(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Equal employment opportunity at the State University of New York : a report"

EQUAL 

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 
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 

.A/7 



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 



ATTRIBUTION: 

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 
Congress. 



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 
publication. 



MEMBERSHIP 
NEW YORK STATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE 
UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 

Hon. Franklin H. Williams, Chairman 
New York 

R. Val Archer, Vice Chairman *** 
Syracuse 

Domingo A. Garcia, Vice C hairman 
Rochester 

Dr. Setsuko Matsunaga Nishi, Vice Chairwoman** 

New York 

Dorothy A. Kirsch, Secretar y** 
New York 



Samuel F. Abernethy** 
New York 



Dr. Walter Cooper*** 
Rochester 



Dr. Michael H. Alderman* 
New York 



Matilde P. DeSilva** 
New York 



Luis Alvarez 
New York 



Kathleen M. DiFiore*** 
New York 



Dr. Samuel F. Babbitt*** 
Clinton 



Rita DiMartino** 
New York 



Dr. John J. Beatty** 
Brooklyn 



Elizabeth B. DuBois* 
New York 



Sandra L. Bird* 
New York 



Edward W. Elwin* 
Albany 



Dr. Algernon Black** 
New York 



Marshall C. England 
New York 



Isabel D. Brookfield* 
New York 



Douglas P. Fields** 
New York 



Minna R. Buck* 
Syracuse 



Hilda E. Ford*** 
Albany 



W. Haywood Burns* 
New York 



Marilyn G. Haft* 
New York 



Ramon Cantero** 
New York 

Sande R. Jones 
New York 



L. Harriett Henderson* 
West Hempstead 

i-aith A. Seidenberg*** 
Syracuse 



Loida N. Lewis** 
New York 



Ollie Scott 
Buffalo 



Harold Lui 
New York 



Portia A. Smith* 
New York 



Tanya Melich** 
New York 



Ronni B. Smirh*** 
New York 



Carlos Morales* 
New York 



Lita M. Taracido** 
New York 



Prof. William M. Murphy*** 
Schenectady 

Rarihokwats** 
New York 



Richard Thornell** 
New York 

Peter J. Wallison* 
New York 



Gladys E. Rivera** 
Queens Village 

Steven H. Rubin* 
Oaeonta 



Charles P. Wang** 
New York 

Robert Takashi Yanagida* 
New York 



Nancy O. Sachtjen** 
Bronxville 



Dr. Willie K. Yee* 
Bronx 



*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 

August 1976 



MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION 
Arthur S. Flemming, Chairman 
Stephen Horn, Vice Chairman 
Frankie M. Freeman 
Manuel Ruiz, Jr. 
Murray Saltzman 

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 
State. 

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 
organizations . 

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 
positions. 

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. 

Respectfully, 

/s/ 

Franklin H. Williams 
Chairman 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

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. 



CONTENTS 



Pa 

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 

Community 14 

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 

Analysis 28 

A. Minorities 28 

B. Women 34 

C. Change over Previous Years 37 

IV. Findings and Recommendations 41 



APPENDICES 

PAGE 

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 

TABLES 



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 

Minorities 32 

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 
system. 

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. 

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 
1948) . 

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. 
23, 1975. 

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 
Center. 



11. Jacques E. Wilmore, regional director, USCCRNEPO, 
letter to Ernest L. Boyer, chancellor, SUNY, Nov. 15, 1971, 
USCCRNERO files. 

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 
undertaken by: 

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 
abrogated. * 

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 

2. Staffing 

Central Office 

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. 



Campus Offices 

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 



10 



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 
activities. »' 

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 



11 



U. Affirmative Action Plans 

Statewide Plan 

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 
campus activities. 

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 
which will: 

a. Follow the overall organization, format and 
philosophical thrust of the university-wide 
programs. 



12 



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. 



13 



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.'* 

Campus Plans 

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 
Advisory Committee. 

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 



11 



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 
with it.** 

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 
token. *s 

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 



15 



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 



16 



7. The Role of the State Division of Human Rights at SUNY 
Complaints 

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 
complainant. s* 

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 



17 



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 
request: 

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 
requests. 

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. 



18 



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 
considerations. ^2 

8. The Pole of the Office for Civil Rights of the U.S. 
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 



19 



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 

Compliance Reviews 

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 
1973. 79 

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" 



20 



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 
Committee: 

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 



21 



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 
Report) . 

2. Ibid., p. 3. 

3. Ibid. 

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) , 
USCCRNERO files. 

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. 



22 



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 
Guideline s. 

28. See Section 7 of this chapter for more information on 
the Federal affirmative action requirement. 

29. Transcript, June 7, pp. 94-95. 



23 



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., 
USCCRNERO files. 

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 



24 



E. Wilmore, regional director, USCCRNERO, Apr. 1, 1975, 
USCCFNERO files. 

50. Ibid. 

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. 

57. Ibid. 

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), 
USCCRNERO files. 

61. Liaison Agreement, clause 4, p. 2. 



25 



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. 

64. Ibid. 

65. Ruperto Ruiz, assistant commissioner, SDHR, letter to 
Eliot Stanley, USCCRNERO staff, Jan. 30, 1975, USCCRNERO 
files. 

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). 



26 



79. Ibid. 

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. 



27 



Ill MINORITIES AND WOMEN AT SUNY 
A S-tatistical Analysis 



A. Minorities 

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 



28 



TABLE I 

Faculty and Administrative Staff: White and Minority 

Fall 1973 

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) . 



29 



TABLE II 

Faculty and Administrative Staff by Race/Ethnic Group 

Fall 1973 

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) . 



