THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 1 EECORDMay 8, 1978 ISSN 0362-4706 An Official Publication Volume XII, Number 5CONTENTS81 MEMO ON THE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM^ John T. Wilson82 CONCILIATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOAND THE OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS86 THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOFOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER© Copyright 1978 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDPRESIDENT'S MEMO ONTHE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMTo: The Faculty, The University of ChicagoFrom: John T. Wilson, PresidentMarch 10, 1978On January 30 I wrote a memorandum informingyou of the review by the Office for Civil Rights(HEW) of the University' s performance with respect to affirmative action and equal employmentopportunity. I said then that we were entering intoa difficult negotiation, the outcome of which wasat best uncertain. I also stated that the Universitywould stand on its record and would make thecase for that record without in any way compromising the University's integrity.The negotiations have been protracted, painful,exhausting, and not infrequently bizarre. Thegreatest difficulty was walking the fine line between the requirements of the law and the traditions of this University. This problem was thesubject of weekly discussion with the Committeeof the Council during the period of negotiations.Negotiations were concluded on March 6, and,after informing the Committee of the Council, theacademic deans, and the officers of the University, all of whom had been consulted at variousstages of the negotiations, I have signed a conciliation agreement.1 Under the terms of theagreement, the University' s Affirmative ActionProgram has been approved, and there has been aresolution of alleged deficiencies in the program,including a resolution of the complaint broughtagainst the Law School by the Law Women'sCaucus. The conditions in the conciliation agreement pertaining to the Law School had been1. The conciliation agreement follows this memo. Copies of theAffirmative Action Program, the OCR February 3 letter offindings, and the University's responses to that letter have beenplaced on reserve in the Regenstein Library. The text of theAffirmative Action Program begins on page 86. agreed to by the Law School prior to the currentnegotiations. Renegotiating them "downward"proved to be impossible.The outcome of the negotiations confirms thefact that the University's record in affirmative action has been remarkably good. More important,the conciliation agreement accepts the University' s right to exercise its best collective judgmentin appointment matters. The essential statementin the agreement is the following:"... this Agreement is not intended to nor shall ithave the effect of interfering with the right of theUniversity to select, promote, and grant tenureonly to those persons fully and best qualified.From the beginning there have been two necessary conditions for a conciliation agreement to beacceptable to the University. One was that therewould be no external interference in the procedural affairs of the University. The second wasthat the establishment of criteria exercised in appointment matters would be determined by theUniversity. Both conditions were strongly challenged by OCR, but both have been met. Hadthey not been, I could not have signed the agreement.As required for an acceptable affirmative actionplan, an analysis of the University's faculty and adetermination of availability pools were made.The analyses show strikingly that women andminorities are not underrepresented on the faculty. The availability data indicate that full utilization of women for the faculty as a whole would be98; there are 117 women currently on the faculty.For minorities full utilization would be 57; there81are 88 members of our faculty who are classifiedas minorities. While there are individual academicunits that have been designated as underutilizedfor women and minorities, it is important tounderstand that underutilization is not evidence ofdiscrimination.The regulations require that both academic andadministrative units designated as underutilizeddemonstrate affirmative action in recruitment. Inthe Affirmative Action Program, where the difficult concepts of availability and underutilizationare discussed at length, the University was required to state underutilization by department.However at our insistence, projections were madefor divisions and schools, not for departments,thus protecting flexibility in the recruitment offaculty.I would be less than candid if I described theconciliation agreement and the Affirmative ActionProgram as models of substance and style. Andno one can be pleased with the many requirementsfor documentation and reporting. To fulfill allThis Agreement is entered into this 6th day ofMarch 1978, between The University of Chicago(the "University") and the Office for CivilRights, U.S. Department of Health, Educationand Welfare ("OCR").Whereas, on February 3, 1978, the OCR issueda show cause notice to the University alleging thatthe University's Affirmative Action Program("AAP") did not meet the requirements ofExecutive Order 11246 and regulations promulgated thereunder; andWhereas, on January 16, 1978, OCR issued aletter to the University relating to the UniversityLaw Women's Caucus, stating that its law schoolhad failed to take appropriate affirmative action inrecruiting and hiring; andWhereas, the University submitted various materials and responses to the allegations in the February 3, 1978, and January 16, 1978 OCR letters;andWhereas, the University has submitted an AAPcontaining an availability analysis, a determination of underutilization, goals and timetables, and such requirements in both the conciliation agreement and the Affirmative Action Program will becostly, time-consuming, and distracting. In general, I do not consider such documents definingthe relationships between the federal governmentand universities as good for either the universityor the country. Nevertheless the law, the Executive Order, and the regulations exist, and we mustmake the necessary effort to cooperate in the difficult process of their implementation.The resolution of the University's difficultieswith the Office for Civil Rights is the result ofintensive efforts over a period of eight weeks. Toappreciate the magnitude of these efforts and theprogress made, one need only compare conditionsimposed upon other universities with those contained in this University's conciliation agreement.I think that the differences reflect the uniquenessof this institution. It is that uniqueness, and itsunderlying values, that we have struggled to maintain in the last several difficult weeks. For themoment, I believe we have succeeded.certain other elements of an AAP as required bythe implementing regulations of Executive Order11246; andWhereas, the University, while denying anyviolation of its affirmative action obligation, acknowledges that compliance with ExecutiveOrder 11246 is a condition to certification as afederal contractor; andWhereas, this Agreement is not intended to norshall it have the effect of interfering with the rightof the University to select, promote and granttenure only to those persons fully and best qualified;Now, therefore, OCR and the University,through conciliation and mediation, and in orderto resolve any outstanding differences betweenthem as set forth in the OCR letters of February3, 1978 and January 16, 1978, and to assure compliance of the University with Executive Order11246, enter into this Agreement, which constitutes an adjustment of the matters alleged in theOCR letters of February 3, 1978 and January 16,1978.CONCILIATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THEUNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO AND THE OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS821. NonacademicA. Recruitment and HiringWhen a position is to be filled in an underutilized1area, the person responsible for hiring will requesta list of applicants from the Personnel Office. ThePersonnel Office will include among the referralsapplicants from among the underutilizedcategories if such persons are available in the applicant pool, and will advise the person requestingthe list of the fact of underutilization. The Personnel Office will maintain a record of such requests and the names, race and sex of applicantsreferred. If the applicant pool does not include anadequate number of persons in the underutilizedcategories, then the Personnel Office will eitherundertake additional recruitment or provide awritten justification for selection from this pool.In either case, the Personnel Office will maintaina written record of action taken. If the applicantselected for the position is not in the underutilizedcategory, the person responsible for hiring willsubmit to the Personnel Office a written explanation of the reason.Hiring decisions will be reviewed by the department head or other appropriate administrator,and quarterly by the vice-president for businessand finance, to determine that the University'saffirmative action policy is being followed.The records maintained by the Personnel Officewill be reviewed quarterly by the affirmative action officer, who will also monitor on a quarterlybasis the applicant pool in underutilized areas toensure that adequate numbers of females andminorities are included. The Affirmative ActionOffice will maintain a record of the composition ofthe applicant pool by race and sex, to the extentfeasible.Supervisory responsibilities with regard toaffirmative action are indicated in II-42 of theAAP.For each of the next two years the Universitywill submit annually a narrative report to OCRrelating to compliance with this paragraph.B. PromotionThe University is committed to ensuring thatwomen and minorities are not discriminatedagainst in promotions in nonacademic positions.The University will analyze its nonacademicworkforce (excluding skilled trades and service1. The terms "underutilized" or "underutilization" as used inthis Agreement mean underutilization as set forth in the University's AAP.2. Page 87. worker categories) to determine whether there isan apparent adverse statistical impact uponwomen or minorities in its promotion practices inany job area. If such an apparent adverse impactis found, then the University will further analyzethat area to determine if the promotion criteria,such as testing, qualifications and supervisoryevaluations, utilized by the University are necessary and job-related.If the University shall identify any persons whohave been denied promotion within the past twoyears because of race or sex, then such personswill be offered the first available promotional opportunity. In the interim, such persons shall bepaid the rate applicable to the position into whichthey would have been promoted, effective retroactively to the date they were last passed overfor promotion.A report of the above analysis and correctiveaction, if any shall be required, will be submittedto OCR by June 1, 1978.2. FacultyA. Recruitment and HiringDepartment chairmen or other administrators involved in recruitment and hiring will be responsible for ensuring that good faith recruitmentefforts are made to locate qualified female andminority candidates for faculty positions inunderutilized areas. Their responsibilities with regard to affirmative action are also indicated inII-42 of the AAP. In instances in which minoritiesor women are not included among the candidatesfor consideration for faculty hire in an underutilized area, the provost or the Affirmative Action Office will review with the department chairman or other appropriate administrator the adequacy of the recruitment efforts for such position.If in the opinion of the provost, recruitment efforts have not been adequate, then further recruitment efforts shall be undertaken. The role ofthe Affirmative Action Office in the recruitmentand hiring process is also described in Section 2,of the AAP.In units where there is underutilization, publicadvertisements describing the academic unit andposition for which applicants are sought shall beplaced, and contact with professional organizations and minority and female organizations shallbe made. In the case of the Law School, suchcontacts shall include the Law Women's Caucus,the Black American Law Student's Association,the American Association of Law Schools andprominent female and minority members of the83legal profession. The University will endeavor aspart of its affirmative action effort to recruit andhire two women for its law school faculty withinthe next three-year period.Each department chairman or other appropriateadministrator responsible for hiring recommendations in underutilized areas, shall maintaincomplete records describing all procedures bywhich candidates were recruited and listing thenames of all candidates considered. Hiring recommendations will be reviewed by the provostand