This memorandum, completed after Don F. Scott of the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare had already advised the University that its response was inadequate, struck a combative tone. It was prepared by Edward C. Hayes, manager of compensation plans and personnel information systems, and Keith Evans, whose job title is unknown, for Charles M. Allmand, assistant to the vice president for academic affairs, and Russell W. Reister, the University's personnel director. A copy of the memo was sent to three of the University's top male administrators, but not to President Robben W. Fleming or the top female administrator, Barbara Newell.
The memo strongly challenged the HEW investigators' findings, concluding that they were "based on inaccurate and incomplete information, or faulty interpretation of the information, and a lack of understanding of how the University employment processes work." The men involved, who wrote or received the memo, were directly responsible for many of the practices that had been challenged, so they would be understandably defensive about the government's findings that the University had discriminated on the basis of sex. Nevertheless, the unwillingness of Hayes and Evans to acknowledge that policy changes might be in order is striking.
The men seemed puzzled that a job posting headlined "Attention Student Wives" might be viewed as discriminatory. By this time, the Pittsburgh chapter of the National Organization for Women had begun to challenge sex designations in the "Help Wanted" classified advertisements of the Pittsburgh Press, but the U.S. Supreme Court had not yet issued its ruling prohibiting such distinctions.
In the end, the administrators called for the University to hang tough. They agreed that the University should agree to strengthen its existing affirmative action program. "However," they asserted, "we do not feel that there are any legitimate findings which would justify remedial action which Mr. Scott has suggested."
Hayes was named to the University's Commission on Women when Fleming created it two and a half months later. Professor Harriet Mills, another one of the other original Commission members, remembered Hayes as "the one that sticks in your mind [as] the most persistent in causing problems" for women seeking changes (see Document 36).
A toned-down version of the Evans-Hayes memorandum was included as an Exhibit in the University's first extended response to HEW, which was sent in early November.
FOR INTRA-UNIVERSITY CORRESPONDENCE
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
October 29, 1970
Memo to: C. M. Allmand
R. W. Reister
From: Keith Evans
E. C. Hayes
Subject: Don F. Scott letter of October 6, 1970
Attached is a point by point analysis of Mr. Scott's findings and conclusions. It is our conclusion that Mr. Scott's findings are based on inaccurate and incomplete information, or faulty interpretation of the information, and a lack of understanding of how the University employment processes work. We find Mr. Scott's conclusions to be without merit and would recommend that the University push for an objective review of these findings with responsible officials in HEW.
Page 1, Section A
Admission to Ph.D. Graduate Level Programs
Paragraph 1 - The allegation that Executive Order 11246 has jurisdiction in the admission to this University of graduate students because of the functions these students play as teaching assistants and research assistants contradicts the true status of these graduate students. The University, as well as the Internal Revenue Service, the Social Security Administration and the Wage Hour Division of the Department of Labor, views the graduate student in the above capacity as fulfilling a degree requirement and not as entering an employer-employee relationship. As such, the graduate student is viewed by all the agencies mentioned above primarily as a student and his wages are viewed as student financial aid.
Paragraph 2 - alleges that the percentages found in the table which accompanies this response show a declining percentage of women in seven University departments in moving from the Master's program to the Ph.D. program. The conclusion, or insinuation, that these data show discrimination against women overlooks one major point, the intent of the women at the Master's level. That is, the percentage of women, in relation to men, who want to pursue the Ph.D. It is a fact, for example, that in a number of the departments indicated women have set for themselves a terminal degree at the Master's level with the explicit objective of teaching in the secondary schools. The only data that would support a case for discrimination against women in the departments shown would be an analysis of the percentage of women who wanted to continue for the Ph.D. degree and the subsequent percentage who did.