30 



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 
doctoral candidates. 

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) , 



31 



TABLE III 

Stony Brook Faculty and Available Pools of Minorities 

Total Stony Brook Percent Minority 

Stony Brook Minority Faculty in Available Pool 
Unit Faculty No_^ % 

College of 

Enaineerina U1.5 10 2H.^ 5.4 

College of Arts 
and Sciences 560.5 
Humanities 1171 
Mathematics 60.5 
Physical 

Science 91 
Biological 

Sciences 40 
Social and Be- 
havorial 

Sciences 206 
Library 
(academic) 36 

TOTAL 646 

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). 

Source: SUNY. 



41 


7.3 


5.8 


10 


5.8 


5.5 


5 


8.3 


5.4 


11 


12.1 


4.9 


3 


7.5 


4.5 


12 


5.8 


6.7 


4 


11.1 


10.8 


55 


8.5% 


6.0 



32 



TABLE IV 
Minority Administrative Staff by Grade Level 

Fall 1973 



Professional Rank 


Total 


Minority 


Percent Minority 


All Ranks 


4,156 


454 


10.92% 


PR Ungraded 


116 


8 


6.89% 


PR-1 








($7,8C0-$13,900) 


1,U91 


187 


12.54% 


PR- 2 








$12,000-$17,900) 


1,268 


188 


14.83% 


PR- 3 








($15,900-$21,900) 


593 


33 


5.56% 


PR-U 








($19,900-$27,800) 


348 


24 


6.89% 


PR- 5 








($23,100-$32,800) 


204 


9 


4.41% 


PR- 6 








($27,800-$39,200) 


96 


5 


5.21% 


PR-7 








($34,100-$U7,400) 


33 





0.00% 


PR-8 








($40,900-$51,500) 


7 





0.00% 



SOURCE: SUNY (Table E in Appendix A) . 



33 



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. 



TABLE V 
Minority Faculty By Tenure Status 
Fall 1973 
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) . 



B, 



Women 



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. 



34 



TABLE VI 
Faculty And Administrative Staff By Sex 
Fall 1973 
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. 



35 



TABLE VII 

Administrative Staff By Sex and Grade Level 

Fall 1973 

Professional Rank Total 

All Ranks 4,156 

PR Ungraded 116 

PR-1 

($7,800-$13,900) 1,491 

PR- 2 

($12,000-$17,900) 1,268 

PR- 3 
($15,900-$21,900) 593 

PR- a 

($19,900-$27,800) 3U8 

PR- 5 
($23,100-$32,800) 204 

PR- 6 

($27,800-$39,200) 96 

PR- 7 

($3a,10C-$47,400) 33 

PR- 8 

($a0,900-$51,500) 7 

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) 



Women 


Percent Womer 


1,205 


28 


.99% 


18 


15 


.52% 


674 


45 


.20% 


362 




28.55% 


88 




14.84% 


40 




11.49% 


20 




9.80% 


3 




3.13% 







0.00% 







0.00% 



36 



TABLE VIII 
Faculty by Sex and Tenure Status 
Fall 1973 
Total women Percent Women 



Tenured 
Non-tenured 



5,526 804 
5,133 1,594 



14.55% 
31.05% 



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 
Table IX.) 



TABLE IX 
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) . 



37 



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 faculty. 

TABLE X 

Minority Women Faculty at SUNY: 1970 and 1973 

Year Total Minority % Minority Women of % Minority Women of 
Minority Women Total Minority Total Faculty 



1970 


705 


170 


21.4% 


1.8% 


1973 


946 


218 


26.3% 


2.3% 


Source: 


SUNY. 









38 



TABLE XI 
women Faculty at SUNY: 1970 and 1973 



Year Women Faculty 


Minority 

Women 


% 


Minority wom^ 
all Womei 


1970 1,939 


170 




8.7% 


1973 2,398 


248 




10.3% 


Source: SUNY. 









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. 



39 



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 
employers . 

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. 



40 



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. 

FINDINGS: 

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 



ai 



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 
unfinished. 

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 
campus levels. 

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 
EEO program. 

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 
advisory committee. 



42 



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 
investigating complaints. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

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 



13 



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 
EEO program. 

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 
appointment period. 



<I4 



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 
who can: 

a. help complete the campus-level affirmative 
action plans and monitor the implementation of such 
plans; 

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 
the public. 

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. 



45 



APPENDIX A 

Statistics on SUNY's Professional 
Staff 1973-1971+ 



H6 



TABLE A 

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 


Men 


Women 


Total academic staff 


10,039^ 


7,735 


2,334 


Percent of total (10,039) 


100.0 


77.0 


23.0 


Total non-miaority 


9,137 


7,075 


2,062 


Percent of total (10,039) 


91.0 


70.5 


20.5 


Total tainority 


902 


560 


242 


Percent of total (10,039) 


9.0 


6.6 


2.4 


Black 


324 


188 


136 


Percent cf total (10,039) 


3.2 


- 1.9 


1.3 


Puerto Rican 


23 


18 


5 


Percent of total (10,039) 


0.2 


0.2 


b 


Spanish-surnamed 


51 


45 


16 


Percent of total (10,039) 


0.6 


0.4 


0.2 


American Asian 


100 


84 


15 


Percent cf total (10,039) 


1.0 


0.8 


0.2 


American Indian 


11 


6 


5 


Percent of total (10,039) 


0.1 


b 


b 


Other minorities 


383 


319 


64 


Percent of total (10,039) 


3.3 


3.2 


0.6 



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 
administrative titles. 

