DOCSLIB.ORG

Georgetown Law Journal Volume 58 June 1970 Number 6

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Georgetown Law Journal Volume 58 June 1970 Number 6 THE GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL VOLUME 58 JUNE 1970 NUMBER 6 EXECUTIVE BOARD Editor in Chief Managing Editor Harry J. Stevens, III Barry D. Drees Topics Editors Case & Note Editors Articles Editors Robert S. Towsner Nicholas R. Allis Alan H. Goodman Louis Wiley David A. Middaugh Martin S. Pinson Yaroslav R. Sochynsky Linda S. Thayer Administrative Editor Martin Frost EDITORS George R. Abramowitz William E. Donnelly Howard A. Mandell William V. Alesi Gary R. Edwards Warren E. Miller Joseph G. Baxter John N. Fenrich Joan S. O’Brien Richard D. Belford Joel M. Freed David T. Peterson Bertram Jay Berlin John E. Gillick Harold S. Poster Alexander W. Booth Geoffrey P. Gitner Wm. Gar Richlin Cary C. Boyden Melvin Goldstein Robert H. Scheibe Edward J. Cabic Lawrence W. Hicks Robert E. Scott, Jr. Alan J. Chaset Daniel Kaufman Ira C. Waddey, Jr. David Cosson Donald L. Logerwell Alan I. White Gregory T. Diaz James R. Long acre Stephen C. Yohay Business Secretary Louise Peltier Faculty Advisor Sherman L. Cohn The Law Journal is pleased to announce the selection of the following to the Executive Board for Volume 59: John C. Kane, Editor in Chief Paul A. Alexis, Managing Editor William I. Althen, Executive Editor Joseph G. Baxter, Case & Note Editor James F. Mulhern, Executive Editor Lizabeth L. Beegle, Case & Note Editor John L. Altieri, Jr., Articles Editor Grove M. Callison, Case & Note Editor Ernest C. Baynard, Articles Editor Gary R. Edwards, Case & Note Editor Samuel J. Buffone, Topics Editor Jerome F. O’Neill, Case & Note Editor Peter B. Trumbull, Topics Editor Peter J. Smith, Case & Note Editor Michael A. Pace, Administrative Editor ( 1185 1 NOTE THE PHILADELPHIA PLAN: REMEDIAL RACIAL CLASSIFICATION IN EMPLOYMENT In recent years the civil rights of minority groups have been the focus of growing concern, and as a result, significant efforts have been made to promote such policies as school integration,1 open and fair housing,2 equal voting rights,3 and desegregation of facilities catering to the pub­ lic.4 The right, however, to nondiscriminatorv employment opportuni­ ties, which is essential if minority groups are to achieve the economic ability to enjoy fully their revitalized rights,5 6has not been advanced 1 E.g., Dowell v. Board of Educ., 396 U.S. 269 (1969) (immediate desegregation); Alex­ ander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19 (1969) (immediate desegregation); Green v. County School Bd., 391 U.S. 430, 439-41 (1968) (“freedom of choice” unconstitutional). See generally Cohen, Defining Racial Equality in Education, 16 U.C.L.A.L. Rev. 255 (1969); Fiss, Racial Imbalance in the Public Schools: The Constitu­ tional Concepts, 78 Harv. L. Rev. 564 (1965). See also Vieira, Racial Imbalance, Black Separatism, and Permissible Classification by Race, 67 Mich. L. Rev. 1553 (1969). -E.g., Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385, 391-93 (1969) (repeal of open housing law violates equal protection); Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 439-43 (1968) congressional prohibition on private discrimination in sale or lease of property valid under thirteenth amendment); Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U.S. 369, 378-79 (1967) state may not grant right to privately discriminate in sale of land); Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1, 16-17 (1948) (racial covenants in real property contracts cannot l>e enforced). See generally Kohl, The Civil Rights Act of 1866, Its Hour Come Round at Last: Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 55 Va. L. Rev. (1969); Symposium, Non-discrimination in the Sale or Rental of Real Property: Comments on Jones v. Xlfred H. Mayer Co. and Title Vlll of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 22 Vand. L. Rev. 455 (1969); Note, Jones v. Mayer: The Thirteenth Amendment and the Anti-Discrimi­ nation Laves, 69 Coi.um. L. Rev. 1019 (1969). 3 Gaston County v. United States, 395 U.S. 285 (1969) (reinstatement of literacy test prohibited); Iladnott v. Amos, 394 U.S. 358 (1969) (black candidate need not meet higher standards than others to be placed on ballot); Allen v. State Bd. of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (1969) (state cannot change qualifications for voters without approval of Attorney General). See generally Avins, Fifteenth Amendment and Literacy Tests: The Original Intent, 18 Stan. L. Rev. 808 (1966); Note, Voting Rights Act of 1965; An Evaluation, 3 Harv. Civ. Rights-Civ. Lib. L. Rev. 357 (1968); Note, Federal Protection of Negro Voting Rights, 51 Va. L. Rev. 1053 (1965); Note, Federal Civil Action Against Private Individuals for Crimes Involving Civil Rights, 74 Yale L.J. 1462 (1965). 