the final decision will be made by the Office ofthe President. If the person recommended for aposition in an area where there is underutilizationis not a female or minority, as the case may be, theprovost shall review the recommendation with thechairman or other administrator. The review shallinclude a determination of the adequacy of recruitment procedures; whether females orminorities have been considered; and the reasonswhy a female or minority was not recommendedfor appointment. If the reasons are not adequateor if it is determined that race or sex has been afactor in the rejection of a candidate, then the recommendation will not be accepted.The University will maintain records of recruiting efforts, hiring decisions and candidates considered for a period of two years. For each of thenext two years, the University will submit annually a narrative report to OCR relating to compliance with this paragraph.B. Promotion and TenureThe University has responded to the OCR concerns respecting Faculty Promotion and Tenureraised in the OCR letter of February 3, 1978, andthis response adequately disposed of any currentoutstanding concerns in this area.C. Salaries '( .rThe University is committed to a salary administration in which differences among faculty members are not attributable to sex or race. To thisend, the University will undertake the following.Salaries shall be analyzed to determine if thereare any apparent inequities based on sex or race.In the first part of the analysis, professional job-related criteria will be identified as basic variables, including department, rank, time in rank,measures of professional experience, activitiesperformed (e.g., clinical practice, research or administrative functions), field of specialization andwhether there are any special circumstances suchas leave of absence with part or full pay that mayhave affected the current year salary. The University will consult with OCR prior to the inclu sion of other variables in the analysis. Valid statistical or other empirically verifiable and auditablestudies will be undertaken to determine theestimated effects of the various observable factors, and these estimates will be used in determining if the observable factors explain the observed.salary differentials.Since differences in productivity may occuramong individuals with similar quantifiablecharacteristics, discrepancies in salaries not explained by the first stage will be investigated in thefollowing manner:The provost shall instruct each academic unithead to initiate a review of salaries in all casesin which apparent wage discrepancies havebeen identified in the first part of the analysis.Each chairman or dean shall be instructed tocompare salaries of identified women andminorities with those of others in the same orother appropriate unit based upon professionaland academic criteria. The provost shall provide guidelines for the conduct of the peer review procedure, which will involve detailedcomparisons of curriculum vitae, publicationsin terms of number, scope, quality and originality, and service to the University as well as thefactors considered in the first part of theanalysis, to the extent they are relevant. Ineach case, the chairman or dean must report inwriting to the provost the conclusions derivedfrom the comparative analysis among individuals and the basis for the conclusion whether asalary difference, if any, can be ^explained.The results of the analysis shall be reviewed bythe dean or other appropriate administrator andby the provost. In the event it is determinedthrough the foregoing process that there are anysalary inequities due to race or sex, then an immediate salary adjustment shall be made.The salary analysis described herein will becompleted and submitted to OCR on or beforeJune 15, 1978, and any adjustments which may berequired as a result of the analysis will be implemented on or before July 1, 1978, to be effective as of the date of this Agreement. In addition,a full equity adjustment shall be made based onthe full amount of the salary inequity for theperiod during which the inequity has existed, butnot to exceed two years prior to the date of thisAgreement.In the event OCR considers the justification forany apparent salary inequity, or any salary adjustment, inadequate, it will so notify the University. If the disagreement cannot be resolved84within a reasonable period, OCR may proceed toenforcement as provided in Executive Order11246, and in this Agreement.3. General ProvisionsA; The director, OCR, may upon a prior showingof good cause by the University extend the timeframes for submission of documentation andanalyses and of programs for adjustment underthis Agreement.B. Failure by the University to fully meet thegoals and timetables established in its writtenAffirmative Action Program will not, in and ofitself, be construed as evidence of a violation ofthis Agreement; provided, however, that the University must fully document its good faith effortsto meet such goals and timetables.C. As the several analyses to be made by theUniversity pursuant to this Agreement are completed, the University will take any and allaffirmative action required by this Agreement andthe AAP to remedy the effects of discriminatorypractices, if any, identified by such analyses. TheUniversity will maintain a summary analysis byrace and sex of terminations of employees inunderutilized areas as identified in the AAP.D. If the availability data in the AAP is revisedas a result of the development of more accuratedata, OCR will be notified in advance of the revisions and reasons therefor. OCR will submit itscomments, if any, to the University within a reasonable period.E. This Agreement is effective upon signaturehereof by all the parties hereto, but remains subject to subsequent review and approval by the director, OFCCP. In the event the director,OFCCP, shall determine that this Agreement orany part hereof is inconsistent with ExecutiveOrder 11246 or the regulations promulgatedthereunder, the parties shall endeavor to negotiatea modification of this Agreement for the purposeof eliminating such inconsistency.F. If, at any time in the future, OFCCP or OCRor their successor(s) believe that the Universityhas violated any portion of this Agreement, theUniversity shall be promptly notified of the fact inwriting. This notification shall include a statementof the facts and circumstances relied upon in forming that belief. In addition, the notification shallprovide the University with fifteen days to respond in writing except where OFCCP or OCRalleges that such delay would result in irreparableinjury. It is understood that enforcement proceedings under Executive Order 11246 for viola tion of this Agreement may be initiated at anytime after the fifteen day period has elapsed (orsooner if irreparable injury is alleged) without issuance of a show cause notice.G. It is recognized that in the event OFCCPand/or OCR believe that the University hasbreached the conciliation agreement, evidence regarding the entire scope of the contractor'salleged noncompliance which gave rise to theshow cause notice from which the conciliationagreement resulted, in addition to evidence regarding the contractor's alleged violation of theconciliation agreement, may be introduced at theenforcement hearing.H. It is further recognized that liability for aviolation of this Agreement may subject the contractor to sanctions set forth in Section 209 of theExecutive Order, and that in the event of violation, OCR may seek other appropriate relief.I. By entering into this Agreement, the University does not waive any defense it may have to anyenforcement action which OFCCP or OCR orany other agency may take against it, or its right tochallenge the legality of any action taken or anticipated to be taken by any agency purporting toact under the authority of Executive Order 11246or any regulation promulgated thereunder, or thelegality of any such regulation, or any interpretation thereof. However, the University will notraise objection in any enforcement proceeding foralleged violation of this Agreement to the failureof OCR or OFCCP to issue a show cause noticeas provided in paragraph 3F of this Agreement orto the introduction of evidence as provided inparagraph 3G of this Agreement.J. Copies of this Agreement will be provided toeach head of an administrative unit at the University.K. This Agreement is without prejudice to anyformer, present, or future complaints, whetherclass or individual, filed with or investigated by orconciliated by OCR against the University, except for the matter of the University Law Women' s Caucus which is resolved hereby. Since theUniversity Law Women' s Caucus is not a party tothis Agreement, this Agreement is not bindingupon it.L. This Agreement shall terminate upon the expiration of two years from its effective date unlessextended by mutual agreement of the parties andprovided that the University has met all its obligations hereunder. Termination of this Agreementshall not affect the University's continuing obligations under its AAP and Executive Order 1 1246.85CertificationIn consideration of the foregoing, OCR agrees toconsider this Agreement as a satisfactory adjustment of the matter of the University Law Women' s Caucus and of any alleged deficiency setforth in the OCR letter of February 3, 1978, relating to the University's AAP. OCR further agreesto certify the eligibility of the University for federal government contracts (in terms of ExecutiveOrder 11246 requirements), and agrees to continue the University in that status as long as theUniversity carries out its obligations under thisMarch 1978IntroductionThe University of Chicago described its equalemployment opportunity policy and its Affirmative Action Program in June 1969. Each year sincethen the program has been carried forward andadjusted to meet changing circumstances. TheAffirmative Action Program over the years is described in issues of The University of ChicagoRecord since 1969, i.e., vol. VI, nos. 1 and 5; vol.VII, no. 8; vol. VIII, no. 6; and vol. XI, no. 7.Recent years have not been a period of expansion in private universities, but rather a period ofreduction in faculty and reduced budgets in departments. It is within these constraints that therecent affirmative action activity has taken place.Affirmative Action ProgramThe University of Chicago has a long-standingpolicy of providing equal opportunity in employment for all qualified persons and prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis of race,color, religion, sex or national origin.As enunciated in 1969, and in harmony withThe University of Chicago's long-standingpolicies:It is the policy of The University of Chicago to provide equal opportunity in employment for all qualified persons, to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, creed [religion], color, national origin or sex, and to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through apositive continuing program throughout the University. All departments and units of the University will Agreement and does not otherwise violate the requirements of Executive Order 11246, asamended.March 6, 1978o By John T. Wilson, President,On behalf ofThe University of ChicagoBy Kenneth A. Mines, DirectorOffice for Civil RightsRegion V — Chicagotake affirmative action in furtherance of this policy.Further, it is the University's policy to carry out thespecific requirements of Executive Order 1 1246 andrules and regulations issued thereunder. It is alsoUniversity policy to transact business only with organizations which observe the policy of equal employment opportunity.1The University has been implementing this policy over the years as a fundamental part of itsactivities. The implementation procedures and results have been reported in prior affirmative action reports published in The University ofChicago Record. As noted in the sixth report,published November 29, 1977, a full-time affirmative action officer was appointed in January 1977"to continue and expand the work on equal employment opportunity and affirmative actionwhich had previously been done by an affirmativeaction officer who also had various other responsibilities." The activity over the last year hasresulted in an enhancement of the awareness ofthe program and improvement in the techniques of-implementation. This section of the affirmativeaction program will focus on these procedures andtechniques.1. Dissemination of Policy. Statements of theUniversity's policy are carried in University personnel policy booklets distributed to all enteringemployees and available to all employees.Periodic reports are published in the Record, including the sixth report published November 29,1. Record, 11, p. 145.THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOAFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM861977. Various issues of the "Ingleside Item," anewsletter distributed by the Personnel Department, have contained articles describing the University's affirmative action policy. Meetings havebeen held with