Paragraph 3 - the report concludes, on the basis of interviews with some students, that the allegations from the women's group have been confirmed. From the information given, there is no apparent evidence that the reported confirmation is anything more than unsubstantiated allegations from a few individuals. It is no
[p. 2]doubt the case that some women are discouraged from continuing for Ph.D. training by departmental counseling. It is also the case that man are discouraged from continuing Ph.D. training by departmental counseling because in the judgement of the department they could not successfully complete that training.
Paragraph 4 - has stated that admissions criteria must be the same for males and females. The standards for admissions are the same for both sexes at The University of Michigan. Copies of appropriate statements concerning admission policies and procedures for the Ph.D. program are attached (Exhibit A). In connection with this and the point immediately above, the University can find no evidence of any attempt on the part of the investigating group to discuss these matters with the individuals responsible for the admission process in the Graduate School.
Page 3, Section B
Chart of Present and Potential Faculty
The underlying assumption made by the report in the chart is that having a Ph.D. degree in an academic area qualifies an individual as a potential faculty member. Further it assumes that making application for a position at the University is tantamount to being acceptable as a faculty member. Circumstances in hiring faculty at any institution must be viewed in terms of the character of the institution involved. Hiring practices are directly related to the quality of the program which in many ways dictate the goals of the department when looking at prospective faculty members. The University of Michigan is no exception to this axiom. Because this University is considered, and considers itself, one of the fine institutions in this country, it seeks to maintain its quality by a hiring policy which maximizes the influx of truly excellent and outstanding individuals in their respective disciplines.
Because of this fact, departments in this institution do not seek faculty members who have only the generic distinction of being "qualified" for a teaching position, but instead define "qualification" in terms of the admitted excellence of the existing department. When viewed in this light, the applicant may not be in the realm of the truly excellent faculty member desired by a department in this institution. As such the pool of people considered for a faculty position here is much smaller than the pool of "qualified" individuals country wide.
In addition, the pool of potential candidates may be further decreased since the department may be seeking a truly excellent faculty member in a particular area within a discipline. For example, the Department of English may be seeking a professor of national reputation who can supplement the department's activities in medieval English literature. The two qualifications explicit in this example, high quality and medieval English literature, make the notion of looking at the pool of all "qualified" applicants a foolhardy task.
Further, the chart shown has inaccuracies according to any data the University was able to find. Areas where figures appear to be inaccurate are shown by corrected figures in parentheses in Table 1. Also footnotes indicate questions covering the meaning of the data categories indicated by the column headings. One heading which deserves special mention is the last heading which purports to show the percentage of women accepted to Ph.D. programs in various departments of the University. The obvious discrepancy in trying to show discrimination by using these percentages is the lack of consideration of the number or percentage of women who applied. A more pertinent statistic would be a comparison of the percentage of women accepted out of the number which applied and comparing the same statistic for men. When using this we find, for example, that the Department of History admitted 73% of the women who applied compared to 79% of men who applied.
Paragraph 1 - The report reviews the hiring policies practiced in many departments and challenges these practices being discriminatory.
Due to the circumstances outlined above, pointing out the specialized needs of a particular department, the actual process of obtaining a new faculty member often does not follow the pattern of reviewing unsolicited applications of eligible people such as may be done with non-faculty positions, or in industry. Instead, a department chairman may poll the faculty for names of outstanding people in the area in which he is looking for faculty. He then will contact these individuals apprising them of the opening. As an alternative, or in a follow-up to the above procedure, the chairman may attend one or more conferences or professional meetings where either the people he has contacted can be seen or other outstanding people in the field who have not come to his attention can be seen. The allegation that this conference type of recruiting is essentially a "grapevine" is inaccurate since any person, male, female, black, white or what have you, who has either an interest or academic credentials may attend most
[p. 4]conferences. As evidence of this we are attaching Exhibits B, C, and D showing the job inquiries of several aspiring faculty members in Germanic Language and Literature. As is shown, both men and women, students and faculty, indicate they will be attending a Modern Language Association Conference and will be available for interviews. Further, out of the population of unsolicited inquiries for faculty positions in the same department for two years, over 80% indicated they would be in attendance at the annual Modern Language Association Conference and could be interviewed. That they were not interviewed or hired reflects only the low need for faculty in that department, not a membership in a "grapevine." In support of this, Exhibit E is the standard reply given to all job inquiries in the German Department during that period.
