COUNCIL OF DEANS 9:45- Reactor—Discussant "IF I WERE A MEDICAL SCHOOL SPRING MEETING 10:15 a.m. General Discussion DEAN: April 25-28, 1974 Cheves McC. Smythe '—WHAT I WOULD ASK MY The Wigwam, Litchfield Park Dean, University of Texas LAWYER' (Phoenix), Arizona Medical School at Houston David B. Frohnmayer Sachem Hall East Associate Professor, School of Law Special Assistant to the President PROGRAM 10:15-10:45 COFFEE University of Oregon 10:45— "COPING WITH THE RESOURCES "ZERO INSTITUTIONAL GROWTH: IMPLICATIONS 11:15 a.m. CRUNCH" `—SOME PRIORITIES I WOULD SET p FOR VITALITY AND LEADERSHIP" William Carey IN DEVELOPING AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM' Evening Session—April 25 Vice President, Arthur D. Little, Inc. Cyrena N. Pondrom without 8:00 p.m. WELCOME AND OVERVIEW OF Assistant Chancellor THE MEETING • 10- Reactor—Discussant University of Wisconsin—Madison • Emanuel M. Papper 11:45 a.m. General Discussion Chairman, Council of Deans Richard Janeway '—WHAT I WOULD KEEP MY reproduced KEYNOTE ADDRESS: Dean, Bowman Gray School of EYE ON IN WASHINGTON-- be "NEW PROBLEMS IN Medicine, Wake Forest University Sheldon Elliot Steinbach to UNIV,EIZSITY MANAGEMENT." Staff Counsel, Assistant Director Not James M. Hester 11:45— "SPACE—GIVE AWAY, PURCHASE, of Governmental Relations President, New York University 12:15 p.m. LEASE OR RENT?" American Council on Education Jane Elchlepp Morning Session—April 27 AAMC Morning Session—April 26 Assistant Vice President, Health Affairs—Planning and the 8:30 a.m. INTRODUCTION TO THE SESSION 8:30 a.m. INTRODUCTION TO THE SESSION Analysis, Duke University of Moderator: William J. Grove Moderator: J. Robert Buchanan Executive Dean, University of 12:15- Reactor—Discussant Dean, Cornell University Illinois College of Medicine 1:00 p.m. Medical College General Discussion collections 8:45- "USES TENURE" 8:45— "THE FUTURE OF MEDICAL Russell H. Morgan AND ABUSES OF 9:15 a.m. Norman Hackerman the 9:15 a.m. EDUCATION: YOUR FORECAST" Dean of the Medical Faculty President, Rice University m Marjorie P. Wilson Vice President for Health Services Department of Johns Hopkins University Director, 9:15— "WHAT TO DO WHEN THE Institutional Development 10:15 a.m. FACULTY STARTS TO ORGANIZE AAMC Evening Session—April 26 FOR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING: "PLANNING YOUR FUTURE" '—WHY THEY 9:15- "AFFIRMATIVE ACTION MEANS WOULD' 9:45 a.m. Charles J. Hitch ACTION" Charles D. Jeffries President, University of Department of Immunology and California dip Moderator: Emanuel M. Papper Microbiology, Wayne State University • lfflib p.m. Dean—School of Medicine School of Medicine Vice President for Medical Affairs University of Miami '—WHAT WE DID (OR SHOULD Evening Session—April 27 HAVE DONE)" 8:00— A DISCUSSION WITH THE AAMC Thomas W. Mou 10:00 p.m: PRESIDENT Provost for Health Sciences State University of New York John A. D. Cooper Morning Session—April 28 10:15- Reactor—Discussant 11:00 a.m. General Discussion 8:30 a.m. "THE COUNCIL OF DEANS IN ASSOCIATION OF REVIEW, 1971-1974" AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLEGES p Ronald Estabrook, Chairman Panel: Emanuel M. Papper, Council of Academic Societies Chairman COUNCIL OF DEANS Sherman M. Mellinkoff Chairman—Department of Bjochemistry SPRING Merlin K. DuVal MEETING without University of Texas—Health Sciences Marjorie P. Wilson Center at Dallas, Southwestern Medical School • • 11:30 a.m. Adjournment reproduced 11:00 COFFEE be to 11:30— "HOSPITAL REGULATION- 12:00 Noon A FACT OF LIFE" Not H. Robert Cathcart ZERO INSTITUTIONAL GROWTH: President, Pennsylvania AAMC Hospital IMPLICATIONS FOR VITALITY the 12:00- "WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?" of 12:30 p.m. Gustave H. Levy AND LEADERSHIP Partner, Goldman, Sachs and Company, Chairman—Mt. Sinai collections Hospital and Medical Center, Member—Board of Governors the Tulane Medical Center m 12:30- Reactor—Discussant 1:00 p.m. General Discussion Robert Derzon, Chairman Council of Teaching Hospitals Director, University of California Hospitals and Clinics ) April 25-28, 1974 The Wigwam, Litchfield Park (Phoenix), Arizona AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: A Sketch of the Law and Its Implementation Jane Becker and Joseph Keyes permission without reproduced be to Not AAMC the of collections the from Document Division of Institutional Studies Association of American Medical Colleges April 1974 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: A Sketch of the Law and Its Implementation Jane Becker and Joseph Keyes • Affirmative Action, as the term is used here, refers to that body of federal law and regulation which has as its objective the rooting out of presently operative discriminatory employment practices and remedying the present effects of such practices operative in the past. Equal employment opportunity, equity of access, and equity of treatment, for all persons regardless of sex, race or religion is the goal. Most importantly, a deliberate attempt to change institutional behavior is required, where to perpetuate the status quo would be to perpetuate a situation having an uneven and adverse impact on