department heads and supervisorsto discuss the policy. On November 22, 1977, thepresident of the University devoted an entiremeeting with deans and department chairmen offaculty units to the discussion of the ongoing program of affirmative action and the steps needed tobe taken to assure compliance with the programrequirements. A memorandum dated November28, 1977 was sent to all persons having responsibility for supervising nonacademic personnel in both academic and nonacademic departments, schools or divisions, summarizing thepolicies and procedures for implementing theequal employment opportunity-affirmative actionprogram as an essential part of personnel policyand reminding them of their responsibilities forimplementation. (This memorandum is in additionto a memorandum similarly distributed by theprior affirmative action officer.) The policy hasbeen discussed with unions and is stated in collective bargaining agreements. In all future negotiations this policy will be reviewed and changesproposed in collective bargaining agreements,where necessary, to accurately reflect the University's policy. The existence of the affirmative action program and the obligations to follow it arewidely known throughout the University.p The policy is also made known outside the University. Advertisements for openings carry thenotice that the University is an equal employmentopportunity-affirmative action employer. Theequal employment opportunity clause is containedin contracts, purchase orders and other pertinentcontractual arrangements with outside organizations. Solicitations for employees to various institutions and organizations, employmentagencies and the like mention the University'sequal employment opportunity policy. Throughall these activities, as well as by direct communications, prospective employees are made aware ofthe University's adherence to this program.2. Responsibilities for Implementation. As wasexemplified by President Wilson's meeting withdeans and department chairmen in November, theresponsibility for implementing the affirmative action program is recognized at the highest levels ofthe University's administration. The actual performance of affirmative action is a daily activitythat takes place within each department and otherunits of the University. All members of the fac ulty and staff have been made aware of the policyand the need for its implementation. It is the responsibility of each departmental faculty and itschairman to assure proper compliance with thepolicy. In the academic divisions, the deans havethe responsibility to review the activities of thedepartments in appointments, reappointments,promotions and other personnel actions relating tofaculty to assure that the affirmative action program is followed. The deans of the professionalschools and the College assure compliance bytheir units. The provost, in reviewing and approving actions such as appointments sent forwardfrom the deans, considers whether the appointments are consistent with all University policies,including its affirmative action policies. Should heperceive a problem to exist, he exercises his authority to take necessary action. In addition, atany level of the process, the faculty appointmentcommittees, chairmen, deans and provost mayconsult with the affirmative action officer aboutthe interpretation of the program and its application to particular situations.In nonacademic areas, responsibilities rest initially with the department head and supervisors.The Personnel Department plays a large role inadvising department heads about personnel actions and the affirmative action effects of such actions, as was made clear in the November 28, 1977memorandum from the affirmative action officerto supervisors and a predecessor memorandum issued by the prior affirmative action officer. Thedirector of personnel periodically reports to thevice-president for business and finance about theUniversity's affirmative action efforts and hasgeneral responsibility for the administration of theaffirmative action program in nonacademic employment. Again, regularly and when particularsituations arise, the affirmative action officer isconsulted about the interpretation of the programand its application to particular situations.Supervisors at all levels are made aware thatthey are responsible for the application of theaffirmative action program as a part of their dutiesand will be evaluated on their performance underthe program. Hereafter, it is expected that the department heads in their annual reports will givereports of activities and results in affirmative action for each of the groups they supervise. TheUniversity's nondiscrimination policy will applyto all employment decisions whether or not a particular unit is above utilization or underutilized.The University will identify problem areas andtake corrective action where appropriate.The affirmative action officer herself has a87broad spectrum of duties. Under the -general,supervision of the president, and in regular consultation with the provost and vice-president forbusiness and finance, sheds concerned with theongoing process of developing and supplementingthe affirmative action policy and program and inits dissemination within and outside the University. She continually consults with chairmen,deans, officers, the Personnel Department, andsupervisors at all levels regarding implementationof the program, the handling of problems thatarise, and the review of the affirmative action aspects of particular personnel actions including hiring, promotion and termination. She serves asliaison with various state and federal equal employment opportunity agencies. With the assistance of the Legal Counsel's Office, she keeps theUniversity administration informed of changes inlaws and regulations about equal employment opportunity. Any employee, student, applicant orother interested party may contact her (as well asother pertinent authorities within the University)to discuss an affirmative action or equal employment suggestion or complaint (see Record,November 29, 1977). In oral and written reports,she keeps University administration abreast ofcurrent developments in affirmative action withinthe University. In the development of the affirmative action program, the affirmative action officerparticipates in identifying problems and their solution and in overseeing the collection of data, thedetermining of availability and the making of realistic projections. She generally sees that there isadequate review of the variety of actions involvedin affirmative action, including recruitment, hiring, reappointment and promotion actions, training programs for upgrading and apprenticeship,posting of nondiscriminatory notices, providing offacilities on a nondiscriminatory basis, providingguidance to supervisors, investigating and resolving informal complaints and supervising review ofactions taken to enforcement agencies.3. Records, Reports and Audit. In January 1977,the affirmative action officer asked each department to submit a written report giving new appointments, promotions and terminations of faculty and staff employees. She met with deans anddepartment chairmen and department heads following receipt of these reports. One result ofthese meetings has been to establish a more uniform practice of keeping records of candidatesconsidered during early stages of recruitment tomatch the generally good records respecting candidates who survived initial screening and were in88 late stages of selection for appointment offers.Another result has been increased activity in efforts to reach wider pools, including advertisingfor positions. Further, these meetings havebrought about a refinement of the guidelines forannual reports. Better University- wide information will gradually be developed on such mattersas availability and utilization.Audit of performance in affirmative action is theresponsibility of each person having line responsibility for employment and of the affirmativeaction officer. Thus, the department chairmen anddeans for academic areas and, in the case ofnonacademic employees, department heads andthe Personnel Department, have the responsibility to audit performance of those makingrecommendations for employment actions. Records, though normally maintained at the departmental level where the decisions are initiated,are fully available to those approving actions andthe affirmative action officer. When an enforcement agency desires a response to a charge ofdiscrimination, the affirmative action officer seesto it that the pertinent facts are made available forreview by such agencies.4. Complaints and Terminations. Faculty members who have complaints related to affirmativeaction take the matters to their department chairmen or deans. Questions not resolved with chairmen or deans may be referred to the provost whomay consult the Committee on Appointment Inequities, comprised of faculty members appointedby the president of the University. Faculty members may also discuss complaints with anothercommittee appointed by the president, known asthe Committee on University Women, which reports to the Council, a faculty body elected by theUniversity Senate. The Committee on UniversityWomen also reviews opportunities and facilitiesfor women on campus and makes recommendations. In nonacademic employment, individuals may register complaints or grievanceswith their supervisors, department heads, and thePersonnel Department. Members of employeegroups represented by unions normally followgrievance procedures in their collective bargaining agreements.Involuntary termination of a faculty memberwith tenure, or one on a term contract within theterm, can be made only by following proceduresspecified in the University Statutes which afforddue process to the individual. As stated in theNovember 28, 1977 memorandum, involuntaryterminations of nonacademic employees must firstbe reviewed with the Personnel Department toassure fair treatment and compliance with affirmative action and related laws and regulations. Records of termination of nonfaculty employees aremaintained by the Personnel Office including job,race and sex, date of termination, and length oftime in last position. These are periodically reviewed by the affirmative action officer to determine whether they reflect any deviation fromthe University's nondiscrimination policy.In addition, before or after using the proceduresnoted above, any employee, applicant or otherperson having a specific interest in employmentmatters at the University may contact theAffirmative Action Officer.Workforce AnalysisThe workforce analysis was made available forexamination under separate cover.FacultyIntroductionThere are several attributes of The University ofChicago that influence the selection of faculty.The University of Chicago is a research university. That means that the quality and commitmentof faculty to productive research is as importantas is the quality and commitment of faculty toteaching. The Shils Report states these standardsin more detail.Academic units at The University of Chicagodo not have a fixed number of "slots." Offers fornew appointment are authorized by the provostupon the recommendation of appropriate deansand department chairmen on the basis ofacademic needs and hiring opportunities.Due to the projected financial situation of theUniversity, it is expected that there will be a decrease in the size of the faculty in the years ahead.That does not mean that there will be no newappointments because, of course, there will beturnover due to resignations, terminations anddeaths. But it should be clear that the compositionof the faculty in any terms will change slowly because the rate of new appointments will be modest.Projections, Availabilities andUtilization of FacultyFollowing are four tables displaying the affirmative action program analysis of The University ofChicago faculty. The elements included are thesex and minority composition of the current faculty, estimates of female and minority availability, utilization comparisons of the current faculty withthe availability percentages and, where required,projections.There may be deficiencies in the data used inthe determination of availability percentages. Theavailabilities in the following tables may be revised as more accurate and more complete datacan be developed. The specific procedures andsources used in estimating availability have beenindicated in the relevant footnotes and in the section titled "Methods and Sources of Data forAvailability Pools" beginning on page 93. However, important limitations inherent in themethods of determining availability are discussedin Appendix I. Interpretations of availability percentages should be made in the context of issuesdiscussed in that appendix.Tables I and II of this section about faculty areprojections of new appointments of females andminorities. The footnotes to those tables explainthe method used to arrive at those projections.Appendix J, titled "Affirmative Action andChance," should be used as an aid in interpretingthe projections for new