Less than 0.1 percent. 



47 










C 


■^ 


(Nl 


(N) 








o 


a> 


O^ 


o 








e 


Ul 


to 


<NJ 








c 


" 


" 










S: 


t— 1 


I—I 








T) 














<U 




cr. 


(VI 


r~- 




tn 


S-> 


C 


to 


1— 1 


ts> 




o 


3 


o 


LO 


rH 


•«d- 


>s 


bc 


r- 


S 


« 


-> 




c 


o 


s 




to 


to 




(It 


rH 


H 












fH 


1 










c 


O 


CS 


I— 1 


to 


rr 


a\ 


•H 


u 


o 


ri 


to 


o 


Oi 




l/l 


z 


+j 


I-l 


LO 


\D 


0) 


3 >s 




o 


~ 


« 




^ 


■»-> J-. 




£- 


LO 


•^ 




3 


rt O 












C 


■4-> 4-> 












O 


CO 3 












■P 


to +J 




C 










r^ X rt « 




o 


'^ 


OO 


\0 


c 


cjy +->+-> ci 




E 


o 


LO 


^ 


•H 


I-l -H CO o 




o 


00 


r^ 




cd 


f- >- 




^ 








■p 


- O M 












4J 


J c; c 2 












nS 


»J -r-l -rH m 


T3 




r>i 


I— I 


i-H 




< Sts 2; 


QJ 


c 


rj 


LO 


r- 


•P 


tL, 3 


(-> 


o 


t^ 


•<d- 


CVl 


O 


-o rH tU 


3 


S 


*^ 


•> 




C 


•COO 


C 




•^ 


■«;f 






« rt X 


o 










o 


>- W >- 


E- 










T3 


E- to E- 




I— t 


VO 


a\ 


r- 




J 3 trt •-• 




a 


cvj 


o 


iH 


«+^ 


3 +-> C CO 




4-> 


LO 


rv) 


to 


4-1 


U rt o cs: 




o 


-. 


•« 




ctf 


< 4-> -H W 




H 


LO 


LO 




P 


tU CO +-> > 












CO 


3 HH 














ta (u 4-1 2 












/< 


2 M-H3 




c 


00 


o 


CO 


u 


HH 3 4-) 




a> 


o» 


LO 


■^ 


o 


H C t/1 UJ 




£ 


to 


.— ( 


CVl 


>« 


1 OJ CH 




o 


•* 


•* 






H-J t- •-•< 




S: 


rvj 


fSl 




> X 


J E- 












O +J 


3 -'C CO 












Z-H 


U- X <u 






r-t 


to 


OO 


o 


(U +J 


t-i 


C 


\o 


vO 


CTl 


14-1 rt 


CO rt 


rt 


<u 


CM 


LO 


O 


o a 


>-< 


+-> 


S 


~ 


~ 




rt 


X o 


o 




OO 


P~ 




xo 


ea ru 


E- 










+J 


o 












•H <U 


1 




I— 1 


cri 


to 


O 


w > 


Q> 




rt 


LO 


1— 1 


•<* 


U -H 


'M 




4-> 


o 


c^ 


C^ 


O 4-1 


rt 




O 


•» 


« 




> rt 


+J 




H 


o 


CTl 




•H Vh 


«3 






iH 


< 

>- 


>- 

H 
-J 

CJ 


e: State Un 
administ 








>- 


E- 


< 


p 








E- 


H- « 


u, 


o 








►J 


c^ 




z 








Z2 


O 


>- 


« 








U 


2 


E- 










< 


1 — < 


h-( 










P., 


1 


O 










J 


Z 


z 










J 


o 


1 — t 










<: 


z 


s 





48 



TABLE C 



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 





Total 


Non-minority 


Minoritv 


Total 


Men 


Women 


Total 


Men 


Woman 


Total -Men 


Woaen 


Fall 1973 

Z of grand total (10,659) 

Fall 19^70 

: of grand total (9,492) 


10^659 
100.0 
9,492 
100.0 


3,261 
77.5 

7,553 
79.6 


2,393 

22.5 

1,939 

20.4 


9,713 
91.1 

3,737 
92.6 


7 5A3 
70.9 

7,018 
74.0 


2 150 
20.2 

1,769 
13.6 


3.9 
705 
7.4 


693 
6.6 
535 
5.6 


24S 
2.3 
170 
1.3 





Total 


Tenured 


Son- tenured 


Total 


Men 


Women 


Total 


Men 


Women 


Total Men 


Woa«n 


Fall 1973 


10,659 


3,261 


2,393 


5,526 


4.722 


804 


5,133 


3,539 


1,594 


Z of grand total (10,659) 


100.0 


77.5 


22.5 


51.3 


44.3 


7.5 


48.2 


33.2 


15.0 


Fall 1970 


9,492 


7,553 


1,939 


4,204 


3,647 


557 


5,238 


3,906 


1,332 


Z of grand total (9,492) 


100.0 


79.6 


20.4 


44.3 


38.4 


5.9 


55.7 


41.2 


14.5 







Total 


Tenured 




Non-tenured 




non 


-minority 


non-xinorl 


tv 


nan-™iaoritv 


Total 


Men 


Women 


Total 


Ken 


Women 


Total 


Men Women 


Fall 1973 


9,713 


7,563 


2,150 


5,209 


4.451 


758 


4,504 


3,112 


1,392 


Z of grand total (10,659) 


91.1 


70.9 


20.2 


43.3 


41.7 


7-1 


42.3 


29.2 


23.1 


Z of noo-ninorlcy total (9,713) 


