^HPNjw oo**^ a\rgm woo it) —too ill III
03.. .o^••C0.• ..
w.ff.a- o rsi^o wo ow o w
•-(mm r*.rMO vor^.* OD*c>n .»sow o-\o\o o^f*J^ .a-^nrsl 1. II III
F^.. ..0>>*O**(N*.CM.* .. -.
(MVCvD OvS PMO -HCMCO o<r oo O^ o**
.aONON corsios r^min oDmco oeoo <ro^ <y.<si.* mwcM III III
m." «■ CO.. CO.. o.. f>j.. .. ..
*»oo c^o w.r<M w.^^ om oo o«* om
WW -H w
« « «
O ^^ W 06 ^ ^ ^
m* c^o* * « .-^^-*
w^o.ff^^^oeo*T« « ^^
• f.^ * •ON.ffOOO*
«^Ji «^ J< * Ji «^ Ji! * j! « J.; *" Ji * Ji * ^ * M
^S> C OC OC OC OC OC OC OC OC OC
lAO lAo ino i/^o lAO *no mc *r>o mo mo
.»• -». .». .»• .*. .». .*. *T« .J. •«•
OC OC OC OC OC OC OC OC OC OC
•ow o-ow -ow -ow -ow T3W -3W -ow -ow "OW
WCffl'OCO CO C«3 CO CO Cfl CO CO CO
^0*J 004J GW o*J o*J O" 0*J OiJ 0*J 0*J
cue UUO t-O UO LiO *-o »-o ^-0 i-C ^-o
CbO'.l UOOa^i bObI b04> CO'^' eOLI C^4J bOU U)4.» CALI
^^^ %^^ w^^ ,M^« o>^,„ ^-...u, m-- ou.^ ....^ «...u.
^oo oo too loo too lOO loo loo too too
^ a: OC «: cc cc oL CC cc a:
<h4k^ a.r4N C!.»^»^ Cmm^c cufi<>sf cur«f^ c^^«^e cuh<»4 CMist^e pL,r«M
SrATE UNiVbRSiTY OF NEW YORK
Salary Range Equivalents
Professional Rank (PR) Grades
Minimum Normal Maximum
PR 1 $ 7,833 $13,900
PR 2 12,027 _17,882
PR 3 15,931 21,865
PR 4 19,834 27,747
PR 5 23,152 32,811
PR 6 27,778 39,162
PR 7 34,092 47,359
PR 8 40,881 51,458
Generally, new appointments are made in first quartile
of each rank.
l— ( ^-
nu^iA r.i^*n .rt^c* t^<-n ^rt.^ Ill III III
o.. o.. ^.. ^..
OO OO OO o.^ o
.-<r4r>* .jr»*(N r^.-ioi r.-tSM III r^t^CT^ r^too^ III
r-,..fN..-H.. • .
oooooo o o o
.^i^r^ r.*o»^ rsiM-y .j<-in ^ :z ^ r^oo^ r*f3'^ III
OO OO OO o^ o o o
vorta oac ^ a ^ .-*oa lit iii 111 ill
^c3eo cnao (noo rHt^o III no.« no.* ill
tM-lrH 3\-H-l l~0-« tNfl-l III <na.» <-lt8-I III
oooo o o o o
nOOO .^ois CNtati fN«.^ ill tNisn rn n f*i iii
a O O
r^coca v0O< ^OO .n«5.H III -Hd^ 111 rH(3^
C5 d <N
m-H-H o-i-.. ciao r-atM III n a -^ e^ a ri .ho^
OOOO O OOr.*
cor.^r.1 r^mn (NCMcn *ndw 111 ^naw 111 -na.^
c-.n.-O"" • •
OOOOOO O O M
0(-if^ f.*ricn orn^ <^ 9 ^ iriaes* n»^ *na^ III
OO OO OO O CN O O
oovOno -jsO^o OtAr^ onwcn iftacN >3-a»n no.* ^o^n
ao..co.*r^.* •• • • • '
OO OO OO OO r.i O O N
rMlNCM -HCMCM PiriCN COltM 111 -lO.^ rtflrH III
n..n.-<H.. • • •
OOOOOO O O o
o.n.n <T >n >n ^n.o cM-Mn -< a ^ cMan ot a m iii
OO OO OO OO o o o
oar^r^ inr^r^ ^inco 0^»n -HO>T «n«^ OO-T III
OO OO OO OO o o o
^OO (Nr>.rM tncMr* ^-a-«rt ^opsir* o%^<^ m-^o -a-tstn
r^ , , m-- r-t-- 0»»« cs.' ,-!.* r-4-«
CTsr^r-* 3\*or^ r»»n»** •-i.Htn O^ Or< OOJ «
.^r^r*. coxACO cm-jO Off^f* soc**-h or*r>i o^ r4 r^ «-io»-i
vD., r-^,. r^.. m.- en»' m** r«<-» •
sO^^y 0-N7-7 -T**!"^ ^^Otn o^ Om Ort «N
oo>3»- t-iastn pga>>c .jcocs r«cM-< t-icMt»> oo.^-» u^o^
r^.. ON.. ^^.. W^.. fM.. CN." rH..