4 Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969) (swimming pool); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) (Civil Rights Act of 1964’s prohibitions on discrimination in private restaurants and motels held constitutional); Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964) (restaurant). 6 As stated in the Elouse Judiciary Committee’s Report accompanying H.R. 7152, later revised and enacted as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, “(tjhe rights of citizenship I 1187 ] 1188 The Georgetown Law Journal [Vol. 58:118" concomitantly.0 Unemployment rates among minority groups are gen­ erally twice the national average,7 and the Department of Labor esti­ mates that within the next decade unemployment rates for nonwhites will increase to approximately 25 percent.8 In addition, whites are more likely to be employed in skilled positions than nonwhites, who fre­ quently are consigned to unskilled and hence lower paying positions, resulting in a substantially disproportionate earning capacity.9 Thus, it is more probable that nonwhite workers not only will be unemployed, but even if employed, will have a lower job status with commcnsurateh' less remuneration than similarly situated whites. Recognizing the seriousness of these problems, the Department of Labor has promulgated the Philadelphia Plan,10 which is designed to mean little if an individual is unable to gain the economic wherewithal to enjoy or properly utilize them.” Bureau of National Affairs, The Civil Rights Act of 1964, at 284 (1964) [hereinafter cited as BNAJ; see Gould, Black Power in the Unions: The Impact upon Collective Bargaining Relationships, 79 Yale L.J. 46 (1969); Kaplan, Equal Justice in an Unequal World: Equality J or the Negro—The Problem of Special Treatment, 61 Nw. U.L. Rev. 363 (1966). 43 See generally Blumrosen, The Duty of Fair Recruitment Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 22 Rutgers L. Rev. 465 (1968); Cooper & Sobel, Seniority and Testing Under Fair Employment Laws: A General Approach to Objective Criteria of Hiring and Promotion, 82 Harv. L. Rev. 1598 (1969); Gould, The Emerging Law Against Racial Discrimination in Employment, 64 Nw. U.L. Rev. 359 (1969). 7 In November 1969, the national unemployment rate for white males between the ages of 20 and 64 was 1.8 percent; for nonwhite males of the same age group, the rate was 3.6 percent; unemployment for persons between the ages of 25 and 54 was 1.4 percent for white males and 2.8 percent for nonwhite males. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Employment and Earnings 51 (1969). 8 1 Nat’l Comm’n on Technology, Automation, and Economic Progress, Report: Technology and the American Economy 31 (1965); Interview with Arthur A. Fletcher, Assistant Secretary of Labor, in Washington, D. C., Sept. 9, 1969 [hereinafter cited as Fletcher Interview]. See also CCH Employment Practices fl 16,175, at 7151 (Aug. 25, 1969). 9 In November 1969, 21 percent of the total white male population was employed as craftsmen or foremen, while only 15.5 percent of the total nonwhite population was so employed; only 25.2 percent of white males were listed as blue collar operatives or nonfarm laborers, while 45.4 percent of the nonwhite male population was in the same category. Bureau of Labor Statistics, supra note 7, at 63. See also CCH Employment Practices fl 8006, at 6008-09 (1969). 10 Memorandum of U.S. Dep’t of Labor, June 27, 1969 [hereinafter cited as Order of June 27], as modified, U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Order, Sept. 23, 1969 [hereinafter cited as Order of Sept. 23]. Both orders are reprinted in 115 Cong. Rec. S17213-18 (daily cd. Dec. 18, 1969) and CCII Employment Practices flfl 16,175-76, at 7151-62 (Aug. 25, 1969). Together they comprise the Philadelphia Plan. The Philadelphia Plan as promulgated by these two orders is actually the second plan so named. The first plan, which was abandoned in November 1968, required con­ 1970J Philadelphia Plan 1189 eliminate discrimination in hiring by contractors and subcontractors on federal and federally assisted construction projects. The Plan, however, has been the subject of considerable criticism, particularly in regard to the legality and wisdom of its underlying policy of imposing minimuM