Paragraph 2 - The considerations outlined previously concerning the way faculty are hired and the application letters used as examples adequately answer this charge.
Paragraph 3 - The implication in this allegation concerning the lack of women on screening committees, faculty committees, and ad hoc committees is that men always discriminate. It certainly must be the burden of the HEW Compliance Section to show discrimination in these cases, not just that only men are on these committees.
Paragraph 4 - These comments are such generalities that it is not possible to respond to them specifically. On the assumption that at least in some instances the stated observations correctly apply to certain individuals, the University can certainly offer to increase the level of communication regarding the University's compliance with Executive Order 11246. However it should be apparent that since Executive Order 11246 was passed and effective October 1968 that the University's compliance should be measured from that time. As such, the mandate that department chairmen affirmatively recruit women reaches back only two years in the department's hiring history. Thus, as an example, the 7% figure showing the percentage of women in the Department of English on the chart on HEW page 3, reflects hiring which occurred for many years prior to the Executive Order in question. The hiring in the Department of English for the 1970-71 Academic Year in contrast shows five people hired, one of which was a special acquisition
[p. 5](a black professor in a tenured position). Of the remaining four positions, one was filled by a woman giving a 25% rate of hiring for women in that department. Moreover, many departments are not of sufficient size to hire faculty every year. If they do hire they may add only one or two people, and they may be of special qualifications to bolster a segment of the department as indicated in a previous paragraph.
Paragraph 5 - The University does have a policy regarding nepotism and the information shown certainly does not establish any clear evidence that this policy has worked to the disadvantage of women. The names which are shown are husbands and wives who are employed in the same department of the University. All represent exceptions to the nepotism policy. While in all cases except one the female member of these husband-wife teams is the lower paid of the two, this does not constitute evidence of discrimination. A very careful analysis of the duties and responsibilities, qualifications, and experience of these individuals needs to be made before any conclusion could be reached regarding the propriety of the current salary relationships. In addition to show an example of how little is portrayed in the Tandem Team Chart in the HEW report, Exhibits F and G are offered. Exhibit F shows information which is quickly and easily obtained from University personnel files and readily points out why salary differentials exist. In nearly every case the salary differential is apparent in either the experience of the team member or the degree acquired. Where not apparent, a further check with the department shows a great differential in responsibility. Exhibit G is a narrative by the project director for the teams in the School of Education explaining in more detail why salary differentials exist with the five Tandem Teams in his project.
Paragraph 6 - Any policy on nepotism is by its very nature bound to work to the disadvantage of one member of a family unit when they both desire employment in the same unit of the University. In this case, it has apparently worked to the disadvantage of Ann Kolars, however, the fact that a policy has in one case worked to the disadvantage of a woman hardly constitutes evidence that this policy or its application promotes discrimination against women. John Kolars was in fact hired before his wife which would usually dictate a differential in salary purely
[p. 6]on a longevity basis. There also exists in this case idiosyncrasies about the two individuals involved which, while not appropriate to outline here, can be determined by interviewing Ann Kolars and mitigates the allegation.
Page 6 & 7, Section C
Paragraphs 1 & 2 - The allegations in these paragraphs do not give sufficient information to allow the University to identify the individuals in question. Without such information it is impossible to determine the legitimacy of the allegation.
Paragraph 3 - The case of Professor Davis appears to be basically accurate although it tends to be overstated. Interviews with the department chairman showed that his reluctance to raise Professor Davis' salary was based in part on how low her salary actually was.
