Introduction
Throughout November, University officials continued talking with officials in the Chicago regional office of HEW. Still, there was increasing concern that more of the $66 million in federal contracting dollars that the University received could be in jeopardy.
University documents indicate that on November 25, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research had notified the University's Office of Research Administration that five new or continuing Air Force contracts had been held up because of the ongoing investigation.[106] The University never publicly acknowledged that other contracts besides the original contract with the U.S. Agency for International Development had been affected. In mid-December, Muriel Ferris, a legislative aide to Democratic Sen. Philip A. Hart of Michigan, notified Jean King that she had learned that 12 contracts worth less than $1 million each had been held up, as well as a contract for $1.62 million with the Atomic Energy Commission.[107]
The HEW regional office continued to stand firm, and on December 4, investigator Don F. Scott wrote President Robben W. Fleming that neither subsequent letters nor a meeting in Chicago "were considered an adequate response to our letter of findings. Until the University of Michigan has committed itself to overcoming the deficiencies in the letter outlining our findings this office will not be in position to clear the award of further Federal contracts." Scott said that if the University did not respond within 15 days, the Chicago office would recommend that its Washington office initiate "formal enforcement proceedings."[108] Scott followed up his letter with a telegram the next day.
These excerpts from the telegram were released by the University on December 8. They track the core of the letter in which Scott first detailed HEW's findings (Document 13A). However, the University continued to withhold the full texts of Scott's communications, as well as its own responses.
[p. 1]
(Excerpt from a telegram dated December 5, 1970, to R. W. Fleming, President of The University of Michigan, from Don F. Scott, Civil Rights Specialist, Office for Civil Rights, Chicago Office of the Regional Director, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.)
Your amended affirmative action plan is not considered adequate because it does not respond to the following specific requirements which we have indicated as necessary inclusions in your plan.
1. The achievement of salary equity between current male and female employees in the same job classification. Goals and timetables are to be included in your response.
2. Compensation through the payment of back wages to each female who has lost wages due to discriminatory treatment by the University. Statements made by your staff at our conference indicate that the University does not agree with the item. We refer you to enclosure number 1 for discussion of this issue.
[p. 2]
3. Achievement of a ratio of female employment in academic positions at (...) equivalent to their availability as evidenced by applications for employment for these positions. Specific numerical goals and timetables by department must be enclosed.
4. Improvement in the ratio of female admissions to all Ph.D. graduate programs in which admissions are connected with specific employment opportunity. Numerical goals are required. The conference with your staff indicates that the University of Michigan does not agree with this item. We refer you to enclosure number 2 to this letter for discussion of our position in this matter.
5. Development and issuance of a policy on nepotism which will insure equal treatment of tandem teams throughout the University which will not have the effect of discrimination against the female members of such teams. Also your plan should include an analysis of the past interpretation of nepotism. Any female members who have been discriminated against should be retroactively compensated. Goals and timetables for these actions must be included. We found a wide variation among department chairmen regarding nepotism and the University has a clear obligation to determine the past effect on these numerous interpretations and to correct any past discriminatory effect and to make future policy clear to all personnel. The evaluation of the effects of nepotism should not only include the comparisons of husband and wife, but wife's qualifications as compared to the other employees in their rank.
6. There must be assurance that female applicants for non-academic positions receive consideration for employment commensurate with their qualifications. Further there must be assurance that the segregation of employees by male and female job classifications is corrected through recruitment, placement, transfer, and promotion of male and female applicants and employees into occupations from which they have been traditionally excluded. Numerical goals and timetables for achievement supported by statistical analysis must be included.
7. Assure that all present female employees occupying clerical or other non-academic positions and who possess qualifications equivalent to those to higher level male employees be given priority consideration or promotions to higher level positions for which they quality. Numerical goals and timetables are required.