employment requirements for utilizaton of minority group manpower. Because of the Plan’s significance as a prototype vehicle for combating the deleterious effects of past and present racial discrimination, it is nec­ essary that its legality be established. This Note, therefore, after discussing the Plan itself, evaluates the Plan’s legality by examining first, the use of Executive orders to eliminate racial discrimination by government contractors; second, the authority of the President to issue such orders; third, the constitutional objections to the Plan under the fifth amendment; and last, the Plan’s legitimacy in light of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Plan and Its Background Justification for the Philadelphia Plan was provided by extensive find­ ings that Philadelphia’s labor unions, from which building contractors obtained their employees, had discriminatory membership admission policies.11 For example, in each of the construction trades less than two percent of union membership representd minority groups,12 a ratio sub­ stantially disproportionate to the number of minority group members tractors to negotiate minority manpower utilization goals after having been awarded federal contracts.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Exploring the Limits of Executive Civil Rights Policymaking
    Oklahoma Law Review Volume 61 Number 1 2008 Exploring the Limits of Executive Civil Rights Policymaking Stephen Plass St. Thomas University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/olr Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Law and Race Commons, and the President/ Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation Stephen Plass, Exploring the Limits of Executive Civil Rights Policymaking, 61 OKLA. L. REV. 155 (2008), https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/olr/vol61/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Oklahoma Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EXPLORING THE LIMITS OF EXECUTIVE CIVIL RIGHTS POLICYMAKING STEPHEN PLASS* Racial equality for blacks remains a minefield issue for American presidents. Any position a president takes is bound to alienate someone. As a result, even a well-meaning president such as Bill Clinton has had to tread very carefully when addressing this topic.1 Popular attitudes shaped by the powerful continue to dictate the extent to which presidents are able to confront continuing racial discrimination and its legacy of inequality in American life.2 Although many laws ordaining racial equality have been written, discrimination remains a normal part of life in America. This reality makes the President’s role in this area almost as difficult
    [Show full text]
  • Association of American Law Schools Section on Labor Relations and Employment Law: Tributes Honoring Senior Law Professors
    ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN LAW SCHOOLS SECTION ON LABOR RELATIONS AND EMPLOYMENT LAW: TRIBUTES HONORING SENIOR LAW PROFESSORS A TRIBUTE HONORING JAMES E. JONES, JR.* Professor Vicki Schultz**: Good morning. I'm Vicki Schultz, the 2004 Chair of the Labor and Employment Law Section of the Association of American Law Schools. Last year, my predecessor, Professor Roberto Corrada, initiated a practice of having our section honor someone who has made a significant contribution to our field. This morning, it is my great pleasure to be able to honor my dear friend and colleague James E. Jones, Jr., the Nathan P. Feinsinger Professor of Labor Law, Emeritus at the University of Wisconsin Law School and the School of Labor and Industrial Relations. There is so much to say about this brilliant and big-hearted man; I can't even begin to cover his many achievements in the time available. So, let me simply touch on a few of his most significant contributions to the law, the field, and the university he loves so much, and to his students and colleagues, who, in turn, love him so much. I. DEVELOPING EARLY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION LAW Before he joined the legal academy, Professor Jones had already had a significant career in the United States Department of Labor. He began as a legislative attorney, progressed to Counsel for Labor Relations, Director of the Office of Labor Management Policy Development, and then became Associate Solicitor, Division of Labor Relations and Civil Rights in the Office of the Solicitor of Labor. During that phase of his career, Professor Jones played an important role in developing and defending the emerging concept of affirmative action in employment.