100.0 


77.8 


22.2 


53.6 


45.8 


7.8 


46.4 


32.0 


14. i 


Fall 1970 


3,787 


7,013 


1.759 


4,030 


3,495 


535 


4,757 


3.523 


1,234 


Z of grand total (9,492) 


92.5 


73.9 


18.6 


42.4 


36.8 


5.6 


50.1 


37.1 


13.0 


Z of non-minority total (3,787) 


100.0 


79.9 


20.1 


45.9 


39.3 


6.1 


54.1 


40.1 


14.0 





Total alnority 


Tenured 
minoritv 


Non-cenured 
aicoritv 


Total 


Ken 


Woaen 


Total 


Men 


1 
Wccea Total j Men 


Wcraen 


Fall 1973 

Z of grand total (10.659) 

Z of nlnority total (945) 
Fall 1970 

: of grand total (9.492) 
Z of minority total (705) 


946 
8.9 

100.0 
705 
7.4 

100.0 


693 
6.6 

73.7 
535 
5.6 

75.9 


248 
2.3 

25.3 
170 
1.3 

24.1 


317 

3.0 

33.5 

174 - 

. 1-3 
24.7 


271 
2.6 

23.6 
15: 
1.6 

21.6 


46 

^ f. 

%J . -. 

4.9 

22 

0.2 

3.1 


629 
5.9 

66.5 
531 
5.6 

75.3 


427 
4.0 

45.1 
333 
4.0 

54.3 


202 
1.9 

21 • -* 
143 
1.5 

21.0 



49 



TABLE D 

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 





Total 


Non-oinoricy 


Minority 1 


Total 


Men 


Women 


Tocal 


Men 


Women 


Total 


Men 


Wooea 


Fall 1973 
FaU 1970 

Change 
Pet. change 


10,659 

9,492 

+ 1,167 

+ 12.2 


8,261 

7,553 

+ 708 

+ 9.4 


2,398 

1,939 

+ 459 

+ 23.7 


9,713 

8,787 

+ 926 

+ 10.5 


7,563 

7,018 

+ 545 

+ 7.3 


2,150 

1,769 

+ 381 

+ 21.5 


946 

705 

+ 241 

+ 34.2 


698 

535 

+ 163 

+ 30.5 


243 

170 

+ 73 

+ 45.9 





' 


Total 




Tenured 


Non- tenured 


Total 


Men 


Women 


Total 


Men 


Women 


Total 


Men 


Womea 


Fall 1973 


10,659 


8,261 


2,398 


5,526 


4,722 


804- 


5.133 


3,539 


1,594 


Fall 1970 


9,492 


7,553 


1,939 


4,204 


3,647 


557 


5,283 


3,906 


1.382 


Change 


+ 1,167 


+ 708 


+ 459 


+ 1,322 


+ 1,075 


+ 247 


- 155 


- 367 


■t- 212 


Pec. change 


+ 12.2 


+ 9.4 


+ 23.7 


+ 31.4 


+ 29.5 


+ 44.3 


- 2.9 


- 9.4 


+ 15.3 





Tocal 
non-miaorlcy 


Tenured 
non-minority 


Non-Cenurad 1 
non-mlnoricv ! 


Tocal 


Men 


Women 


Tocal 


tian 


Women 


Tocal 


Men 


Wbcea 


Fall 1973 
Fall 1970 
Change 
Pet. change 


9,713 

3,787 

+ 926 

+ 10.5 


7,563 

7,018 

+ 545 

+ 7.3 


2,150 

1,769 

+ 381 

+ 21.5 


5,209 

4,030 

+ 1,179 

+ 29.2 


4,451 

3.495 

+ 956 

+ 27.4 


753 

535 

+ 223 

+ 41.7 


4.504 
4,757 

- 253 

- 5.3 


3.112 
3.523 

- 411 

- 11.7 


1,392 

1,234 

+ 158 

+ 12.8 





Total minority 


Tenured ninoriCy 


Non-tenured 

minority 


Total 


Men 


Women 


Tocal 


Men 


Wonen 


Total 


Men 


Women 


Fall 1973 
Fall 1970 
Charge 
Pet. change 


946 
705 

•t- 241 
+ 34.2 


698 

5 35 

+ 163 

+ 30.5 


248 

170 

+ 73 

+ 45.9 


317 

174 
+ 143 
+ 32.2 


271 

152 

+ 119 

+ 78.3 


46 

22 

+ 24 

+ 109.1 


529 

531 

+ 93 

+ 18.5 


427 
333 

+ 44 
+ 11.5 


202 

148 

+ 54 

+ 35.5 



50 



e 
o 

3 



O 
O 



►-I 


O 


F^ 


o 


a 




= 


H 


_] 




< 


_1 


(j 


e 


<■ 


X 


u 


i. 


u 


a. 






r> 






1 

b.< 


S 


h: 


h- 


3 


>- 


< 


>■ 


o 


H 




^ 


V) 


3 


£: 


. 


z 


Ul 


:>: 




a 


5 


b< 
O 


iLJ 


b: 




»«( 




>• 


b. 


^ 


H 




< 


t-i 


(/) 


2 


in 


v: 


f) 


e. 


< 


*-< 


u 




I/; 


> 


(} 


fcO 


»-i 


1 


u: 


z 


z 


u. 


= 


o 


o 




z 


K 


b: 




Cl< 


1- 


J 




< 


•c 


c 


fi 


z 


z 


tn 


o 


<: 




»-( 






(ft 


CO 


(A 


c/> 


= 


U 


u: 


H- 


o 


k. 