.-.r^r^ Or^co eoinco fM.Hr*. OCM Or* 0<N O
« . ^ .H
^CNCTv cmoctv p^^^ 7vp^.o fstr-ioo cMc-ipM onn rjacN
rsi.. «.. CO.. in.. ^.. ^.. .*..
aOc-iiA i^min in^vo ^.— ..» oco o»A otn .»
oeooo lA^a-fM nff*^ cnov® o^iACT* inm^ ffl.a-r* r.«tf>o
^.. r^,. ^.. rH*. \0.. sO*. m** .
CT.(-in a3f-t*T no*.* -»c>*-H OO oeo or^ .*
W .H rH
Total classified employees
X of grand total (14,017*)
X of total In grade ranr.e (14,017*)
Total support staff
X of grand total (14,017*)
% of total In grade range (13,218*)
X of grand total (14,017*)
X of total In grade range (9,508*)
^ SC 9-13
X of grand total (14,017*)
X of total In grade range (3,487*)
X of gr.nnd total (14,017*)
X of total in grade range (223*)
X of grand total (14,017*)
X of total In grade range (799*)
SC 14 and above
X of grand total (14,017*)
X of total In grade range (751*)
X of grand total (14,017*)
X of total In grade range (48*)
Status of Campus Affirmative Action
Plans — April 1975
(From Dr. C. Eugene Kratz, Director,
for EEO Programs, SUNY, letter to
Jacques E. Wilmore, Regional Director,
April 2U, 1975)
5. Campuses Filina a "Fi'nal" Affirmative Action Plan
As Chancellor Boyer had indicated when he met with
you in January, all State-operated campuses of State Uni-
versity have filed an Affirmative Action Plan with the
Office of Equal Employment Opportunity Programs. Such
Plans will be periodically revised by the originating
campus to report progress, conduct new analyses and meet
changing conditions. In this sense, no Plan is "final,"
•since each will be reviewed and revised.
State University has used the term "Final" to refer
to the version of plans due to this Office by January 51,
1975. Thus, such use of "Final" was intended chronologically
and not to indicate an end-product. Toward having all plans
up-dated and filed with this Office by January 31, 1975,
several steps were taken:
1. Communications in 1974 established the
January 51, 1975 date.
2. Affirmative Action Officers were advised of
the date in an October, 1974 meeting of
State University Affirmative Action Officers.
3. The Executive Vice Chancellor, in a memorandum
of November 18, 1974 reminded campus Presidents
of the deadline.
4. Memoranda from the Director of Equal Employment
Opportunity Programs to the Affirmative Action
Officers on July 30, 1974 and March 3, 1975
called for early submission of Plans.
Response to these steps has been:
_9^_ campuses filed revised plans by January 31, 1975
8 campuses filed revised plans between February 1,
1975 and March 51, 1975.