appointments.Discussion of Projection TablesWhile the estimation of availability percentagesfor women and minorities and the determinationof underutilization were required for individualdepartments, the projections of new appointmentsfor 1978-1980 were made for the divisions. TheUniversity of Chicago does not have faculty slotsor positions fixed for academic units. This makesit impossible to project new hires for academicunits as small as departments. Even for largeracademic units such as the divisions and professional schools, it is not a simple matter to project anticipated new hires. But the provost hasestimated the projected new appointments thatmight be made in the three years 1978-1980 for thefour divisions and the professional schools. Mostof the new appointments will be due to turnover,since the number of faculty is unlikely to increaseover the three-year period.Two types of projections are required. One isfor the number of new appointments of womenand minorities that might be expected for 1978-1980, and the other is a time period more distantwhen it could be expected that employment wouldequal full availability in the academic areas determined to have underutilization.The last column in each of the two projectiontables (Tables I and II) provides a "bestestimate" of the increases in the number ofwomen and of minorities on the faculty by 1984.89TABLE I: PROJECTIONS AND TIMETABLES FOR FACULTY, FEMALESI Projected1978-1980 Additional1977-1980 Pro Availability Projected Total Femalejected New Pool for New Female Faculty, FacultyAppointments Female -Appointments Current in 1984Area (Number)3 (Percent) (Number)* (Number) (Number)0Biological SciencesClinical Departments 100 9.5 10 299 10Basic Sciences 20 9.2 2 79 2Humanities 24 13.9 3 153 3Physical Sciences 33 3.1 1 145 2 ^Social Sciences 30 7.4 2 182 3College .3 6.7 — 19 0Graduate School of Business 25 3.0 1 76 2Law School 5 3.8 d 27 ldSSA 5 30.0 2 29 1Library School 2 22.5 — 8 0Divinity School 5 6.5 1 20 1Oriental Institute 2 13.5 — 16 0Physical Education 2 47.0 1 15 0TOTAL or AVERAGE 256 23 1,068 25Note: The Availability Final Projection, Female, in numbers of individuals is given in Table HI, "Females: Current Employment,Availability Pools, and Utilization, Faculty— The University of Chicago." "— " means less than 0.5.aThe actual number of new faculty appointments in the three years 1978-1979 through 1980-1981 will depend on student enrollment,research funding and other sources of income for the University and for each of the academic areas. The projected new appointments donot represent commitments, either in total or for any academic area. It is highly probable that the total number of faculty will continue todecline. Thus, the projections are based primarily on an estimate of faculty turnover over a three-year period.bThe projections are derived by multiplying the projected new appointments (first column) by the availability pool (second column) andmultiplying by 100. The resulting figures were rounded to the nearest whole number.cThis column indicates the expected number of additional faculty appointments' for females for a six-year period ending in 1983-1984.This projection assumes that some of the turnover will occur among female faculty members. In no case does the projected additionalfacility members, for the indicated academic areas, result in less than full utilization of female faculty, as defined in Chapter 60 of Title 41of the Code of Federal Regulations (41CFR60), Sec. 60-2.12 and amplified in the Gerry Memorandum, by the academic year 1980-81.However, it is not implied that full utilization of females is likely to be achieved at the departmental level in every department or otherseparate academic unit by 1984 due to the small number of faculty in separate departments and the size of the availability pool. As statedin 41CFR60, 'The purpose of a contractor's establishment and use of goals is to insure that he (sic) meet his (sic) affirmative actionobligation. It is not intended and should not be used to discriminate against any applicant or employee because of race, color, religion,sex, or national origin."Full utilization, of course, requires a longer period than six years due to the slow turnover of tenuredfaculty. A more reasonable lengthof time to achieve full utilization for most academic departments would be twenty to twenty- five years.dSee Conciliation Agreement with HEW Office for Civil Rights dated March 6, 1978, p. 84.These projections of changes in the compositionof the faculty assume that there will be turnoveramong women and minorities as well as amongwhite male faculty members.Availability and UtilizationThe utilization analysis has been made for eachdepartment in the four divisions, for' each professional school and for the undergraduate Col lege. Since the University makes faculty appointments by divisions and schools, projectionsare made for the division or school rather than forthe smaller units. This summary of projections bydivision does not render all departments withinthat division underutilized. The only academicunit which shall be regarded as underutilized is adepartment or school whose current sex andminority composition is not sufficiently congruent90TABLE II: PROJECTIONS AND TIMETABLES FOR FACULTY, MINORITIES1978-1980 Projected1977-1980 Projected AdditionalProjected Availability New Total MinorityNew Pool for Minority Faculty, FacultyAppointments Minorities Appointments Current in 1984Area (Number)3 (Percent) (Number)15 (Number) (Number)0Biological SciencesClinical Departments 100 6.7 7 299 7Basic Sciences 20 4.1 1 79 1Humanities 24 5.1 1 153 1Physical Sciences 33 2.7 1 145 1Social Sciences 30 4.6 1 182 1College 3 4.0 — 19 0Graduate School of Business 25 2.4 1 76 0Law School 5 1.5 — 27 0SSA 5 13.0 1 29 0Library School 2 3.6 — 8 0Divinity School 5 4.2 — 20 0Oriental Institute 2 4.2 — 16 0Physical Education 2 12.1 —. 15 0TOTAL or AVERAGE 256 13 1,068 11Note: The Availability Final Projection, Minority, in numbers of individuals is given in Table IV, "Minorities: Current Employment,Availability Pools and Utilization, Faculty — The University of Chicago." "— " means less than 0.5.a-b-cSee footnotes a, b, and c to Table I, "Projections and Timetables for Faculty, Females."with calculated availability for females andminorities pertinent to the particular department.Discussion of Table on Women FacultyAvailability in Divisions and SciencesTable III demonstrates that the University's representation of women in the total faculty is greaterthan their estimated availability in the availabilitypools. For the University the "ultimate goals" forfemales (actual percentage of females on the faculty equal to the percentage of females in theavailability pools) for the current faculty sizewould be 98; in the divisions and schools the actual number of women on the faculty in 1977-1978was 117. The underutilization of women by individual departments and schools totals 16; otheracademic units have an above utilization of 35.Discussion of Table on Availability ofMinorities for Faculty PositionsTable IV, which displays the number of minorityfaculty members and the availability of minorities for faculty positions, shows that the representationof minorities on the University faculty significantly exceeds the number that would be expected from achieving the "ultimate goals."There are 88 minority faculty members, and fullutilization would indicate 57. There are five departments in which there is an indication ofunderutilization of minorities. In addition, agrouping of departments in the Division of theSocial Sciences (Anthropology, Social Thoughtand Geography), for which individual departmental availability data could not be found, isalso indicated as having an underutilization ofminorities.The data from which the availability pools forminorities were developed were more limited indetail and scope than was true for women. One ofthe requirements of the regulations is that, wherepossible, availabilities should be derived for eachof the various minority groups. Data were notavailable to make this possible. However, in theOCR letter of findings (February 3, 1978) Orien-91TABLE III: FEMALES— CURRENT EMPLOYMENT, AVAILABILITY POOLS ANDUTILIZATION* FACULTY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO3Availability,Current Employment Final Under Above-Availability Projection, utilization UtilizationFaculty Males Females Females of Females Female of Females of Females(No.) (%) (%) (No.). . (%) (No.) (No.) (No.)(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES <sClinical Departments o'prAnesthesiology 21 71 29 6 16.1 3 3Medicine 77 95 5 4 6.6 5 1Neurology 6 83 17 1 10.0 1Obstetrics/Gynecology 15 93 7 1 2.6 0 1Ophthalmology 4 100 0 0 2.0 0Pathology 34 85 15 5 18.1 6 1Pediatrics 35 71 29 10 17.7 6 4Psychiatry 28 89 11 3 12.5 4 1Radiology 34 82 18 6 6.1 2 4Surgery 36 100 0 0 2.5 1 1Zoller Dental Clinic 9 89 11 1 0.8 0 1TOTAL or AVERAGE 299 88 12 37 9.5 28 4 13Basic SciencesAnatomy 9 100 0 0 12.6 1 1Biochemistry 14 100 0 0 7.6 1 1Biology 22 77 23 5 9.1 2 3Biophysics 12 92 8 1 3.8 0 1Microbiology 10 80 20 2 16.1 2Physiology/Pharmacology 12 92 8 1 10.0 1TOTAL or AVERAGE 79 89 11 9 9.2 7 2 4PHYSICAL SCIENCESAstronomy 10 100 0 0 1.6 0Chemistry 25 100 0 0 3.6 1 1Geophysics 23 100 0. 0 .1.5 0Mathematics 42 98 2 1 5.3 2 . 1Physics 36 97 3 1 1.4 1Statistics 9 100 0 0 2.8 0TOTAL or AVERAGE 145 99 1 2 3.1 4 2HUMANITIESArt 16 81 19 3 15.4 2 1Classics 9 78 22 2 14.2 1 1English 32 84 16 5 15.4 5Far Eastern 9 89 11 1 5.9 1Germanic Lang. & Lit. 9 100 0 0 7.9 1 1Linguistics 7 86 14 1 15.8 1Music 9 78 22 2 12.1 1 1Near Eastern 10 80 20 2 2.3 0 2Philosophy 14 93 7 1 6.7 1Slavic Languages 11 82 18 2 8.2 1 1South Asian 10 100 0 0 27.1 3 3Romance Languages 17 81 29 5 26.0 4 1TOTAL or AVERAGE 153 84 16 22 13.9 21 4 7SOCIAL SCIENCESBehavioral Sciences 24 79 21 5 12.8 3 2Economics 19 100 0 0 2.0 0Education 35 83 17 6 11.2 4 2Geography 9 100 0 0 3.9 0History 34 97 3 1 5.4 2 1Political Science 21 90 10 2 4.8 1 1Social Thought 6 83 17 1 3.7 0 1Anthropology & Sociology 34 91 9 3 8.8 3TOTAL or AVERAGE 182 90 10 18 7.4 13 1 6COLLEGE 19 90 10 2 6.7 1 1GRADUATE SCHOOL OFBUSINESS 76 100 0 0 3.0 2 2LAW SCHOOL 27 100 0 0 3.8 1 1SSA 29 62 38 11 30.0 9 2LIBRARY SCHOOL 8 62 38 3 22.5 2 1DIVINITY SCHOOL 20 95 5 1 6.5 1ORIENTAL INSTITUTE 16 81 19 3 13.5 2 1PHYSICAL EDUCATION 15 53 47 7 47.0 7UNIVERSITY TOTAL orAVERAGE 1,068 89 11 117 98 16 35Note: "0" in Column 6 (Availability, Final Projections, Female) means less than 0.5. Since each individual has been allocated to one andonly one academic unit, it is inappropriate to have a final projection of less than unity. Where the final projection was 0.5 and less than 1 ,the figure of 1 has been entered in the table. For all other numbers rounding was down to the lower whole number when the final projectionexceeded the whole number by 0.49 or less and up to the higher whole number when the final projection was 0.50 or greater.aFor description of the methods and sources of data used in estimating availability pools, see notes on pp 93-96. For a discussion of theproblems and difficulties in defining availability pools see Appendix I.tals were separately counted, leaving the inference that the representation of minorities otherthan Orientals was lower than availability.There is a set of data that indicates that therepresentation of minorities on the University'sfaculty is relatively high, and that this statementholds for all minorities other than Orientals aswell as for Orientals. The data are from a National Research Council study of employed doctoral scientists and engineers in 1973. The data for allU. S. educational institutions and for federal employment, by activities, are as follows, with thepercentage that minority groups and all minoritiesare of the total employed doctoral scientists andengineers being as follows:MinoritiesAmerican Other ThanBlack Oriental Latin Indian Other Orientals TotalEducational InstitutionsAll Activities 1.0 4.7 0.6 0.1 0.1 1.8 6.5Research 0.4 6.4 0.8 0.0 0.2 1.3 7.7Teaching 1.0 4.2 0.6 0.1 0.1 2.2 6.4Administration 1.7 1.6 0.4 0.0 0.1 1.2 2.8Federal GovernmentAll Activities 0.8 2.8 0.5 0.0a 0.1 1.4 4.2Research 0.8 3.5 0.8 0.0a 0.1 1.7 5.2Administration 0.7 0.9 0.2 0.0a 0.0 1.0 1.9University of ChicagoFaculty 1.1 5.8 1.3 0.0a — 2.4 8.2aNot zero, but less than 0.05 percent.The record of The University of Chicago compares favorably, as shown in the above table, toall educational institutions and most favorably tothe federal government. Our faculty includes approximately twice as large a percentage ofminorities as did the federal government in 1973.The group of 19 College faculty who make upthe 19 shown to be the College in Table IV donot form a discrete organizational unit. There aremore than 200 people who are members of theCollege faculty, each of whom has some role inthe governance of the College as well as in teaching undergraduates. Most of these have joint appointments in the divisions, and most are paidjointly by the College and the divisions. For EEOreporting, fractions of people are not placed inseveral University units. The analysis for theplacement of faculty who have joint appointmentsresulted in counting most of these 200 people inthe divisions rather than in the College. Therefore, it does not seem appropriate to establishprojections for the College. Methods and Sources of Data for AvailabilityPoolsFemalesThe availability pools for each department andschool, except as noted below, were calculated asfollows:a. Earned Ph.D. degrees from all U.S. universities for 1973 and 1974 were used to determinepercentage awarded to females. This percentagewas used to measure the availability pool forjunior faculty (instructors and assistant professors).b. The availability pools for senior faculty (professors and associate professors) were determinedby utilizing data on the percentages of females ateach faculty rank in the American Association ofUniversity Professors (AAUP) Category I, private independent universities. The separate percentages for professor and associate professorwere each multiplied by the number of faculty atthe University in each of these ranks and divided93TABLE IV: MINORITIES— CURRENT EMPLOYMENT, AVAILABILITY POOLS AND UTILIZATION, FACULTY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO3Availability,Current Employment Final Underuti Above Uti- ,- Availability Projections, lization of lization ofFaculty Minority Minority of Minorities Minority Minorities Minorities(No.) (%) (No.) (%) (No.) (No.) (No.)