    [Show full text]
  • HSCA Volume V: 9/28/78
    378 Obviously, the possibility cannot be dismissed, although it can hardly be said to have been established. At this point, it is, in your words, Mr. Chairman, perhaps only a little more than a "suspicion suspected," not a "fact found." The committee decided early in its investigation, as soon as it realized that a Mafia plot to assassinate the President warranted serious consideration, to assemble the most reliable information available on organized crime in the United States. The details of this phase of the committee's investigation will, of course, appear, hopefully in full, in its final report, a report that will consider the background of organized crime in America, the structure o£ the Mafia in the early 1960's, the effort by the Kennedy administration to suppress the mob, and the evidence that the assassination might have been undertaken in retaliation for those efforts. To scrutinize the possible role of organized crime in the assassi- nation, the committee early brought on one of the country's lead- ing experts on the subject. He is Ralph Salerno, whose career as an organized crime investigator with the New York City Police De- partment goes back to 1946. Mr. Salerno has since retired from the New York City Police Department and I would note that on the day of his retirement, the New York Times was moved to comment that he perhaps knew more about the Mafia than any nonmember in the United States. It would be appropriate at this time, Mr. Chairman, to call Ralph Salerno. Chairman STOKES . The committee calls Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Surprisingly Contentious History of Executive Orders | Huffpost  
    4/2/2020 The Surprisingly Contentious History Of Executive Orders | HuffPost Ben Feuer, Contributor Chairman, California Appellate Law Group The Surprisingly Contentious History Of Executive Orders Cries of “unprecedented” executive action on both sides are more histrionic than historical. 02/02/2017 04:59 am ET | Updated Feb 03, 2017 Despite howls that Presidents Trump and Obama both issued “unprecedented” executive orders, presidents have embraced executive actions to enact controversial policies since the dawn of the Republic. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-surprisingly-contentious-history-of-executive-orders_b_58914580e4b04c35d583546e 1/8 4/2/2020 The Surprisingly Contentious History Of Executive Orders | HuffPost NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/GETTY IMAGES Recently, USA Today savaged President Trump’s executive orders since taking office, from encouraging Keystone XL approval to altering immigration policy, as an “unprecedented blizzard.” In 2014, the Washington Post raked President Obama for his Deferred Action immigration directives, more commonly called DACA and DAPA, deeming them “unprecedented” and “sweeping,” while Ted Cruz published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal lashing Obama’s “imperial” executive order hiking the minimum wage for federal contractors as one with “no precedent.” A 2009 piece in Mother Jones lamented a President George W. Bush executive order allowing former-presidents and their families to block the release of presidential records as — you guessed it — “unprecedented.” With all the talk of precedent, you might think executive orders historically did little more than set the White House lawn watering schedule. But the reality is that presidents have long employed executive actions to accomplish strikingly controversial objectives without congressional approval.
    [Show full text]
  • List of United States Federal Executive Orders
    List of United States federal executive orders This list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it. • 1914: Executive Order 1888: Providing conditions of employment for the Permanent Force for the Panama Canal[7] Executive orders are issued by United States presidents to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage • 1918: Executive Order 2859: National Research operations within the federal government. Council of the National Academy of Sciences[8] At the federal level of government in the United States, • 1927: Executive Order 4601: Authorization of the laws are made almost exclusively by legislation. Such Distinguished Flying Cross [9] legislation originates as an Act of Congress passed by the Congress of the United States (and its predecessor, the Continental Congress); such acts were either signed into law by the President or passed by Congress after a 4 Herbert Hoover (1929–1933) presidential veto. [10] However, legislation is not the only source of regulations EOs 5075–6070 which have the force of law. There is also judge-made common law and constitutional law. The President can issue executive orders pursuant to a grant of discretion 5 Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933– from Congress, or under the inherent powers that office 1945) holds to deal with certain matters of foreign policy. Many early executive orders were not recorded. The Administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt Executive Orders Dis- State Department began numbering executive orders in position Tables[11] the early 20th century, starting retroactively from Presi- dent Abraham Lincoln's Executive Order Establishing a Executive Orders 6071–9537 Provisional Court in Louisiana issued in 1862.