12 campuses are presently completing their revised
Campuses filing by January 51, 1975 are:
Medical Centers at:
Up s t a t e
State Universitv fnllpaps ^t •
Agricultural and Technical Colleges at:
Campuses filing after Januar)' 51, 1975 are:
University Centers at:
BinghaiTiton Stony Brook
Medical Centers at:
State University Colleges at:
Campuses now completing their revised plan, with a
notation of the problems encountered, progress made and
filing dates set by the campus are shov/n below.
ARTS AND SCIENCES
Campus and Date
AAP will be filed
May 20, 1975
Empire State College
April 21, 1975
College at New Paltz
May 15, 1975
College at Osv.'ego
Reasons for Delay
New Affirmative Action Officer assumed
duties on December 26. Narrative Plan
now totally revised, based on 1974 com-
ments from University EEOP Director.
Goals and Timetables are being completed.
Obtaining correct and adequate data was
a significant problem.
Doing total Plan revision based on ly74
comments from University Director of EEOP.
All campus review processes are complete.
Final draft now being typed.
New Affirmative Action Officer took over
in September, 1974. Campus is revising
Plan in light of 1974 comments by Director
of EEOP. Now in final campus review;
will go to the College Council and then
be filed with Albanv.
Affirmative Action Officer is having
some difficulty in obtaining accurate
data, on and off-campus. Chose to em-
phasize campus action rather than Plan
writing. Plan now at the printers.
AGRICULTUIUL AND TECHNICAL
May 31, 1975
No full-time Affirmative Action Officer
Plan was written under direction of
Personnel Officer in midst of otiicr
duties. Plan in final drafting;.
May 31, 1975
May 15, 1975
May 15, 1975
New Assistant for Affirmative Action
added only on January 1st after extensive
search which delayed the Plan. Plan
being rewritten in light of comments by
University EEOP Director. Now in review
Affirmative Action Officer became full-
time only in 1975. Plan rewritten; 90
percent complete, with new statistics.
Data development from computer held up
New full-time Affirmative Action Officer
took over in September, 1974. Revising
Plan on basis of comments by EEOP Director
in 1974. Data availability is a major
problem. Plan now in final revision stage
May 15, 19 7 5
May 31, 1975
New full-time Affirmative Action Officer
was appointed late in December. Awaited
new statistics. Gave priority to campus
processes. Plan in final review.
Has no full-time Affirmative Action Officer
so Business Officer fills split role.
Has asked V.P. for an Affirmative Action
Committee. Will revise prior draft in
light of 1974 comments by Director of
University EEOP and submit.
CENTRAL AD MINISTR-AlTION
May 31, 1975
Plan being revised in light of 1974
comments by University Director of
6 . Plans :Jitk Coals and Timetables
Affirnvative Action Goals and Timetables for employing
women and minorities are required when deficiencies in
utilization are identified. Further, the effective analysis
of deficiencies and setting meaningful goals requires com-
parison with data on the availability of persons having, or
capable of being trained in, skills requisite to succebbful
job performance. These two factors render significantly
difficult the task of developing goals and timetables for
employing a staff drawn from a nation-wide labor pool and
generally requiring advanced, long-term preparation to ful-
fill the job requirements. Thus, the absence of goals and
timetables in a campus Affirmative Action Plan should be
interpreted more as a consequence of not identifying defi-
ciencies or encountering inherent difficulties than willingness
to make a commitment to change. With these comments in mind,
the following tabulation of Plans with goals and timetables
can be viewed in proper prospective.
A. Campuses with "Final" Plans
Campus Plan Has Goals
Stony Brook X
Downstate, Brooklyn X
Upstate, Syracuse X
Colleges of Arts and Sciences
Agricultural and Technical Colleges
Morrisville 60 X
B. Campuses having only "Draft" Plans for Academic
Campus Plan Has Goals
^College of Arts and Sciences
Empire State College X
New Paltz X
Old Westbury X
Agricultural and Technical Colleges
Environmental Science and
Central Administration X
Letter from Jacques E- Wilmore,
Regional Director, USCCR, to Joel Barken,
Regional Director, Office for Civil Rights,
U. S- Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Mar. 31, 1975, and Response from
Joel Barken to Jacques Wilmore, Apr. ?» 1975
March 31, 1975
>ir, Joal Earkaa
Ofifica for Civil. Ei^ta, rWJ
26 Fadaral Plaza, Soom 3908
Haw York, N*w York 10CW>7
Daar Ilr. Baxitaa:
This ±3 CO catr/«y to you our appraciatioti for taking tia« on March 23,
1975 to n«*t at your office wich Eliot Staalay of this offlca.