(D (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES 0Clinical Departments 299 1 38 6.7 20 18AnesthesiologyMedicineNeurologyObstetrics/GynecologyOphthalmologyPathologyPediatricsPsychiatryRadiologySurgeryZoller Dental ClinicTOTAL or AVERAGEBasic Sciences \Biology 22 0 0 4.0 1 1Biochemistry 14 14 2 5.2 1 1Microbiology 10 0 0 8.1 1 1Physiology/Pharmacology 12 8 1 3.6 — 1OthenAnatomy and Biophysics 21 10 2 5.3 1 1TOTAL or AVERAGE 79 6 5 4.1 4 2 3PHYSICAL SCIENCESChemistry 25 4 1 - 5.0 1Physics 36 3 1 2.2 1Mathematics 42 7 3 2.8 1 2Other: Astronomy, Statistics,Geophysics 42 12 5 1.7 1 4TOTAL or AVERAGE 145 7 10 2.7 4 0 6HUMANITIESEnglish 32 3 1 2.5 1Foreign Languages 66 17 9 6.0 5 4(German, Romance, Far East,Near East, Slavic, South Asia)Fine Arts (Art, Music) 25 4 1 5.4 1Philosophy 14 0 0 5.0 1 1Other (Classics and Linguistics) 16 6 1 5.3 1TOTAL or AVERAGE 153 8 12 5.0 9 1 4SOCIAL SCIENCESEconomics 19 5 1 3.2 1History 34 12 4 3.2 1 3Education 35 3 1 8.3v 3 2Political Science 21 5 1 4.2 1Behavioral Sciences 24 0 0 3.5 1 1Sociology 15 7 1 5.4 1Other (Anthropology, SocialThought, Geography) 34 0 0 3.7 1 1TOTAL or AVERAGE 182 4 8 4.6 9 4 3COLLEGE 19 0 0 4.0 1 1GRADUATE SCHOOL OFBUSINESS 76 9 7 2.4 2 5LAW SCHOOL 27 0 0 1.5 —SCHOOL OF SOC. SERV.ADM. 29 14 4 13.0 4LIBRARY SCHOOL 8 0 0 3.6 0ORIENTAL INSTITUTE 16 6 1 4.2 1PHYSICAL EDUCATION 15 13 2 12.1 2DIVINITY SCHOOL \20 5 1 4.2 1UNIVERSITY TOTAL orAVERAGE 1,068 82 88 5.4 57 8 39Note: ' '— * ' in Column 5 (Availability, Final Projection for Minority) means less than 0.5. Since each individual has been allocated to oneand only one academic unit, it is inappropriate to have a final projection of less than unity. Where the final projection was 0.5 and less than1, the figure of 1 has been entered in the table.aFor description of the methods and sources of data used in estimating availability pools see pp. 93-96. For a discussion of the problemsand difficulties in denning availability pools see Appendix I.94by the total number of faculty at the University inthe two ranks to determine the percentage offemales in the senior faculty ranks. A similar calculation was made to determine the percentage offemales in the instructor plus assistant professorranks if the AAUP Category I, private universitieshad the same distribution of faculty in the tworanks as the University. The percentage offemales at the senior ranks was divided by thepercentage of females at the junior ranks. Thisratio was then multiplied by the percentage offemales in the junior availability pool to determinethe female availability pool for senior faculty atthe University.The exceptions to the above procedures were asfollows:1. Availability pool for females for junior facultyin the clinical departments was based on percentage of females in the relevant residency programsin the United States on September 1, 1973, exceptZoller Dental Clinic based on graduates of dentalschools for 1970-1971.2. Female availability for senior faculty positionsin the clinical departments was based on percentage of females holding the rank of professor and associate professor in all U.S. medical schools in1970-1971, weighted by University distribution offaculty for these two ranks in the clinical departments.3. Availability pool for the Graduate School ofBusiness for junior faculty was the percentage ofearned Ph.D. degrees in business administrationand management in 1975 awarded to females; forsenior faculty, the percentage for 1970-1972 wasused.4. In SSA, junior faculty availability was based onpercent of Ph.D. degrees in social work awardedin 1973-1976; senior faculty was based on percentof individuals holding the doctorate on faculties ofschools of social work in 1976. Data supplied bySSA.5. Senior faculty availability in Divinity Schoolwas based on earned degrees in religion andtheology, 1920-1972.6. The availability pool for the Law School wasbased on the percentage of females on U.S. lawschool faculties in the ranks of full professor (tenured), associate professor (tenured) and assistantprofessor. The data and calculation of theavailability pool are as follows: Females: UniversityPercent of Law School,Faculty at Percent ofall U.S. Faculty byLaw Schools RankFull Professor(tenure) 2.6% 85.2%Associate Professor(tenure) 4.0 3.7Assistant Professor 13.3 11.1Average or Total 3.8 100.0The weighted average of females on a law faculty with the same distribution of faculty as theUniversity's was determined as follows:(2.6)(85.2) + (4.0)(3.7) + (13.3)(11.1) = 383.96.To convert to percent, 383.96/100.0 = 3.8396 percent, which was rounded to 3.8 percent.Note: The calculation of the weighted averageavailability pool for females for the Law School isthe same method used to calculate weighted average availability pools for the divisions from departmental data, except that the number of facultyin each department was used for weights ratherthan the number (or percent) of faculty by rank inthe Law School.MinoritiesWhat was true when the Gerry Memorandum waswritten in 1975 remains true today, namely thatthe amount and quality of data on minorityavailability is much more limited than the amountand quality of data on female availability for faculty positions. Data on earned degrees forminorities are not available for certain fields andlittle or no data are available for differentcategories of minorities. Thus the data used arefor all minorities.The availability pools for minorities for eachdepartment and school, except as noted below,were calculated as follows:Earned Ph.D. degrees from American Association of University (AAU) members; averagesof 1969-1972 and 1972-1975 which were usedfor all faculty positions (junior and senior).The exceptions were:1. For SSA, minorities holding doctorate degreeson faculties of schools of social work in 1976.Data supplied by SSA.2. Availability pools for the Oriental Institute and95the Divinity School were set equal to weightedaverage minority availability for the Humanities.3. Availability pool for the Graduate LibrarySchool was set equal to a simple average of theminority availabilities for the Humanities, SocialSciences and Physical Sciences.4. No reasonable data were found for minorityavailability for Physical Education; the percentage used was the percent of recreation workers inthe U.S. in 1975 who were minorities.5. No reasonable data were found for minorityavailability for the clinical departments. Blackswho were graduates of U.S. and Canadian medical schools were 1.7 percent of the members ofresidency programs in the United States in September 1973. It was assumed that blacks represented 25 percent of all minorities in residencyprograms giving an availability percentage forminorities for junior faculty positions in all clinicaldepartments of 6. 8 percent. This has to be a highlyunreliable estimate but no better figure could befound. To be more accurate, no figure could befound.Sources: Except as indicated in the notes, thesources of data for availabilities were:AAUP, Nearly Keeping Up: Report of the Economic Status of the Profession, 1975-76.Curtis O. Baker and Agnes Q. Wells, Earned Degrees Conferred 1973-74: Institutional Data.Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office,1976.Scientific Manpower Commission, ProfessionalWomen and Minorities: A Manpower Data Resource Service. Washington: Scientific Manpower Commission, various dates.Promotion and TenureThe appropriate officials of The University ofChicago believe and affirm that its decisions withrespect to promotion and tenure reflect judgmentsmade only with respect to past scholarly performance and expected future scholarly contributions. The basic principles guiding promotion andtenure, as well as new faculty appointments, areset forth in the Shils Report. All decisions aboutappointment, promotion and tenure are reviewedby the deans and the provost to see that they havebeen made consistent with all University policies,including the affirmative action policy.Normally promotion from assistant professor toassociate professor occurs in the sixth year of appointment as assistant professor, though earlier promotion occurs where unusual productivity hasbeen apparent. There are differences among disciplines in the length of time required to displayoutstanding productivity; early evidence of highproductivity as a scholar is more likely to occur ina theoretical field than in an experimental field, forexample. Differential rates of promotion to ahigher rank can be due to differences in length oftime in the current rank.Promotion from associate professor to professor does not have to occur within any particular time period. However, in the last year theacademic areas have been asked to review all individuals who have been associate professors formore than six or seven years to determine if promotion to professor was warranted. The University intends to continue this practice.All decisions not to renew faculty appointmentsand not to promote faculty are carefully reviewedby the Office of the Provost to determine if theappropriate procedures have been followed.Thus, all decisions not to promote or not to renewthe appointments of women and minority facultymembers are reviewed. This review practice willcontinue.The role of the affirmative action officer withrespect to faculty employment has been describedat length in the Affirmative Action Program section of this book, particularly in Responsibilitiesfor Implementation.Any faculty member, including a woman and aminority, may ask for a review of the decisionabout his or her reappointment or promotion. Theindividual may discuss the matter with the departmental chairman or go directly to the appropriate dean. If an explanation that is unsatisfactory to the individual is obtained from thechairman and/or dean, the individual may appealto the provost. At that time the provost reviewsthe procedures followed in arriving at the decision. If there is new information, which was notavailable at the time the original decision wasmade, that would appear to indicate that appropriate procedures had not been followed, the provost would ask the relevant areas to review thedecision. In any case, the provost has the responsibility of informing the individual that his orher complaint may be reviewed by the Committeeori Appointment Inequities which is advisory tothe provost.Non-Faculty StaffThe University has compared its nonfaculty staffprofile with that of the Chicago Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMS A) to determine96whether there is underutilization of women andminorities. Two comparisons have been made andare reproduced here. The first compares the University workforce with figures for the ChicagoSMS A and also the narrower figures for the workforce within the Chicago city limits by majorE.E.O.-l categories.2 The second compares theUniversity's workforce, divided into logical jobgroupings, with the availability of employees ofthose job groupings in the Chicago SMS A as calculated from E.E.O.-l statistics .Both comparisons show that the University'sutilization of women and minorities generally exceeds that of the area. Only with respect to a fewspecific job groups is any underutilization shownfor women or minorities. The study disclosedsome general underutilization of a specific minority, Hispanics. Projections are made below for thespecific groups in those areas in which underutilization has been shown.Chicago SMSA statistics have been chosen asthe most reliable overall index of the availabilityof staff for the University. A review of the residence patterns of University employees hasshown that the employees are dispersed throughout the metropolitan area. The University advertises extensively in metropolitan newspapers. It isconveniently located near public transportationand, thus, easily accessible to many communities,particularly those along the lake and in the south-2. hi order to compare like data, the University's workforcestatistics have been adjusted to the format of E.E.O.