< 




O 


H 




c: 


cn 


■J 


Cu 




o 


u 


P 


u 


r 


•-4 


> 




b: 


t£ 


H 


o 


o 


1 


z 


1- 


_3 




=) 


^ 


r 


t- 


3 




< 


b. 




f- 




X 


w 


u. 


u: 




o 


«/; 


z 


>■ 


>- 




b: 




Q 


< 




= 


Ci 


b. 




:: 


< 


X 


w 




bl 






V) 


o: 


c 




< 




o 


z 


r 






b- 


H 


;." 


C 


=3 




< 


^• 




I. 


t-* 


U 


< 


I- 



o 

o 



o 
d 



o 

d 
o 



o 

o 
o 



o 

o 



o 
o 



o 
o 



f-i *^ 



d 



CO \D 
O • 



d 



<M • «M - 

O O 



CO *M 

d 



CO • 



CO • 



o 



>9 ^ 
o 



r^ O 
es • 



<NJ CO 

CO • 
CM *o 



d 



o »n 

CM • 

o 



^ -I 
d 



o 



<: 

H 



O lA -H <M 






. r>«. r^ CTn 



o . o . 

h.. ^ t-H CM 

•CO 



O tn *y o 



r> r*. -H -^ 



*3 fM 



ps) t"* (O M 



CM • • 

O O 



-^ o 
rsi 



r"-. r^ sS CO 

^ . o • 



*^ O 



eo »n m n 
sO • ^ • 
CM O ITI •* 



^ • 

(n eo 



o 



f-> CD 

n « 
O 



m eo 

CO • 

O 



fn CO 

en • 

O 



r^ CM 
O 



O 



r-* CM 
O 



£1. C* 






I u 

of V 



t b 



51 



U -H 

>- .^ 

C -3 

-' C < 

HI < - 

o £ ^ 

u: c o 

- C >. 
b. I 

>- u: 3 

<n (-. UJ 

to < z 

< H 

_: in b. 

u o 
I 

2 >i >• 

O 2 !- 

= S " 

K m 

-} K 

< >J u: 
z < 5 
o z •-I 
" o z 
tc *-• 5 
tn (/) 

b3 to bS 

U. U f 

c t < 

"= S f- 

t- e: w 

Cl. 

£ Q to 

t-i Z UJ 

• < o 



I 



b: 



J X J 

-: uo _i 

s m o 

>• 

?: = S 

i-t lb o 

a: u. H 

C < = 

2 H t- 

•- en < 

£ (- 

O in 
bu M 

O E U 

u: 2 

>. O w 

££ < O 

< u = 
e < -J 

= u X 

to z u 

>■ o in 

— = z 

< -: c 
z u — 

— X H 

i: t) 3 



CI 

o 


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 


H 


^esiPM ^^,r ^oys f^^i-i cMfliN ^ a n -i«u-i iii iii iti 

w-t r^ Of*^ OiH O*-* O O O 


c 

fw C 

u •: 

-^ --^ 

u e 

E M 

•< 


3 


CMOe III NCr-l III III III III III III III 

o 


X 


-»-!-( Ill tsie-i imOcj III III III III III III 
o o do 


H 


%0— I'H III -C»HcsJ <M«CM III III III III til III 

do o o o 


o e 

<J c 

<; 


S 


fi a a III >-ta-( ill ill iii iii iii iii ill 
d 


S 


cseo III III III -lorH III rtoui III III III 

d d 


H 


r-. ^w III rHic^ III '-(O'-l III MRm III III III 
o d d d d 


1 -o 

X « 

a, B 
-. CIJ 
C C 
CO t- 
C. 3 

in o 


S 


■Haa III III III III III III wao ill III 


S 


of^o -^co. MO»-< u^fH^ff »HOr^ fWam ill ill ill ill 
oo o ooo o o 


H 


^<-l<-l ^00^ CMC-"! inw^ r-(i».-l woo III woo III III 

■H** • ... • . • 

oo o ooo O O »-l 


o c 


3: 


%0<HW III *?W(-| i-lOO wow lOI III 111 III III 

o d o o o 


S 


cMOvc III cOfMin wpno\ wow (Me\o III III ill III 

CM.* •■w** • 

oo oooo o o 


H 


IOr<^r^ III r<jmco 04(*^0^ rslOrM CMOvO III III III III 
csi»- w-.w.. 

oo oooo o o 


e 


3 


tMr^r^ ^HOON ccvovo u-im9t i^iMcg worn iii ill ill ill 

woo o w<r win ow o 


t 


0»- .r*^,.T^..f>4..w.- .. .- 

IN**** w w»n wo oo om oo o«^ 


H 


1 
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«* 

*-l 1 


>> 

< o 

c 

e 


S 


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 


X 


•-(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** 


l-i 


.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 


e 
o 

•- j< 
n e 

« Li 

o 

H 


« « « 

O ^^ W 06 ^ ^ ^ 

m* c^o* * « .-^^-* 
w^o.ff^^^oeo*T« « ^^ 

• f.^ * •ON.ffOOO* 

-.jwwwmoeMO<*nr* 

«^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. •«• 

oooooooooo 

OC OC OC OC OC OC OC OC OC OC 

■a 

•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 



52 



TABLE G 

SrATE UNiVbRSiTY OF NEW YORK 

Salary Range Equivalents 
of the 
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. 



53 



K 


z 


-3 


tl 


o 




V> 


H< 


< 




H 


t. 


s- 


= 




e 


r- 




in 


>-« 


S 


M 


cn 


O 


u 


2 


V 


!» 