Mr. Stanlay rapo^tJ that ia ciddition Co yourself, Mr. Uilliam Valantia*,
Daputy Ragional Director, aad Hs. Suaaa Blunieasoa, Qiiaf, Higixar
Education Draach, aat ia on tha aaatiag, ubich concarneii CC3.'3 enforca—
r^ent of affiraativ* action at th* Scats University of N«w York.
lir. Staalay'3 noca* ox th4» oeeting contained several points which. I! wish
to sat forth har» to maka certain that our inforaation ia accurate and
coaplata regarding yovur current ralaCioaahip vith SOTd, If the:3e
stataaentJ ara not accurata, I hope you will quickly reply to rae to
avoid iaaccuraciaa ia ovr forthcoming report on EEO in SITNY .
1. Your 3xflc« ha* agreed to permit SUKY central to main tain ia
it3 files the iadivldvuLL cacrotta affirmativa action plana and its own
UniversiCT— >rida plan,, although this agra^ment is not la wrlttan fora,
2. Your Offica baa never formally raquesCad SL'^ff to aubrnit to yoa
a copy of eithar tha Unlveralty-vlda Aifiraative Action Plan or of any
of the individual caoiptu* plana.
3. SUNT i3 reqtiir«d under ELxecutiva Ordar 11246 to develop a written
affirmative action plan but until your Offica formally requisca' that
the plan be subnuLtted for revlev, you have no way of detairaiains whether
or not tha iJniveraity ia in cornplianca ^rlth tha Executive Crdar as
rs^arda the affirmative action plan raqulrament in the Crder.
4. Tha 120-day period i/hich di:<pirsd on I'^y 15, 1973 waa liha period
within ^trich SU^'Y waa to hava davelopad an afflmativs action plan but
since you did not request tha plan at that tica, or subsequent to that
date, you lac'.c official knowladr^a of whether such a plan was ever
Jivelo^sd within the reauireaenta of Havlsed Order No. 4.
5. If you vara to rsquaaL that SUciY's plaa ba suboltced to your
of£ic2, Ravisiid Ordar No. 14 raquirea that you procssa that submlaaioa
within 60 days and either approve it or begin enforcasiaat proceadinga.
6. Following tha l-isoorandua of Uadaratanding batveea OCIl and SUMY
/_cc^_..J >' ' — '^ 1 m'>\ /->ccj 1 1 J T_j_^_
arising froa unit3 within SUlil but has not conducted any coapliaaca
7. At pra3«nt you do not know whether or whan you will raqaest SUNY
to aubsait aich-ar it3 Univsraity-wida or individual campus afflnnativa
action plana to you for tha purpoa© of datarminlng whather the
Univaraity has davalop«d a plan or plan^ conaiatanC with tha raquiraia^nta
of Exacutiva Ordar 11246.
8. Tha raaaooA for your not having requascad submisaion or affimative
action plana inam SlSf? ars:
a. that tha Univaraicy rsaiatad OCR's accaaa to its racorda
for a lengthy period of tijna, including thraatenad litigation, prior
to tha 1973 Menxsraadum of Ucdaratanding;
b. that 0C2, has a liiaitad ataff with which to conduct ravlsw
of afflraatlva actloQ plana in Raglon II;
c. that in terms of allocation of office raaourcea, OCR haa
given priority to working on af firaiativ* action in City University
cf New York (CONY and in tha atate ayatem of New Jarasy; and
d. that iastructiona from your Waanington office for Ff 1975
were tjo concantrata on reduction of conplaint backlog and not to
raquaat affiroaCiva action plana during tha currant fiacal year.