-l insteadof E.E.O.-6 as they are reported, because the only availablearea statistics are in E.E.O.-l format. That there are significant ern suburbs. With all these factors considered,there is no better general indication of theavailability of employees in the area than theSMSA or city of Chicago statistics. It should alsobe noted, of course, that for certain classificationsof jobs, particularly officials and managers andprofessionals, the University draws from a national labor market.Availability by Major E.E.O.-l Category.The following two tables compare the University' s nonfaculty workforce as it is classified bymajor E.E.O.-l category with that of Chicagoalone and the Chicago SMSA.As indicated in the Table below, the employment of women at the University exceeds the 1975Chicago and SMSA employment data with theexception of Skilled Craftsmen and Semi-SkilledOperatives and Laborers. These are three of thefour groups with the smallest total population atthe University: Skilled Craftsmen, 233; Semiskilled Operatives, 105; and Laborers, 16. TheUniversity has made significant progress in thelargest of these, the Skilled Craftsmen category,inasmuch as 10 of the 21 additional positions (1975to 1977) in the category have been filled bywomen.Table VI shows that the employment ofminorities and Blacks at the University exceeds1975 Chicago SMSA data in all categories anddifferences between the E.E.O.-l and E.E.O.-6 formats can beillustrated by the classification of a supervisor of techniciansunder Officials and Managers in E.E.O.— 1 , but as T (Technical)under the E.E.O.-6 primary occupational groups.TABLE V: REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN AT THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO COMPARED TO CITY OF CHICAGO AND CHICAGO SMSAWORKFORCEThe Universityof Chicago City of ChicagoJob Category 10/1/77 Chicago3 SMSAaOfficials and Managers 42.0 20.9 14.6Professionals & Technicians 63.4 41.6 38.0Sales 43.3 38.2 37.4Office & Clerical 86.7 68.9 73.9Skilled Craftsmen 3.0 6.1 5.0Semi-skilled Operatives 18.1 32.6 30.0Laborers — 10.9 11.0Service Workers 55.5 40.5 47.2aSource: Table 3 Labor Force Information for Affirmative Action Programs, Illinois State EmploymentService, October 1976.97TABLE VI: REPRESENTATION OF MINORITIES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOCOMPARED TO CITY OF CHICAGO AND CHICAGO SMSA WORKFORCEThe University ofChicago, 10/1/77 City of Chicago3 Chicago SMSAaAll All AllJob Category Minorities Blacks Minorities Blacks Minorities BlacksOfficials & Managers 26 .4 22.5 16.5 13.1 6.4 4.6Professionals & Technicians 37.0 24.6 24.5 17.5 12.2 8.1Sales 30.0 26.7 19.0 14.6 3.7 1.3Office & Clerical 46.4 40.2 29.3 24.0 17.4 13.8Skilled Craftsmen 15.0 12.4 27.6 20.2 14.6 10.1Semi-skilled Operatives 37.1 31.4 48.9 38.9 31.3 24.0Laborers 43.8 43.8 47.6 37.2 32.0 24.3Service Workers 85.1 81.9 43.2 36.7 29.1 24.0aSource: Table 3 Labor Force Information for Affirmative Action Programs, Illinois State Employment Service, October, 1976.also exceeds the city of Chicago data in everycategory except skilled craftsmen and semi-skilledoperatives.Availability by Job Groupings.As part of the Mfirmative Action Program, theentire nonfaculty workforce was divided intotwenty- seven job groups, four of which were broken down into two or three subgroups. Thesegroups were identified by considering such factorsas skill levels, educational requirements, wageand salary rates, content, functional lines, andother considerations. A description of each groupfollows. In general, there is a greater likelihoodthat individuals will progress from lower- salariedto higher-salaried positions within these groupings.The groups were prepared in a very shortperiod solely for the purposes of this AffirmativeAction Program. Hence, decisions on classification of job codes and individual employees had tobe made in considerable haste. The Universitywill continue to study these groupings and mayeffectuate changes in time.Following the listing of job groupings are: TableVII, Employment Profile, showing employmentat the University by total number and percentagesof females and minorities against availability;Table IX, projections for females, minorities andBlacks by underutilized class, 1978-1979, and ultimate projections; and an explanation of thestatistical method used to calculate availability. Job Groupings — Nonfaculty1. Officers and Department Directors. Corporateofficers and directors of principal nonacademicdepartments of the University.2. Departmental Administrators /Managers. Assistant and associate directors of principalnonacademic departments of the University.3. (A) Academic-N onj acuity . Professionals whoparticipate in the instructional and research activities of the University but are not defined as"faculty."(B) Professional Librarians. Professional librarians employed in the University library.(C) Laboratory School Teachers. Teachers andadministrators of the precollegiate LaboratorySchool of the University.4. Nurses. All professional nursing staff (RNs) ofthe Hospitals and Clinics and their supervisorsthrough the level of assistant directors of theNursing Department.5. Accountants. Professional accountants, thelarge majority of whom are in the Comptroller'sOffice and the Hospitals and Clinics' FinanceSection, including supervisors through the level ofassistant comptroller.6. Scientists and Engineers. Nonacademic scientists and engineers in the Biological, Physical andSocial Sciences Divisions, engaged in research.987. Research Specialists: Research associates andresearch project specialists. Employees in thesegroups are engaged to assist faculty or staff inresearch. -8. Supervisors of Technicians. Supervisors of research technicians who manage research laboratories in the Biological and Physical Sciences Divisions; generally they report to faculty researchdirectors.9. Research Technicians-Professional. Technicians and technologists in the Biological and Physical Sciences Divisions who are engaged in research or clinical activities and have attained theBachelor of Science degree or equivalent, e.g.,A.S.C. P. certificate.10. (A) Computer Clericals. Clericals in the computer field, comprising key punch operators, dataprocessing clerks and coders.(B) Computer Field Professionals. Professionals in the computer field, including programmers, analysts, computer operators, supervisors and production expediters.11. Publishing and Media Professionals. Professional ^writers, editorial assistants and otherprofessionals in publishing and related fields.12. Fund Raising and Public Information. Staff ofthe Development and Public Affairs Offices engaged in fund raising and public information activities,13. Student Program Administrators. Advisors tostudents and administrators of student programs,including deans of students in professionalschools and assistant deans of divisions and theCollege.14. Health Field Professionals. Professionals,other than M.D.'s and nurses, in the health field,including dieticians, therapists, and caseworkers.Included in this group are supervisors through thelevel of assistant hospital administrators.15. Independent Professionals. Various professionals scattered throughout the Universitysuch as architects, attorneys, artists, planners,program coordinators and security analysts.16. Biological Sciences and Physical SciencesT echnicians-N onprofessionals . Research technicians in the Biological and Physical Sciences Divisions and clinical technicians in the Hospitalsand Clinics, whose skills are based primarily onexperience, normally do not require a bachelor'sdegree but often require specialized educationalor training programs beyond high school. Exam ples are licensed practical nurses, x-ray, hemotol-ogyV operating room, radiation safety and electronics technicians.17. Other Technicians. Other skilled technicalworkers including draftsmen, photographers,audio- visual workers and barbers.18. Secretaries and Typists. Clericals whoseduties require primarily typing and other secretarial skills, exclusive of such persons who are considered exempt under F.L.S.A. white collar regulations.19. Other Clericals. Other clericals includingbusiness machine operators, bookkeepers, records and other clerks except those grouped withcomputer field staff (#11 (A) above).20. Exempt Clericals. Administrative secretariesand administrative assistants, library assistants,housing managers, and office managers who areexempt as administrators under F.L.S.A. whitecollar regulations.21. Sales. Sales personnel primarily in theBookstore and Hospitals and Clinics gift shops.22. (A) Plant and Real Estate-Skilled Workers.Skilled tradesmen and their apprentices workingin building maintenance operations.(B) Plant and Real Estate-Semi-skilled Workers. Semi-skilled operatives in building maintenance and groundskeeping operations^23. Printing Trades. Skilled tradesmen and theirapprentices and operatives in the UniversityPress and Printing Department.24. Machinists. Highly skilled instrumentmakers/machinists developing tools and instruments and experimental apparatus for research.25. Research and Laboratory Mechanics. Mechanics and technical assistants engaged in settingup experiments and repairing and maintainingequipment in teaching and research laboratories.26. (A) Supervisors of Service Workers. Supervisors of service workers primarily engaged inhousekeeping and food service operations.(B) Service Workers-Health. Nursing assistants and mental health workers.(C) Service Workers-General. Service workersengaged primarily in housekeeping and food service operations.27. Security. Security Department Patrol Officers, Sergeants and Lieutenants.99TABLE VII: THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO— EMPLOYMENT PROFILE(NONFACULTY, FULL-TIME)Current Employment (%)Based on October 1, 1977 AvailabilityNumber in Total TotalJob Category Category Female Minority Black Hispanic Female Minority Black Hispanic*Officers and Department ODirectors 51 5.9 2.0 2.0 0 14.6 6.6 4.5Departmental Admins/Mgrs 79 88.6 10.1 8.9 0 14.6 6.6 4.5Academic nonfaculty 84 29.8 11.9 6.0 1.2 15.0b 11.9b 6.0bProfessional Librarians 58 58.6 15.5 1.7 0 27.9 11,0 7.4Laboratory School Teachers 143 69.2 8.4 7.0 0 69.2 13.4 11.8Nurses 645 97.0 38.8 27.4 1.2 61.2 19.7 10.6Accountants 65 30.8 12.3 7,7 0 23.8 9.7 6.5Scientists & Engineers 78 14.1 11.5 2.6 1.3 3.6 6.1 2.4Research Specialists • 374 24.9 .25.7 2.7 1.6 27.9 11.0 L9CSupervisors of Technicians 31 35.5 19.4 12.9 0 31.1 11.0 7.4Research Techs. Professional 417 64.0 35.0 9.6 1.4 64.3 20.5 10.8Computer Clericals 65 90.8 80.0 73.8 0 65.2 20.0 16.1Computer Field Professionals 119 21.8 24.4 16.0 1.7 25.6 10.2 6.9Publishing & MediaProfessionals 122 74.6 8.2 5.7 0 27.0 10.7 7.2Fund Raising & PublicInformation 34 50.0 2.9 0 0 23.6 9.6 6.5Student Program Admins 61 54.9 14.6 13.4 1.2 22.9 9.4 6.3Health Field Professionals 148 68.9 29.7 21.6 0 47.2 16.1 9.0Independent Professionals 82 37.8 . 12.2 8,5 2.4 27.3 10.7 7.2Bi Sci & Phy Sci Techs 498 70.5 66.7 57.4 2.2 58.6 19.2 10.1Other Techs 31 16.1 19.4 6.4 9.7 27.5 10.9 7.3Secretaries & Typists 995 95.0 45.3 41.8 1.8 97.5 11.0 8.1Other Clericals 796 78.8 59.9 50.0 2.6 65.2 20.0 16.1Exempt Clericals 318 87.4 22.6 19.8 0.3 72.6 17.9 14.3Sales 17 70.6 35.3 35.3 0 57.4 . 