The information which is presented on the 20 job classifications which are almost completely female and the 25 classifications which were almost totally male is obviously the result of some selective picking of classifications. From the information which Mr. Scott had it could be very quickly and easily determined that the non-academic staff were grouped into 795 different classifications. That 153 of these classifications had only female employees, and that 451 classifications had only male employees. There are 191 classifications with both male and female employees, and amongst those classifications in 102 classifications the male employees are on the average paid more than the females while in 89 classifications the females are on the average paid more than the males. While it proves nothing more than that by selective picking of classifications you can create lists to support any preconceived conclusion you wish I have attached two additional exhibits of 20 jobs each. On Exhibit H the jobs are those where the employees are predominately male, and on Exhibit I are jobs where the employees are predominately female. On my two lists the male employees average $471.21 per month, while the female employees average $904.86 per month. The information which Mr. Scott has presented clearly does not support his conclusions that the jobs at The University of Michigan are segregated by sex and that the female jobs are the lower paying jobs.
The two tables regarding office supervisors and AIR's
Mr. Scott presents these two tables as evidence of discrimination against women. He seems to be suggesting that since women make up two-thirds of the non-academic work force they should make up two-thirds of the population of each and every classification. While clearly it is impractical to expect to maintain such a ratio on an individual classification by classification basis if we except Mr. Scott's premise his tables would seem to support a charge of discrimination in favor of women since in five of the six cases women hold more than two-thirds of the positions in those classifications. While it is a fact that in the higher positions in each of those two series there is a greater proportion of men there is certainly no evidence that this is the result of discrimination against women. To progress from one level to the higher level in these classification series requires increasing ability and experience, there is no evidence that the ratio of males and females in these particular classifications is not in keeping with the ratio of available qualified applicants for these positions. Again it should be pointed out that the current ratio of male to female employees in a particular classification is the end result of hiring decisions which have been made over a long period of time and the result of decisions made by individual employees as to their continued willingness to remain in their positions at The University of Michigan and that the collective results of those decisions made over a long period of time does not constitute evidence of discrimination against women in our hiring practices during the last two years when we were subject to the sex discrimination provisions of the Executive Order.
Table showing Directors, Managers and Supervisors
Again Mr. Scott shows the ratio of males to females in these three specific classifications and suggests that since females do not have representation in these three classifications proportionate to their representation in the total work force that this is evidence of discrimination against woman. Assignment to positions as Directors, Managers, and Supervisors requires an interest in those particular classifications as well as proper training and preparation for those particular classifications. There is no evidence to suggest that the ratio of female employees in these classifications is not in keeping with the ratio of female employees in the workforce who have the necessary preparation and interest
[p. 8]to be employed in these particular classifications.
Accounting and Purchasing Job Classifications
Again Mr. Scott seems to be suggesting that the representation of women in each and every classification should be proportional to their representation in the total workforce. This is not possible since there is not the same ratio of women to men among the individuals who have the necessary qualifications, experience, and interest for each and every classification. The ratio of women in our clerical positions is considerably higher than 2 to 1 because there are very few men who have the necessary skills or have an interest in employment in a clerical capacity. The ratio of women in nursing classifications and supervisory classifications in the nursing field again is considerably higher than 2 to 1 because there are very few men who have the necessary skills and interest for employment in the nursing field. If it were possible to compare the ratio of male to female employees in these particular positions I am confident that the results would show that we do in fact employ a proportionate share of the qualified female applicants.
Several paragraphs of comments regarding attached charts.
It is difficult to analyse these comments because in many cases the cross-referencing from the paragraphs to the charts is inadequate. I believe we have identified the specific individuals referred to in most of the cases cited in these charts both from the information which is shown in the chart and from other information which we received from the investigator who was reviewing the non-academic records. Assuming we have correctly identified the individuals who are referred to in these charts there are several factual errors in the material which is presented and there is a very obvious bias evident in the relatively small number of people who were selected to be included in these tables and in the biographical information which was selected to be shown on these tables for the particular individuals. Tables 1 through 4 are obvious excellent examples of the presentation of a very limited number of facts to support a preconceived conclusion.