H^ 




O 




■X 


^ 


Q 


u 


^ 




z 


u 


<• 


b 




c: 


O 


c 


w 




Id 




>" 


t-t 


o 


r- 


b. 


1 


H4 


»-4 


u 


in 


CA 


f- 


t£. 


« 


< 


U 


< 


r- 


> 


^ 


Vi 


M 


o 


. 


§ 


Id 


t: 




r. 


o 


::3 


M 


s 




H 


< 


1 


t; 


r-" 


,J 




V3 


^ 


Q 




u. 


§ 


t/3 


b. 


lA 


t5 


O 


=3 


tJ 




t— 


^ 


>• 


< 




(£ 


H 


n 


■<, 


lO 


L> 


t 


5 


?2 


Vi 


o 


o 




e 




>• 


n 




=5 






•e. 


> 


< 


•JL 


!-• 


H 




►-< 


m 


■s. 


s: 




•-< 


o 




~1 


z 


z 


U.* 


*-< 


►-* 


el 


5; 


Q 


o. 




3 







C 






















o 
c 


o^ 


«-) 


v£> 


p>* 


rH 


o\ 


•c 


•o- 






rN. 


CO 


CO 


r^ 


fN 


rJ 


<S1 


o 






•X 










.-( 






rH 












































c 


u 


c 


C^ 


o* 


t-« 


O 


CO 


(N 


fn 


CW 




o 


ty 


















c 


c 




u-» 


m 


xC 


*J 


CO 


in 


o-i 


<r 




-^ 












-H 








ec 

T3 


:^ 




















,_^ 


=o 


CM 


,^ 


<c 


On 


•H 


r*^ 


iS 


CI 




« 


















•*4 




^ 


r-t 


^ 


<r 


«H 


O 


CO 


r* 


ST 


t-4 




o 


.— ( 


t-t 


t-i 


T-t 


m 






rH 






i- 




























































c 




c 


CT^ 


c 


O 


m 


o 


(SI 


r*. 


•* 






c 


















(J 




E 


CTi 


.—1 


CM 


CO 


*a- 




f^ 


m 




>. 


o 


^ 


lA 


m 


■* 


<r 


n 


(S( 


CO 


c 


*j 


^ 


















•H 












































^ 


o 






















c 


c 


o 


CO 


c-i 


f^ 


•H 


r^ 


NO 




5 


—4 


JJ 




















E 




\£) 




C*( 


a^ 


in 


O 


ST 




C 


1 




ri 


f-1 


n 


r-l 


<N 


vD 


O 




o 


o 






































^ 


z 


rH 


CS4 


CO 


<n 


(SI 


rH 


Cr- 


r) 


^a- 


3 




a 


. 
















J3 




4-) 


*o 


*rt 


in 


CO 


ON 


rH 


CnI 


m 


•H 




O 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


NO 


On 


ON 


o 


kri 




H 


















CA 














































C 


CO 


rsj 


*c 


r^ 


rH 


O 


-H 


CO 


•o 




c 






















E 


r- 


o% 


o 


m 


s£> 


*r 


O 


m 


AJ 




o 


o^ 


in 


«c 


m 


m 


r> 


<n 


On 


c 




:i 


















c 
(J 










































l-l 


•H 




















v 


o 


c 


M 


CD 


-a- 


m 


o» 


O 


o» 


rsi 


Cw 


4J 


c 




















o 


£ 


CM 


O 


^ 


•«■ 


r> 


\e 


ON 


•9 




H 




•^ 


-* 


m 


<r 


<* 


vO 


NO 




r-l 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


o 


o 






Q 














• 








AJ 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 






^ 


s 


o 
l-l 


o 


o 


o 

rH 


o 

r-t 


o 

rH 


o 

rH 






C 


%c o^ 


r^ oo 


r^i CO 


*r 00 


r^ (sj 


m (Nj 


CO ^ 


m o 






U 




o% . 




in • 


(NJ - 


CN ■ 


r^ • 








E 


l— ( ^- 


O r-* 


CO in 


(V rH 


O 


o 


o 








O 






















3 


^ 


*H 
















IK 






















-1 








































U 


C 


»ff o>- 


Psl \0 


rH *-l 


OS ^ 


<N *n 


CNl m 


O (^ 


fNJ o 







6) 


fM - 


CO • 


to • 


m - 


<■ - 


<• • 


«* * 






c 




CO m 


r^ %r\ 


m <r 


rH .H 


o 


O 


o 






■4 






















c 










































r-» 


O 00 


tn .c- 


«n ^ 


m o\ 


c^ in 


m m 


00 ^ 


f^ o 






R 


<r . 


f". • 


Oi • 


f-t • 


vO - 


o • 


m • 








A.' 


ON r^ 


00 m 


en <y» 


<i rsi 


o 


o 


o 








o 


->»-( 


-r-l 
















1- 


<-t 


f-( 


^ 
















c 


VD C^ 


r^ O 


o o 


O' O 


CO r* 


ON CO 


CO m 


rH O 






CJ 


CO • 


r^ . 


in . 


CO • 


Os . 


<r • 


o • 


sff • 






E 


CT^ CTV 


r*. CO 


o^ m 


vo esi 


o 


isi fH 


(SI rH 


o 






o 


-•^ 


-«a- 


-<n 


-iH 












>. 


3 


\0 


\o 


^ 


rH 




















































u 




-H r^ 


xC Ov 


in vD 


in ov 


vO »C" 


in ^ 


m ST 


1 1 




D 


c 


o - 


o • 


o . 


CO . 


m . 