    [Show full text]
  • Affirmative Action Vs Diversity
    Affirmative Action vs. Diversity - By Shirley J. Wilcher The Quest for Opportunity in a 21st Century World There has been much debate about affirmative action and diversity since President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order 10925 in 1961. 2 As we approach the 50th Anniversary of the Order it is timely to reflect upon affirmative action and the difference between this concept and the more recent theory and practice of “diversity.” While the terms are often used interchangeably, there are fundamental differences between the two, but they are inextricably linked. In its Final Report to President Eisenhower, the President's Committee on Government Contracts, headed by vice president Richard Nixon, concluded: Overt discrimination, in the sense that an employer actually refuses to hire solely because of race, religion, color, or national origin is not as prevalent as is generally believed. To a greater degree, the indifference of employers to establishing a positive policy of nondiscrimination hinders qualified applicants and employees from being hired and promoted on the basis of equality .3 President Kennedy incorporated the concept of “affirmative action” into Executive Order 10925, which he issued in 1961. Executive Order 10925 imposed on all covered contractors a general obligation requiring positive steps designed to overcome obstacles to equal employment opportunity. In 1965, President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed Executive Order 11246, which gave the Secretary of Labor responsibility for administration and enforcement of the Order mandating that contractors not discriminate against any employees or qualified applicants because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Contractors were to take affirmative action to ensure nondiscrimination in employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 2–1 Demographic Trends in New York City, 1890–1940, ~ Total Numbers and Percentages of New York City Population59
    The Mob and the City: The Hidden History of the How Mafia Captured New York Chapter Two: Prohibition and the Rise of the Sicilians enclaves. In 1910, 41% of its residents had been born outside America. While Germans and Irish were the largest immigrant groups in the 1800s, Jews and Italians were the largest groups by the early 1900s. “Within the brief span of less than a generation the ethnic composition of the metropolis altered radically,” explains demographer Ira Rosenwaike. “[P]ersons of Jewish and Italian background had become numerically superior to those of Irish and German descent.”58 Table 2–1 Demographic Trends in New York City, 1890–1940, ~ Total Numbers and Percentages of New York City Population59 Census Irish Jewish Italian Black NYC Total Year Population 1890 624,000 (26%) 175,000 (7%) 67,000 (2%) 35,000 (<2%) 2,321,000 1900 710,000 (20%) 510,000 (14%) 216,000 (6%) 60,000 (<2%) 3,437,000 1910 676,000 (14%) 1,050,000 (22%) 544,000 (11%) 91,000 (<2%) 4,766,000 1920 616,000 (10%) 1,600,000 (28%) 802,000 (14%) 152,000 (2%) 5,620,000 1930 613,000 (8%) 1,800,000 (25%) 1,070,000 (15%) 327,000 (4%) 6,930,000 1940 518,000 (6%) 1,785,000 (23%) 1,785,000 (23%) 458,000 (6%) 7,454,000 In Chapter Three: The Racketeer Cometh, we will see how these demographic trends bolstered the Mafia’s labor racketeering. Now, let us look at their social effects on the underworld.
    [Show full text]
  • Affirmative Action. PUB DATE 75 NOTE 5P
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 112 494 EA 007 529 AUTHOR Freeman, Thomas J. TITLE Affirmative Action. PUB DATE 75 NOTE 5p. EDES PRICE MF-$0.76 HC-$1.58 Plus Postage DESCRIPTORS *Affirmative Action; *Civil Rights; *Employment Practices; *Equal Opportunities (Jobs); Equal Protection; Federal Government; *Federal Legislation; Higher Education; Legal Responsibility ABSTRACT This paper presents a concise history of the concept of affirmative action, tracing its evolution through various presidential executive orders and federal legislation. Also included is a definition of affirmative action and a brief discussion cf its implications for colleges and universities. (JG) *********************************************************************** Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished * materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort * * to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal * * reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality * * of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available * * via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). EDRS is not * responsible for the qual-ity of the original document. Reproductions * * supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original. *********************************************************************** U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN. ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Order 10925
    Executive Order 10925 Establishing The President’s Committee On Equal Employment Opportunity WHEREAS discrimination because of race, creed, color, or national origin is contrary to the Constitutional principles and policies of the United States; and 13 CFR 1960 Supp. WHEREAS it is the plain and positive obligation of the United States Government to promote and ensure equal opportunity for all qualified persons, without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin, employed or seeking employment with the Federal Government and on government contracts; and WHEREAS it is the policy of the executive branch of the Government to encourage by positive measures equal opportunity for all qualified persons within the Government; and WHEREAS it is in the general interest and welfare of the United States to promote its economy, security, and national defense through the most efficient and effective utilization of all available manpower; and WHEREAS a review and analysis of existing Executive orders, practices, and government agency procedures relating to government employment and compliance with existing non-discrimination contract provisions reveal an urgent need for expansion and strengthening of efforts to promote full equality of employment opportunity; and WHEREAS a single governmental committee should be charged with responsibility for accomplishing these objectives: NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, it is ordered as follows: PART I-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY SECTION 101. There is hereby established the President's Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity. SEC. 102.