10.2 7.5Plant & Real Estate-Skilled Workers 215 0 20.5 18.6 0.9 4.1 14.9 8.8Plant & Real Estate-Semi-skilled 42 "0 64.3 64.3 0 23.1 32.5 25.0Printing trades 85 18.8 12.9 10.6 1.2 0.5 15.6 11.2Machinists 48 0 12.5 6.2 6.2 0 14.0 8.7Research LaboratoryMechanics 17 5.9 35.3 17.6 5.9 0 17.1 11.7Supervisors of ServiceWorkers 81 60.5 69.1 66.7 1.2 14.6 6.6 4.5Service Workers— Health 176 92.0 94.9 91.5 0.6 68.6 34.4 30.5Service Workers — General 866 54.5 89.0 85.7 2.1 44.2 29.1 22.6Security 81 2.5 35.8 33.3 2.5 8.4 16.7 15.2aSee following section on Hipanics.bThese availability percentages based on earned degree data are more accurate than the SMSA data which include primary and secondaryschoolteachers.cThe primary qualification for the great majority of positions in this job category is an earned graduate degree. Hence availability of 1.9 percentis based on the estimate of the percentage of Blacks expected to earn such degrees in the academic fields represented in the category, ratherthan on the SMSA data.100Explanation of Statistical MethodAvailability data were generated from the "TableIII, Occupation of Employed Persons by Sex andMinority Status— 1970 and 1975" which is included in the document "Labor Force Information for Affirmative Action Programs 1975" (seepages 102-3).In the cited table the data are presented for theChicago SMSA showing the percentage of eachethnic group in a series of occupational groups.Utilizing the number in each ethnic group, it ispossible to calculate the numbers of persons ineach ethnic group in each occupational group.For example, of the total of 420,000 Blacks, column (D) of the table shows 2.2 percent are mechanics and repairmen; thus, the number of Blackmechanics and repairmen is 9,240. Similarly, column (B) indicates that 2.7 percent of the totalworkforce of 2,920,000 are mechanics and repairmen, or 78,840. Thus, Blacks comprise 9,240V78,840; i.e., 11.7 percent. There are severalcells in the SMSA data which are marked "IN A"(information not available). In preparing the percentages, the agency analysts counted IN A aszero availability. In order to maintain the integrityof the data, our calculations also equate IN A withzero availability. The results of these computations for females, all minorities, and Blacks, fornineteen occupational groups, are presented inTable VIII.Using the job groupings developed in the University and the Chicago SMSA availability datacomputed as described above, it was possible tocompute predictions of the numbers of females,minorities, and Blacks which should be found ineach job grouping. These computations took intoaccount the mix of occupational groups in eachjob grouping and- the numbers of persons in eachoccupational group. The predicted numbers werethen compared with actual employment statistics.It should be borne in mind that these data aregenerated from what appear to be the only readilyavailable statistics below the E.E.O.-l level. This creates two possible problems. First, in somecategories the University of Chicago recruitmentarea is at least national, and the use of data fromthe Chicago SMSA may overstate or understateavailability. Second, the mix of individuals withinjob categories for a research university probablydoes not reflect the mix within a standard metropolitan area. Even in the nonacademic areas theUniversity has jobs which are unique to an institution of higher education, and the availability ofpersons for these positions would be differentfrom the availability derived from data relating togeneric job categories. Thus other availabilitydata may be substituted for a specific job group ifmore accurate data are obtained.Hispanics.Table VII shows a small number or no Hispanicsat the University in a number of job groups. TheUniversity has concluded that this represents anunderutilization of Hispanics in its workforce incomparison with their availability in the ChicagoSMSA. However, the number of Hispanics in theworkforce is small, and the availability percentages in the Chicago SMSA are low. It is unrealistic to attempt to determine utilization or set projections on the basis of the job groups developed toshow utilization of women, minorities and Blacks.Thus, the University has considered utilizationand made projections based on a comparison ofthe University and Chicago SMSA using the principal E.E.O.-l categories. The following Table Xdoes this.The Hispanics table shows that the representation of Hispanics has increased somewhat since1975. Still, the representation is less thanavailability. This appears to be a consequence of alower number of applicants from Hispanics thanwould be anticipated based on their population inthe area. As part of its affirmative action responsibilities, the University is going to makegreater efforts to attract applicants from the Hispanic workforce, including advertising in the Hispanic media.101REPRINTED FROM "LABOR FORCE INFORMATIONTable III: Occupation of Employed PersonsBoth SexesOccupational Other Spanish MinorityGroup Total White Black Races American Group(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)All OccupationsNumber 1975 2,920,000 2,471,000 420,000 29,000 118,000 567,000Number 1970 2,852,000 2,413,000 410,000 29,000 115,000 554,000Percent 1970 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Prof., tech & related 15.0 15.9 8.4 32.7 7.2 9.4Engineers 1.7 2.0 0.2 3.9 0.6 0.5Med. & health wkrs. 2.1 2.1 1.6 13.9 1.8 2.3Teachers 2.9 3.0 2.4 1.4 0.8 2.0Other professional workers 8.1 8.7 4.1 13.5 3.9 4.6Managers & administrators,nonfarm 7.9 8.9 2.5 4.3 2.6 2.7Sales 7.6 8.5 3.2 3.5 3.4 3.3Retail stores 3.9 4.2 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.1Other sales workers 3.8 4.2 1.1 1.6 1.3 1.1Clerical 22.3 22.5 21.4 19.4 15.1 20,0Sec, stenos, & typists 6.2 6.7 3.5 4.4 3.4 3.5Other clerical wkrs. 16.0 15.7 17.9 14.9 11.6 16.5Craftsmen, foremen & related 13.9 14.6 9.8 7.8 13.3 10.4Construction/craftsmen 2.9 3.1 1.5 1.0 2.0 1.6Mechanics & repairmen 2.7 2.8 2.2 2.4 3.0 2.4Machinists & othermetal craftsmen 1.8 2.0 1.0 0.8 2.2 1.2Other craftsmen 6.3 6.5 5.0 3.7 6.1 5.2Operatives exe. trans. 13.9 12.6 21.5 15.1 37.0 24.4Durable goods mfg. 7.8 '7.3 10.6 7.6 23.4 13.1Nondurable goods mfg. 3.4 2.9 6.3 3.9 9.7 6.9Nonmanufacturing 2.7 2.3 4.5 3.6 3.9 4.4Transport equip, operatives 3.9 3.5 6.0 1.4 3.5 5.3Laborers, nonfarm 4.2 3.7 7.1 2.9 7.3 7.0Service, exc. priv. household 10.2 9.1 17.0 11.5 9.6 15.2Cleaning & food serv. 5.4 4.8 8.5 8.5 6.5 8.1Protective service 1.4 1.4 1.5 0.2 0.5 1.2Personal, health &other services 3.3 2.7 7.0 2.9 2.5 5.8Private household wkrs. 0.7 0.3 2.6 1.0 0.4 2.0Farm workers 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3aSource: Detailed Manpower Indicators, tables 25A, 25 B, 26 A and 26B; Labor Market Indicators for Affirmative Action Programs,Table 9, 1970 Census of Population.bArea: Chicago SMSA (Cook, Dupage, Kane, McHenry, and Will Counties).IN A = Information not available.102FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS OF 1975"by Sex and Minority Status— 1970 and 1975bFemaleOtHer Spanish MinorityTotal White Black Races American Group*(h) (i) 0) (k) (D (m)1,124,000 928,000 183,000 13,000 39,000 235,0001,097,000 907,000 178,000 12,000 38,000 229,000100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.014.7 15.2 11.0 35.2 7.4 11.7INA INA INA INA INA INA3.6 3,4 2.8 23.5 2.6 3.95.3 5.6 4.0 2.7 1.6 3.55.8 6.1 4.2 9.0 3.1 .4.33.0 3.2 1.6 1.8 1.2 1.67.4 8.2 3.4 2.7 4.2 3.56.1 6.7 2.8 2.4 3.5 2.91.3 1.4 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.642.8 44.6 34.6 30.0 28.9 33.415.7 17.3 7.7 9.7 9.9 8.127.1 27.3 26.9 20.3 19.0 25.31.8 1.8 2.1 1.4 2.8 2.2INA INA INA INA INA INAINA INA INA INA INA INAINA INA INA . INA INA INAINA INA INA INA INA INA14.5 13.4 19.7 16.3 42.1 23.37.6 7.6 7.9 7.0 24.9 10.74.7 4.1 7.3 5.8 13.8 8.32.1 1.7 4.5 3.5 3.3 4.20,3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.31.2 0.9 2.3 0.9 2.1 2.212.5 11.2 18.9 9.2 10.0 16.96.2 5.9 7.9 5.0 5.1 7.30.3 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.35.9 5.0 10.6 4.0 4.6 9.21.6 0.9 5.5 2.1 1.1 4.60.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.3TABLE VIII: AVAILABILITY DATA(Computed from data for Chicago SMSA provided in 1975 Labor ForceInformation for Affirmative Action Programs)University of Chicago AvailabilityIdentifying Code Occupational Group (in percentages)TotalManagers & Officials Female Minority Black1 14.6 6.6 4.5Technical & Professional2A Engineers INA 5.4 1.72B Medical & Health 66.0 21.0 11.02C Teachers 70.4 13.5 11.92D Other ProfessionalsSales 27.9 11.0 7.43A Retail 60.2 10.4 7.73B OtherClerical 13.2 6.0 4.24A Sec/Steno/Typist 97.5 11.0 8.14B Other ClericalCraftsmen 65.2 20.0 16.15A Construction INA 10.6 7.45B Mechanics & Repairmen INA 17.1 11.75C Machinists INA 13.4 8.05D OtherOperatives INA 15.9 11.46A Non-Mfg. 29.9 31.1 24.06B Transp. Eqpt. 22.1 26.1 3.07 LaborersService 12.0 34.9 26.58A Cleaning & Food 44.2 29.1 22.68B Protective 8.2 17.0 15.48C Personal, Health, Other 68.8 34.4 30.5INA = Information not available.104TABLE IX: THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGOPROJECTIONS FOR 1978-1979, AND PROJECTIONS TO REACH ULTIMATE,CALCULATED AVAILABILITY(Full-time Employees — Nonfaculty)ProjectedAppointAvailability ments of UltimateApparently of Under Under ProjectionsUnder Projected utilized utilized for Underutilized Total Appoint Class Class utilizedJob Category Group Incumbents ments (%) 1978-1979 ClassbOfficers and Department Female 51 3 14.6 1 4Directors Minority 51 3 6.6 0a 2Black 51 3 4.5 0a 2Professional Librarians Black 58 3 7.4 oa 3Laboratory School TeachersMinority 143 5 13,4 1 7Black 143 5 11.8 1 7Research Specialists Black 374 70 1.9 1 7Publishing and Media Minority 122 12 10.7 2 3Professionals Black 122 12 7.2 1 2Other Technicians Female 31 1 .-¦¦ 27.5 oa 4Plant, Real Estate-Skilled Workers Female 215 12 4.1 1 9Plant, Real Estate-Semi- skilled workers Female 42 1 23.1 oa 10Machinists Black 48 1 8.7 oa 1Security Female 81 10 8.4 1 5aBased on the projected total number of appointments during the year in this job category, the projection comes to less than 0.5persons, hence there is no projected appointment of the underutilized class for this period.bUltimate projections are based on the assumptions that there will be no change in the number of persons in the job category, and nochanges in the availability of persons in the protected classes.TABLE X: PERCENTAGES OF HISPANICS BY E.E.0,-1 CATEGORIES—THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO AND CHICAGO SMSA, INCLUDINGPROJECTIONS— NONACADEMIC WORKFORCEUniversity Workforce 1975 Projected WorkforceChicago3/31/75 10/1/77 SMSA 10/1/79 UltimateNo %¦ No. % % No. % No. %Officials and Managers 1 0,2 4 0.7 1.3 8 1.4 8 1.4Professionals & Technicians(nonacademic) 24 0.9 33 1.2 1.9 58 2.1 58 2.1Sales Workers 0 0 1.8 1 3.0 1 3.0Office and Clerical 41 1.7 46 1.9 2.7 73 3.0 73 3.0Skilled Craftsmen & Semiskilled Operatives 7 1.9 7 2.1 6.9 14 4.0 23 6.9Laborers 1 5.0 0 0 7.6 0 0 1 7.0Service Workers 12 0.9 22 1.8 3.8 41 3.3 47 3.8TWO OF THE APPENDICESThe following appendices were included with theUniversity's Affirmative Action Program:A. Affirmative Action Reports 1969-77B. Affirmative Action Activities in 1977 and1978; Memoranda to University officials fromAffirmative Action Office, 1977-78; Notes ofPresident Wilson's meeting with Deans andDepartment Chairmen, November 1977C. Projections Report 1974-76D. Shils' ReportE. Equal Employment Opportunity/ AffirmativeAction Statistics on Applicants and StaffPlacements, 1977F. Explanation of E.E.O.-6 Column Headingsand Notations; Job Code List; E.E.O.-l Designations; Department Code ListG. You and The University of Chicago (Personnel Information Booklet); Summary of Personnel Policy; 'Tngleside Item"H. Samples of ads for faculty and nonfacultypositionsI. Comments on the Concept of AvailabilityJ. Affirmative Action and ChanceTwo of the appendices, I and J, are reprintedbelow.APPENDIX IComments on the Concept of AvailabilityThe University is aware of the elements of anaffirmative action compliance program which arerequired by the regulations. The regulations require that availability analyses must be done andthen compared with current staff so that, whereappropriate, goals are set indicating the directionof expected affirmative action.The description of a pertinent availability poolbegins with its identification described in a narrative. Following this identification of the pool, theregulations require that there be a numerical description of the sex and minority composition ofthe pool. Trying to mate such a numerical description is, in many cases, difficult and, in somecases, impossible.In its attempt to define and describe its facultyavailability pools, the University encounters a dilemma: what to do when more reliable availabilitynumbers cannot be determined. The regulations make availability pools the pivotal element of anyaffirmative action program. And in order for thescheme of analysis indicated in the regulations toproceed, availability must be described solely as apercentage of women or minorities in the poolchosen for the particular unit.Throughout the University there has beenmuch discussion about how to define pertinentavailability pools. That large-scale effort hashelped identify some of the complexities of theconcept of availability. The University would notbe responsible if it did not include a forthright andextensive discussion of availability when it is aconcept so central to the government's evaluationof an institution's affirmative action efforts.A. Setting the Boundaries1. In setting the boundaries for academicavailability pools it is logical to separate the poolsfor junior and senior faculty appointments. Thepeople to be considered for junior faculty positions are an almost entirely different set of peoplefrom those who would be considered for seniorfaculty positions.2. There are various definitions of what ismeant by an availability pool. Below is a list ofseveral of the different definitions, that are foundin various combinations in descriptions ofacademic units' pools.Outside defined:(a) "Earned degree" statistics prepared outsidethe University encompassing disciplines eithernationally or from selected schools.(b) Availability pool statistics gathered by professional organizations of particular disciplines.University defined:(c) Those people considered who were contacted through various forms of department-initiated searches (e.g., through advertising anda review of articles in selected journals, correspondence among universities, faculty involvement in refereeing of journal articles andresearch grant awards).