9. You cannot atata at thia tiiaa whether or not SIRTY is in complianca
with tha Exacutiva Ordar 11246 and Ilavised Ordar I-Io. 4.
10. During 1974 your Offlca has conducted technical asaistanca
prograiaa which ware designed to provide training for SUJff's campua
affirmative action officers.
11. It is your view that OCR baa fully comoliad with hha letter
of Tvaviaed Ordar V.o. 4 in ita compliance -ictivltiea ragardlng State
Utiivsraicy of riev York.
In addition to the above, I a:n enclosing a copy of Che transcript from
Juna 6-7, 1973 rr.eeting of tha Met/ York State M-'risocy Connittee Co
the U.S. Conraisaion on iivil PwLghCs, conCaiiiing the rsaponsria of GC?>.
uitneaaaa Valantiaa and Laaliy to questions froa tha Advisory Coiaaittaa
aad stxSf . la particular I call your atCsiitioa to tha followlag pagda
of tea traxiscxipt, which ara Earkad on tha enclosed copy, and aak. that
you recoucila atat^ifctnts by OCa officials at that tla» vith current
OCR, c.zsiiAs^s&s.t of S'J^X'a cotnpiisTja* «ith tha Executive Order. Tha
ma'^ckad paga* ara: 74-77, 73, 30-31, 92-97.
It is niy imdarataraiing that yoti ara also compiling for us an up-to-daCa
listing of compTainta on which your offica has actad at SU>IY for tha
period sijica Juna 1973, for which wa ara oost gratafiol. If poasibla,
nay wa hav« your rasponsa to this lattar by April L5? Thank you in
ndvanca for your coop«iration.
Jacquaa £. Vilaora
Official fila (NY SDNT)
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION. AND WELFARE
•^ J 26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 1CXX)7
OFFICE OF THE
Mr. Jacques E. Wilmore
United States Commission on Civil Rights
26 Federal Plaza Room 1639
New York, NY 10007
Dear Mr. Wilmore:
I have carefully reviewed your letter of March 31, 1975, together with
Ms. Blumenson and Mr. Valentine, and I am happy to respond to your specific
questions. I shall answer the questions in the order in which they appear
in your letter.'
1. This is'correct, but it must be pointed out that SUNY Central has no
authority to. act for OCR in assessing either the University-Wide Plan or the
Individual Campus Plans nor any authority to grant official approval of
these plans in terms of the specific requirements of the Executive Order.
In other words, SUNY Central is in no way serving as an agent of OCR.
SUNY Central also understands that OCR can and will at any time request any
individual Campus Plan and or the University-Wide Plan, and that such plan
is to be submitted to OCR at that time.
2. This is a correct statement.
3. This is a correct statement.
4. This is a coirrect statement.
5. This is a correct statement.
6. This is a correct statement, it might be added that prior to the effective
date of November 8, 1973, fo^ the Memorandum of Understanding, this office
had received a number of complaints against various campuses of SUNY. ^
OCR was unable to investigate these complaints because of the issue of access
to files. Following the Memorandum of Understanding, therefore, OCR has
concentrated its efforts on clearing up the accumulated backlog of the
cZlllin.s prior to the request for, and assessment of any Affirmative Act.on
Page 2 - Jacques E. WiLnore
7. It is correct to say that OCR does not now know when we will request
Affirmative Action Plans from SUNY. It is not correct to say that OCR
does noc know whether such requests will be made.
8. A. This statement needs some amplification. Upon our inability to •
gain necessary access to records in the investigations of complaints.
Regional OCR submitted the matter to OCR headquarters with a reconmendation
that enforcement action be instituted on the basis of the refusal by SUNY
to grant necessary access to its records.
The former Director of OCR, Mr. Pottinger, gave serious consideration to
initiating enforcement action against SUNY, but before he had made a final
dstermination on his course of action, he left OCR to take an appointment
in the Department of Justice. Mr. Pottinger' s successor, Mr. Holmes,
understandably wished to familiarize himself with the full details of the
OCR relationship with SUNY before deciding a course of action and to avoid
rushing headlong into a course of action tentatively considered by his
predecessor. Mr. Holmes decided to reopen' negotiations with SUNY toward
the end of reaching a mutual agreement between OCR and SUNY.