Paragraph one on Page 10 Mr. Scott says that it was found that women in many cases get less pay than men with the same job titles, responsibilities and experience and that this is illustrated by the chart relating to Administrative Assistants. If one looks at the total population of Administrative Assistants 55 of the 70 Administrative Assistants are female and are paid an average of
[p. 9]$760.25 per month compared to an average salary of $743.01 per month for the males. It is difficult to make any generalized response to the charge of giving men higher starting salaries than women since starting salaries are significant only when related to the duties and responsibilities which the person is to perform and their qualifications and experience for that position. In Mr. Scott's examples shown in Chart 2, the differences which he shows are really not relevant. Number 4, female, and Number 10, male, who were hired in September 1969 and April 1970 respectively were hired for two different classifications at significantly different levels of responsibility. The position for which Number 4 female was hired is in salary grade Number 8, the position for which Number 10 male was hired is in salary grade Number 12, the difference in hiring salaries from $625.00 per month to $700.00 per month is appropriate in the light of these differences in job requirements. Number 3, female, and Number 11, male, hired in December 1966 and September 1966, neither was hired initially as an Administrative Assistant as shown. The female was employed as a Secretary, the male was employed as an Audio-Visual Assistant and his starting salary was $400.00 per month rather than the $500.00 per month which is shown. Also, contrary to the information shown, Number 11, male, has a B.A. degree from The University of Michigan and had been enrolled in Graduate School.
Paragraph 2, page 10, what happened to the two men and two women shown in Chart 1 hardly constitutes documented evidence of discrimination against all women in job assignment. It should also be noted that the dates of hire of these four particular selected examples all precede the effective date of the Executive Order. It is not true that all women are hired originally as Secretaries, regardless of their qualifications. I can list hundreds of women who have been employed directly in professional and administrative positions. It is also not true that all women who are processed through the Personnel Office are given typing tests while men are not. The facts are that people who apply for clerical positions which require typing skills are given typing tests. Again, I can easily supply evidence of hundreds of women who applied and were accepted for employment at The University of Michigan without being given a typing test, and I can supply evidence of men who applied for positions which required typing skills and who were in fact given typing tests. In regard to the general subject matter of this paragraph, it should be acknowledged that there are significant numbers of women who accept employment at The University of Michigan in secretarial positions who have qualifications for more responsible
[p. 10]positions. One of the primary reasons for this fact is that there are numerous occasions when there is a great excess of applicants for professional and administrative positions in relationship to the number of openings which are to be filled. Under these circumstances a significant number of women prefer to accept clerical openings which are available for which they are qualified rather than be rejected for any employment at The University of Michigan, which is generally the fate of their male counterparts.
Page 10, Paragraph 3, Chart 3.
Chart 3 contains the information on five males and ten females who were hired during a period between November 1, 1968 and July 13, 1970. The women shown on this list were generally hired in a secretarial capacity and the men into professional or administrative jobs. During the time period covered by the dates of hire for the selected illustrations approximately 1200 professional-administrative employees were employed, and approximately 2500 clerical employees were employed. The 15 examples cited are not by any stretch of the imagination a representative sample of the employees who were hired during that period of time. As was stated above, one of the major factors which influences the capacity in which a person is employed is the openings which exist during the period of time when the individual is seeking employment. If the 15 examples in Chart 3 are rearranged into chronological order based upon the date of hire it can be quickly seen that in the stated examples there is only one pair that can be formed where a man and a woman were hired within the same month. If we look realistically at the period of time over which an applicant for employment is realistically likely to remain available for employment and we look realistically at the period of time that an opening takes to be filled, there is only one pair of male and female placements on the entire list where it would have been possible for that male and female to be competing for the same openings. The female hired June 9, 1970 and the male hired June 10, 1970. A review of the application for employment of the female hired June 9 shows that her B.A. degree was in Education with a major in English and Speech, and since she could not locate a teaching job at that time she applied for clerical work. There is not a single valid case of a woman being hired of lesser stature than that for which she applied at a time which was reasonably close to the date in which the man was hired for a status similar to that which the woman had applied for in Mr. Scott's own examples.