a particular class of persons. Thus, the law and its implementing regulations call for examination and analysis of employment practices; and where necessary, the implementation of strategies--such as goals and timetables in hiring and promotion--to permission remedy deficiencies where discovered. While the imminent Supreme Court decision in the case De Funis v. Odegaard may substantially alter describe without the force and impact of what is set out below, we have attempted to the outlines of the law as it is perceived today. The federal laws and regulations concerning discriminatory practices reproduced pertaining to educational institutions are: The Equal Pay Act of 1963, be as amended; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; Title VII of to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; Executive Order 11246 (as amended by 11375); and Title VII and Title VIII of the Public Health Service Act. Not • AAMC Executive Order 11246 (as amended by 11375) the effective on October 13, 1968, embodies two of Executive Order 11246, concepts: nondiscrimination and affirmative action. A university contractor is required to examine all employment policies collections to assure equitable treatment of all persons without regard for race, origin, or sex. Those employers with federal the color, religion, national contracts of $50,000 or more and having 50 employees or more, must have from a written affirmative action plan. Public institutions were previously exempt from the requirement of a written plan; in January 1973, that exemption was removed. Document The Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCC) of the Department of Labor establishes policy, but enforcement and review with respect to educational institutions rests with the Office for Civil Rights of HEW. The government may investigate without complaint. Pre-award reviews are mandatory for contracts over $1 million. Part or all of the institution may be reviewed. An institution under review must preserve identified records relevant to the complaint or alleged violation being investigated; the Government holds the right to review all records. This is true of all laws and regulations cited herein. By way of sanctions, the Government may hold up contracts, terminate current contracts and deny institutional eligibility • for future contracts. i Further, HEW may seek back pay for employees not previously protected by other laws. II/ Institutions are prohibited from discharging or discriminating against an employee who has filed a complaint or assisted in a complaint process. The name of the complainant is usually given to the institution during the course of the review. While individual complaints may be filed under the Executive Order, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) by a memorandum of May 29, 1973, agreed to routinely hand over individual complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and OCR confines its activities to class complaints. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended by the Equal permission Opportunity Act of 1972) All institutions having fifteen or more employees are covered under without this act, whether or not they receive federal aid. Discrimination in employment (hiring, promotion, salaries, fringe benefits, or other conditions of employment) on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin or sex is specifically prohibited. The act is enforced by the Equal reproduced Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). be to This act is distinguished from Executive Order 11246 in that religious Not institutions are exempt with respect to employment of persons of a particular religion or religious order, and such institutions may limit employment to persons of one sex. AAMC the Complaints are filed with EEOC by individual and/or organizations of within 180 days of the discriminatory act. The institutions are notified within ten days after a charge is filed. Like the Office for Civil Rights which enforces the Executive Order, EEOC may investigate part or all of an institution but does so only in response to a complaint-- collections unlike the OCR, which can initiate review on its own. The complainant the may, if conciliation fails, file an individual suit. EEOC's powers were extended in the amendments of the Equal Opportunity Act of 1972, which from permits it to instigate court action. Like the Executive Order: 1) harassment of the employee is prohibited, and 2) Document EEOC may seek back pay. The individual complainant is named at the time of the investigation though the full nature of the charges are not made public. In neither the Executive Order nor in Title VII, is the complainant bound by confidentiality. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (as amended by the Education Amendments of 1972) The Equal Pay Act, prohibiting sex discrimination in salaries (and in most fringe benefits), is administered by the Department of Labor (the Wage and Hour Division of the Employment Standards Administration.) Complaints may be filed by individual or organizations by "Fetter, phone call or • personal visit to the nearest Wage and Hour Division Office.