    [Show full text]
  • Racial Discrimination in Employment: Proposals for Corrective Action
    Buffalo Law Review Volume 13 Number 1 Article 6 10-1-1963 Racial Discrimination in Employment: Proposals for Corrective Action Daniel H. Pollitt University of North Carolina Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation Daniel H. Pollitt, Racial Discrimination in Employment: Proposals for Corrective Action, 13 Buff. L. Rev. 59 (1963). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview/vol13/iss1/6 This Leading Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Buffalo Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT: PROPOSALS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION DANrEL H. POLLITT* I. INTRODUCTION ITEM. In 1946 Jackie Robinson broke the color-bar in organized baseball and became the idol and inspiration of athletic-minded Negro youth. By 1962, eight of the top ten batters in the National League were members of the Negro race. ITEM. On the centennial of the Emancipation Proclamation, Governor Terry Sanford announced the formation of the North Carolina Good Neighbor Council with a two-fold mission: (1) to encourage merit employment without regard to race; and (2) to urge youth to become better trained and qualified for em- ployment. The Governor stated that "Reluctance to accept the Negro in employ- ment is the greatest single block to his continued progress and to the full use of the human potential of the Nation and its States."1 ITEM.
    [Show full text]
  • Veterans' Preference and Apportionment V. Equal Employment Cportunity
    DOCUMENT ESUME 03772 - [B2774013] Conflicting Congressional Policies: Veterans' Preference and Apportionment V. Equal Employment Cportunity. PPCD-77-61; B-167015. September 29, 1977. 31 pp. + 18 appendices (36 pp.). Report to the Congress; by Robert . Keller, Acting Comptroller General. Issue Area: Personnel anagement ard Compensation: Equal Employment Opportunity (302); Non-Discrimination and Equal Opportunity Programs: Employment Discrimination in the Federal Sector (1004). Contact: Federal Personnel and Compensation Div. Budget Function: General Government: Central Personnel Management (805). Organization Concerned: Civil Service Commissicn; Department of Defense; Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Congressional Relevance: House Committee on PoEt Office and civil Service; enate Committee on Human Resources; Congress. Authority: Civil Service Act of 1883 (22 Stat. 403). Ramspeck Act of 1940 (5 U.S.C. 2102; 5 U.S.C. 3304). (P.L. 94-502; 5 U.S.C. 2108(a) (B)). Veterans' Preference Act of 1944. Civil Rights Act of 1964. Equal Emplcyment Opportunity Act. Executive Order 10925. Executive Order 11246. Executive Order 11375. Executive Order 11478. H.R. 5054 (95th Cong.). S. 386 (95th Cong.). S. 865 (95th Cong.). S. 1133 (95th Cong.). veterans' preference in Federal hiring in its present form severely limits job opportunities for those who are not veterans. It particularly diminishes the employment chances of women, since they seldom have veteran status. Apportionment of hiring by State populations has no place in a modern merit system, since it has an adverse effect on equal employment opportunity and merit principles and has not achieved its purpose. Findings/Ccnclusions: The question of whether, and to what extent, cne congressional policy objective should take precedence over another is a matter for the Corgress to decide.
    [Show full text]
  • Affirmative Action: a Never-Ending Story?
    AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: A NEVER-ENDING STORY? by Nicole M. Lederer Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Law School Faculty of Professions The University of Adelaide, Australia March 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Acknowledgements iii Declaration iv Detailed Table of Contents v Chapter One: Introduction 1 Chapter Two: Meaning of Affirmative Action 17 Chapter Three: The Rationale for Affirmative Action 43 Chapter Four: The Limits of Affirmative Action in the United States 70 Chapter Five: The Limits of Affirmative Action in Canada 124 Chapter Six: The Limits of Affirmative Action in Australia 166 Chapter Seven: Affirmative Action: For A Limited Time Only? 213 Bibliography 251 ABSTRACT _____________________________________________ Affirmative action addresses the phenomenon of historical and present disadvantage for groups including racial minorities and women within societies around the world. The thesis interrogates the concept of affirmative action in employment in three jurisdictions: the United States, Canada and Australia. It focuses on how these countries construct, measure and determine limits for specific affirmative action programs at the workplace. The thesis begins with a critical investigation of the meaning of affirmative action, followed by an analysis of its theoretical justification by various scholars. International guidelines of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) are considered for the national implementation of affirmative action in the comparator countries. The thesis outlines affirmative action in the three key jurisdictions noting differences in their approach to implementation. These analyses lead to the conclusion that there are two types of affirmative action, of which the first addresses equality of opportunity and the second equality of outcome.
    [Show full text]