Page 10, Paragraph 4.
This is merely an unsubstantiated assumption that the salary and capacity in which a person is hired will have a major and controlling influence on that individual's future career at the University. There is admittedly a strong correlation between starting salary and classification and the future progress of the individual during their University career. If there were not, I would suspect we had grossly inadequate selection and placement procedures. However, an individual's salary increases and promotions are also very strongly influenced by their demonstrated abilities. From Mr. Scott's own examples of men and women in these four charts, I can cite cases of women who have had their salary and status increased to the point where it is now beyond that of men who initially started higher.
Page 10, Paragraph 5.
This again would appear to be a case of selective gathering of statistics. In this particular classification there are 24 female employees and their salaries range from a low of $750.00 per month to a high of $1,083.34 per month. There are 15 male employees and their salaries range from a low of $790.00 per month to a high of $1,379.20 per month. The lowest paid male employee who makes $40.00 more per month than the lowest paid female employee has 10 more years of University service than the lowest paid female employee. A review of the 39 employees in this classification taking into account the various factors which legitimately influence the salaries of employees, both male and female, does not indicate any clear cut evidence of discrimination based upon sex.
Page 11, Paragraph 1.
I do not really understand Mr. Scott's comment in this paragraph "that the absence of job descriptions was a source of great frustration" since Mr. Scott was given during the course of his investigation at his request a complete set of the non-academic job descriptions. The accuracy and completeness of our job descriptions and their availability can of course be improved. The quality of this particular aspect of our personnel program is of course a reflection of the amount of manpower which is available to work on all the various personnel tasks and the relative priority which is given to this task as opposed to other tasks. While ideally good well-written job descriptions are a high priority item they all too frequently end up taking a backseat to problems which must have an answer right now.
Other findings relative to discriminatory employment practices, Paragraph 1.
The heading on the advertisement which was noted "Attention Student Wives" was not intended to be discriminatory but merely to call attention to a large group of people which we have reason to believe were currently seeking employment that we had positions available which we felt they might be interested in. If such attempts to design and place your ad in such a way that it will be read by people who are interested in and qualified for the type of employment which you are offering is discriminatory, then one of the very basic ingredients of a well-written advertisement is lost.
Paragraph 2 states that the grievance committee for non-academic employees has no women. This is not a true statement of fact. The composition of the grievance committee changes depending on the origin of the grievance. The grievance committee is made up of a member of the personnel staff and members of supervisory capacity from the particular unit in which the grievance originates. There are a number of women supervisors who are in fact members of the grievance committee when a grievance which originates from their area is being heard.
The balance of Page 11, Page 12 and 13. Summary of Recommendations:
Since there is obviously strong and substantial disagreement concerning what it was Mr. Scott found relative to our compliance with Executive Orders 11246 and 11375, it seems rather pointless to examine in any great detail the orders which he has made based upon those findings. At this point, we believe the University should attempt to meet with Mr. Scott or someone else from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare to jointly critically review these findings to see if we can reduce substantially the differences of opinion which exist concerning the facts about the employment practices of The University of Michigan. The University should, we believe, express its willingness to strengthen the existing affirmative action program which already includes a commitment for affirmative action in this area. However, we do not feel that there are any legitimate findings which would justify the remedial action which Mr. Scott has suggested. If Mr. Scott and his team have any concrete examples of a woman, or women, who have been discriminated against which they have found as a result of their two visits to the campus, he should state his specific cases and the nature of corrective action which he feels is warranted for these specific situations. In that way we may review the pertinent facts relative to those cases and take corrective action if it is appropriate.