CO • 


CD • 






C 


o 


o o 


\0 CN 


t-» PNJ 


r-) CT» 


o 


-c- rn 


*T tn 










*ri 


- r-( 


* CN 


















»rv 


•«■ 


n 


»-* 






























D 


^^ 


r^ (SI 


rn ov 


m CN 


-C 0^ 


^ ^ 


*r- rsj 


m c^ 


^ (n 






c 






.-( 


r- • 


m • 


r-i . 


On . 








^ 


c o 


rS d 




o ^ 


^ ^ 


r-^ in 


nD 'O- 


o 






o 


«<o 


-00 


- m 


*CNJ 














H 




1-t 


CO 


m 














c 


rs CO 


o <?^ 


«M -H 


m o^ 


m ON 


(SI ON 


*£> i£> 


vD en 






o 


O • 


o • 


xO • 


-a- • 


CN ■ 




CM - 


<■ - 






£ 


r-l r«. 


00 m 


r^ <^ 


c^ n 


r-. o 


(SI ^ 


fM rH 


o 






o 


-in 


- u-» 


-•«■ 


-tH 














a 


CO 


r^ 


m 


rH 












*r\ rsi 


CO *3- 


vC f^ 


*? o 


CO r*. 


1^ CO 


m CD 


CM 1 




15 


c 




CO • 




<S • 


ON • 


(^ • 


(SI . 






ui 


a 


0> »Si 


m CO 


r* o 


m «H 


o 


m n 


in (n 






rf 


z 


" "9 


-en 


.(M 


-^ 










t 






w^ 


»n 


tn 


^ 










-H 


T** O 


CO o 


OD CO 


f^ ON 


o o 


ON r*. 


rH %»■ 


eo o 






O 


^ . 




O • 


CO • 


(SI . 


On . 


m • 


•o- - 








o o 


CM *» 


m r*. 


<S -J- 


CM .H 


r^ m 


r^ m 


O 






O 


-o 


-OS 


- vO 


-(SI 














k. 






c** 


*n 




















^^ 


/-^ 


,^ 




^^ 


^ 












r^ 


rs 


r* 




r^. 


rs. 








CO 




r-4 


^ 






rH 


»H 








o ^ 


/-^ 


O 


o^ 


o 


^v 


o 


O 








C r* 


r^ 








r^. 












>^ w 




•o- 


*» 


-T 


r^ 




^ 








O O 


O 


•H 


•-* 




O 


rH 


^H 






























t.^ 


-^ 








*» 












£ 'H 


«M -H 


^ 


•H 


rH 


-H 


rH 










y *-' 




O 


(9 


o 


rH «-^ 


C (B 


(3 










o 




i-i 




(tJ 


> u 


4-1 








-3 W 




O 


O 


o 


C w 


O 


o 








O C 


w a 




ij 




fl 


J3 ■U 


A> 








•^ 4.J 












O 










*- o 


AJ o 


xm 


K-l 


t-J 


(A O 




IM 








•w4 U 


IM 4J 


O 


O 


o 


m -J 


•o o 


o 








m 


o 








o 


c 










tf) *-* 


Q. tM 




rn M 




u^ Ih 


O w 










o o 


O. 


CO C 


^ c: 


« c 


o o 


c 


JS c 










3 


1 CI 


1 u 


bi CJ 


tH 


ST CI 


u c 








U 1^ 


e *-* 


-H CJ 


ON U 


(J L) 


a *-* 


<-( O 


CI o 








c 


c 


u 


u 


X U 


c 


Li 


x »- 








^^ o 


.-• o 


O CI 


tJ o 


U (U 


rH C. 


O O 


4J Of 








o u 


n u 


to &. 


(A b. 


o &. 


« o 


t/l C^ 


O A. 








4^ W 


u u 








iJ Ui 












o u 


ii 








c u 












t- c- 


H t. 








H t. 







09 
< 



54 



a 





>• 


o 




» 


U3 




trt 


-] 




Is; 


o 




u 


u 




>. 


o 




c 






-3 


c: a^ 




& 


O -< 




s 


1- 




u 


r- — 




a 


< < 






r- U. 




*^ 


LO 




ts. 






►-< 


U ii 




W) 


2 ^ 




W) 


-- o 




< 


= >- 




^ 


3 




u 


J 2 




ts: 


X z 




z 


u: 




»-( 


u. 




I-. 


to o 


M 


1_ 


z 

o >• 






-1 H 


M 


= 




hJ 




Z3 Vi 


03 




'~ F; 


< 


c^ 


H > 


H 


H-l 


w ►-< 




ci 


z z 




O 


w. :3 




z 






.-< 






s 


f- < 




u. 


^Z 




O 
















c: 


o 




< 


1 



a: 

< 

£ 
U 



u 
o 


3 


nu^iA r.i^*n .rt^c* t^<-n ^rt.^ Ill III III 
o.. o.. ^.. ^.. 

OO OO OO o.^ o 


r 


.-<r4r>* .jr»*(N r^.-ioi r.-tSM III r^t^CT^ r^too^ III 
r-,..fN..-H.. • . 

oooooo o o o 


f- 


.^i^r^ r.*o»^ rsiM-y .j<-in ^ :z ^ r^oo^ r*f3'^ III 
cr\..x>..fn-».n.. 