The matter of SUNY was therefore out of the hands of the Regional Office,
OCR during that period and until OCR headquarters successfully executed
the Memorandum of Understanding with SUNY and thereupon turned the matter
back to the Regional Office.
B. This is a correct statement.
C. This statement also requires some amplification. In the period of
our inability to continue work with SUWi, Region II, OCR turned its attention
to other matters within the Region, including City University of New York and
the State-System of New Jersey. This did not necessarily reflect a higher
priority of these other institutions over SUNY.
D. This is correct except for the stated time spa'n. We do not now know
whether within the remainder of the Fiscal Year we will still be unable to
request Affirmative Action Plans.
9. This is a correct statement in view of the fact that we have not requested
nor received any Affirmative Action Plans from SUNY or any of its campuses
and have no knowledge of substantive violations of the Executive Order.
10. This is a correct statement,
11 This is a correct statement in as much as revised Order #4 does not
require the compliance agency to request Affirmative Action Plans trom
contractors within any particular time frame.
Page 3 - Jacques E. Wilmore
I have also read the transcript of the testimony provided by Mr. Valentine
and Mr. Leahy during the open hearing conducted by the New York Advisory
Committee of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on June 6 and 7, 1973.
I have given particular attention to the pages v^ich you marked. The
most significant point of the discussion during that period of the session
appeared to me to be whether in fact Mr. Valentine indicated that SUNY is
in non-compliance with the Executive Order by virtue of its failure to
submit and Affirmative Action Plan to OCR. Mr. Valentine acknowledges
that this conclusion was apparently set forth during the testimony and
that it was not completely accurate. It might be noted that Mr. Valentine
did indicate in his testimony that OCR had not requested a plan or plans
from SITNY. It might also be noted that Mr. Valentine indicated that until
January 1973, public institutions such as SUNY were not subject to the
requirements of a written Affirmative Action Plan.
You might recall that on the first day of the hearing, when SUNY
representatives were being questioned, the so-called "Blue Book" was
introduced by SUNY as its Affirmative Action Plan. That plan had not been
submitted by OCR and we did not know its contents.
However, during the discussions on June 6, it was pretty evident chat
SUNY's submission was sketchy and it was described, in fact, by a member
or members of the panel as merely a "plan to develop a plan". Therefore,
even though Mr. Valentine had not officially seen or examined any SUNY
plan, it was a pretty safe assumption that an acceptable plan did not exist.
On June 21, 1973, which was subsequent to the hearing. Chancellor Boyer
wrote to Mr. Valentine and enclosed a copy of "Equal Educational Opportunity
Plan for Affirmative Action in State University of New York" (Blue Book).
In his letter. Chancellor Boyer set forth SUNY's projected schedule for the
completion of the Individual Campus Plans and the University-Wide Plan.
He also invited OCR's attention to the fact that SUNY is a complex,
multi-campus institution and that the one hundred and twenty days allowed
by the Executive Order for the development of an Affirmative Action Plan
constitutes a much greater problem in an institution such as SUNY than in
a single campus institution, some of which might have as few as fifty
faculty and staff. This letter was discussed with Washington and in December
1973, Mr. Valentine wrote to Dr. Kratz to the effect that OCR had received
the "Blue Book" as an indication of a good faith effort to develop an
accaptabla plan but emphasized that a complete and accspCable plan must be
Page 4 - Jacques E, Wilmore
On page 94 of the transcript, reference is made to the fact that OCR
specifically requested an^ Affirmative Action Plan from a private
institutions were subject to the requirement to develop a written Affirmative
Action Plan at a much earlier date than were public institutions.
We are enclosing an up-to-date listing oi conqjlaints on which this office
has acted at SUNY and at other institutions.
I trust this letter adequately responds to the questions which you have
raised. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
Joel W. Barkan, Director
Office for Civil Rights
Enc. Region II
U. S COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20425
POSTAGE AND FEES PAID
U. S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300