OO OO OO o^ o o o 


c 
o c 

u -a 

1- 


3 


vorta oac ^ a ^ .-*oa lit iii 111 ill 
d 


E 


^c3eo cnao (noo rHt^o III no.« no.* ill 

o o 


H 


tM-lrH 3\-H-l l~0-« tNfl-l III <na.» <-lt8-I III 

oooo o o o o 


e 

O C 
-1 O 

ci cn 

£ < 
< 


3 


nOOO .^ois CNtati fN«.^ ill tNisn rn n f*i iii 

a O O 


X 


r^coca v0O< ^OO .n«5.H III -Hd^ 111 rH(3^ 

C5 d <N 


H 


m-H-H o-i-.. ciao r-atM III n a -^ e^ a ri .ho^ 
OOOO O OOr.* 


^1 

VI g 

-< C3 
C C 

a w. 
a. 3 

CO 00 


3 


cor.^r.1 r^mn (NCMcn *ndw 111 ^naw 111 -na.^ 
c-.n.-O"" • • 

OOOOOO O O M 


S 


0(-if^ f.*ricn orn^ <^ 9 ^ iriaes* n»^ *na^ III 

OO OO OO O CN O O 


H 


oovOno -jsO^o OtAr^ onwcn iftacN >3-a»n no.* ^o^n 

ao..co.*r^.* •• • • • ' 

OO OO OO OO r.i O O N 


o c 

hi u 
0) -1 
3 OS 
P. 


3 


rMlNCM -HCMCM PiriCN COltM 111 -lO.^ rtflrH III 

n..n.-<H.. • • • 
OOOOOO O O o 


r 


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 




3 


^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 « 


Z 


.^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 


!-• 


1,635 
11.7 
11.7 

1,590 
11.3 
12.0 

1,207 

8.6 

12.7 

321 
2.3 
9.2 

62 

0.4 

27.8 

45 
0.3 
5.6 

40 
0.3 
5.3 

a 
10.4 


-J k. 

< g 

E 


3 


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 

.H i-l 


= 


^CNCTv cmoctv p^^^ 7vp^.o fstr-ioo cMc-ipM onn rjacN 

rsi.. «.. CO.. in.. ^.. ^.. .*.. 

aOc-iiA i^min in^vo ^.— ..» oco o»A otn .» 


H 


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*) 

SC 1-8 

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*) 

Other'' 

X of gr.nnd total (14,017*) 

X of total in grade range (223*) 

Total professional 

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*) 

Othcr*^ 

X of grand total (14,017*) 

X of total In grade range (48*) 



APPENDIX B 

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) 



56 



5. Campuses Filina a "Fi'nal" Affirmative Action Plan 



Id 



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 
plans. 

Campuses filing by January 51, 1975 are: 

Medical Centers at: 

Up s t a t e 

State Universitv fnllpaps ^t • 

Cortland Plattsburgh 
Gencseo Potsdam 
Oneonta Utica/Rome 

Agricultural and Technical Colleges at: 

Farmingdale 
Morrisville 

57 



Campuses filing after Januar)' 51, 1975 are: 

University Centers at: 

Albany Buffalo 
BinghaiTiton Stony Brook 

Medical Centers at: 

Dov.'nstate 

State University Colleges at: 

Brockport 

Fredonia 

Purchase 

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 

Buffalo College 
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. 



58 



AGRICULTUIUL AND TECHNICAL 



Alfred 

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;. 



Canton 

May 31, 1975 



Cobleskill 
May 15, 1975 



Delhi 

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 
process . 

Affirmative Action Officer became full- 
time only in 1975. Plan rewritten; 90 
percent complete, with new statistics. 
Data development from computer held up 
analyses . 

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 



SPECIALIZED COLLEGES 

Environmental Sciences 

and Forestry 
May 15, 19 7 5 



Maritime 
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 

Central Administration 
May 31, 1975 



Plan being revised in light of 1974 
comments by University Director of 
EEOP. 



59 



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 

and Timetables 



No Yes 



University Centers 



Albany X 

Binghamton X 

Buffalo X 

Stony Brook X 

Medical Centers 

Downstate, Brooklyn X 

Upstate, Syracuse X 

Colleges of Arts and Sciences 

Brockport X 

Cortland X 

Fredonia X 

Geneseo X 

Oneonta X 

Plattsburgh X 

Potsdam X 

Purchase X 

Utica/Rome X 

Agricultural and Technical Colleges 

Farmin?dale X 

Morrisville 60 X 



B. Campuses having only "Draft" Plans for Academic 
1974-75 

Campus Plan Has Goals 

and Timetables? 

No Yes 

^College of Arts and Sciences 

Buffalo X 

Empire State College X 

New Paltz X 

Old Westbury X 

Oswego X 

Agricultural and Technical Colleges 

Alfred X 

Canton X 

Cobleskill X 

Delhi X 

Specialized Colleges 

Environmental Science and 

Forestry X 

Maritime X 

Central Administration X 



61 



APPENDIX C 



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 



62 



March 31, 1975 

>ir, Joal Earkaa 

Raglonal Di-'sctor 

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. 



63 



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 
reviews. 

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?>. 



64 



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. 

Sincaraly yours,. 



Jacquaa £. Vilaora 
P^gioual Director 



Official fila (NY SDNT) 
Reading, CFG 

EHScanleyrao 



65 




DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION. AND WELFARE 

REGfON II 
FEDERAL BUILDING 
•^ J 26 FEDERAL PLAZA 

NEW YORK. NEW YORK 1CXX)7 



OFFICE OF THE 
REGIONAL DIRECTOR 



Mr. Jacques E. Wilmore 

Regional Director 

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 

Plans. 



66 



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. 

67 



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 
developed expeditiously. 



68 



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 
contact us. 



Sincerely, 



(f- 



Joel W. Barkan, Director 
Office for Civil Rights 
Enc. Region II 



69 



U. S COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20425 



POSTAGE AND FEES PAID 
U. S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS 



OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300