(d) Those candidates whose written work andcurriculum vitae were seriously considered.(e) Those candidates who visited the campus togive a seminar and for interviews.(f) The set of the last "x" number of peoplewho have occupied positions in the department.It is clear that the choice of one or a combinationof these definitions of pools is a judgment appropriately influenced by the nature of the particular106discipline, the particular departmental situationand other academic considerations. It is also clearthat the choice of how to set the boundaries ofavailability pools must differ throughout the University.3. Just to determine that someone has theacademic merit to be seriously considered as acandidate does not determine whether one is"available." To be accurate about what is the trueavailability pool one must delimit the pool furtherby considering the "likelihood of a person accepting an appointment." This likelihood is influencedby the attractiveness of the hiring department andthe attractability of the candidate. To decide toaccept an offer a candidate considers many factors, among them the candidate's particular fieldof study within the discipline, the currentacademic concentrations of other faculty in thehome institution compared with those of the hiringinstitution, the mobility of the family, a spouse' swork, the relative attractiveness of living in therespective locations, salary differences in themove, and competing offers of third parties whichare often institutions other than universities.4. There is a fourth aspect which adds complexity to the determination of pools for some professional school faculty. Not all people who become professional school faculty were formerlyacademics; the occupations and types "of institutions they come from may be very numerousin some instances. To identify, let alone count,the availability pool for such people is practicallyimpossible. Also in some professional schoolsthere is not only no clear career pattern of facultycandidates, but also there is no well-defined pattern to their educational preparation— therefore,no customary credential which helps to delimit thefield of available candidates. For example, in theGraduate Library School one group of facultycandidates has been trained in library schools andanother group of candidates have done theirgraduate work in the various arts and sciencesdisciplines and other professional schools.5. There are several aspects related to selectionthat have generated confusion about the conceptof availability pools. First, it is, of course, truethat in any widely-defined availability pool not allmembers of that pool would be candidates whowould be seriously considered for a faculty appointment.Availability pools have been identified throughexperience which has shown that particular poolsare sources of high relative yields of candidates(men, women, minorities and nonminorities) qualified to be seriously considered for appointment. Affirmative action may require that the boundaries of the pool be expanded. Extending theboundaries does not mean that the added sourceswill have an equally high relative yield of goodcandidates. It is possible that experience with theenlarged pool may show that there is a larger relative yield in an area not previously identified forsearches. But even if it reveals a lower relativeyield of competitive candidates, there is a chancethat looking in the expanded pool may identifyadditional individual competitive applicants. Expanding the pool to make such a chance possibleis the point of affirmative action. But, as was saidat the beginning of this point, it is not correct toassume all candidates in a widely-defined pool arecompetitive candidates for faculty appointments,nor is it accurate to assume that all segments ofthe pool, whether they are new additions or longtime segments, will have a similar relative yield ofcompetitive candidates.A further confusion related to selection hasbeen the occasional criticism that after affirmativeaction efforts were intensified, a greater numberof women under consideration were eventually rejected. It is clear that if a larger number of candidates are considered for one position than thenumber considered for an earlier position, then, inthe second instance, more candidates are eventually going to be rejected than were rejected in theearlier instance.B. Problems with Using Nationally defined"Earned Degree" StatisticsSince "earned degree" data are currentlyalmost the only source of availability-type statistics which refer to almost all academic disciplines,there is temptation to rely on them to produce therequired availability percentages. If they are to beused at all, clearly they can be appropriate only asan estimate of availability for junior faculty. Evenso, the University's experience in determiningavailability has highlighted a series of inadequacies about the "earned degree" statistics.1. The most obvious one, of course, is that thecomposition of many departments is cross-disciplinary. Examples of these at the Universityare Behavioral Sciences and Social Service Administration. Other less obvious problems appearin departments whose disciplines have severaldiscrete fields. The faculty of these departmentsrepresent a variety of these fields within the discipline. The specialty combinations of the facultycannot be quantified so that the comparable combination of "earned degree" statistics can be determined. This situation exists in the Geophysical107Sciences, Romance Languages and Music, toname a few. For example, in Music, the fieldswithin the discipline include theory, composition,performance, musicology, music history.Chicago, for instance, does not have performanceas an academic concentration, whereas manyother departments of music do.2. Another complexity of using "earned degree" numbers to describe availability for juniorfaculty positions is that the levels of earned degrees and their composition by sex and minoritystatus shift, sometimes significantly, over a shorttime; averaging does not really bring added accuracy. There are many reasons for the shifts, butcertainly they include changes in the relativepopularity of disciplines, changes in the percentages of graduates who go into teaching, andchanges in the percentage of those who wish toteach at a research university. And, as all sorts ofcurrent literature indicate, in recent years thework patterns of women graduates are changing,which could make "earned degrees" as anestimate of available women graduates in somedisciplines very inaccurate.3. Another inadequacy of the "earned degree"data even as an estimate of junior facultyavailability is that the published figures refer onlyto graduates of U.S. universities. In mostacademic units of the University, graduates ofvarious foreign universities must be considered inthe pertinent availability pools.These factors qualify the temptation to use thecomprehensive and simple "earned degree"statistics. Their apparent concreteness and accuracy are illusory.C. Statistical PitfallsThis is not the place to attempt rigorous defenseor criticism of statistical methods and assumptions implied by the requirements of the regulations. But it is appropriate that a few statistical problem areas be mentioned briefly.1. There has appeared occasionally in narratives of the Office for Civil Rights, including theone most recently transmitted to The Universityof Chicago, the statement that if a unit has zerowomen or minorities, then it is likely there isunderutilization because the availability ofwomen or minorities is not zero. The differencesamong such small numbers as zero and one maywell have no significance from either a substantive or a statistical point of view. For instance,say the availability of women in some pertinentpool is deemed to be 3 percent and the unit is deter mined to be "underutilized.' ' Then if it is projectedthat there is to be a total of one appointment in thatunit in the next three years, that is a situationwhere a projection of zero women is appropriateeven though the availability of women is not zero.2. Another statistical point relates to inherentvariability among academic units of a universitythat, like The University of Chicago, makes appointments solely on the basis of merit. Inevitablechance occurrences — for example, offers not accepted, resignations, allocations of jointly appointed faculty into one of their two units, etc. —will lead to occurrences of so-called "underutilization" in some units and "above utilization"in others. There is no way to maintain uniformityif merit alone is considered. Hence any study ofutilization should inspect cases of apparent"above utilization" as well as those of "underutilization." In particular, "above utilization" ofone group in one academic unit is not, by itself, anindication of lack of affirmative action. Forfurther development of this important issue, seeAppendix J.3. The last statistical point refers to the situation that may exist when one considers all universities in some particular discipline. It may bethat the appropriate pool for a senior faculty position in a particular department is made up of somenumber, "x," which is, say, the number of facultyin all such departments. If some schools are determined to be "underutilized" in that departmentand rank and others are somewhat "aboveutilized," it seems likely that when an "underutilized" department hires a woman from anotheruniversity, the hiring school may make the otherschool "underutilized" because of the departureof that woman. The number of women orminorities in the pool may be such that all universities could never be fully "utilized" or, atleast, not until later when more people from thejunior faculty pool become qualified to be movedto consideration in the senior faculty pool.4. This last point should be stated a little differently with respect to junior faculty, entry levelpositions. Given that The University of Chicagoand its "peer" institutions recruit from the top 1-2percent of recent Ph.D recipients, there will likelybe more than one academic unit for which it wouldbe true that there were not enough women orminorities in that group of graduates to go aroundto The University of Chicago and its pertinent"peer" institutions to enable each of thoseschools to remedy "underutilization" in appointments made within the next three years.108APPENDIX JAffirmative Action and ChanceThe role of chance must be understood in anyimplementation of the idea of affirmative action.The following simple example shows what is entailed.Suppose that each of ten departments plans tohire ten new employees in the next five years.Each draws from a labor pool for which minorityrepresentation — "availability" — is 10 percent;thus the goal for each is one minority employee inthe ten hires. Each department plays the game4 'fair and square. ' ' By this we mean that the probability of a minority on each hire is 0.10 and thatstatistical independence obtains from hire to hire.How will the departments fare with respect totheir goals? The following outcomes are the resultof a probabilistic simulation that embodies theabove assumptions:2,0, 1, 2, 2, 3,0, 1, 1,0In total, twelve of the 100 hires in the ten departments are minority, which exceeds the combined goal of ten by two, or 20 percent. In individual departments, however, there is considerable chance divergence:Percent Percentirtmer it Goal Attained . DiffereA 10%. 20% + 1(*B 10 0 -10C 10 10 0D 10 20 + 10E 10 20 + 10F 10 30 +20G 10 0 -10H 10 10 0I 10 10 0J 10 0 -1010% 12% + 2<Departments C, H and I have fallen short oftheir goals and hence would be singled out asproblem departments. Yet all departments were"fair and square' ' in their hiring. It is chance thatwill almost certainly create shortfalls even whencompliance with affirmative action is, as assumedhere, complete. (The expected number of departments with shortfalls is actually 3.5.)What is the proper allowance for chance? There are two questions: (1) How does the combinedperformance of the ten departments compare withthe combined goal? (2) How does the number ofdepartments with shortfalls compare with thenumber expected by chance?In this example, the two questions are easilyanswered. Clearly there is conformity with theaim of affirmative action.In actual applications the picture will be morecomplex in various ways, and the answers to thetwo above questions will require careful, typicallynonroutine, statistical analysis. In some cases nostatistical analysis may be possible.Questions of statistical significance of differences will arise and will require delicate handling. Mechanical applications of textbook procedures will often be inappropriate because, for onething, the assumptions of statistical independenceand constant probabilities will frequently be unrealistic. In some cases the whole idea of a probability structure may well be questioned.Another complication is difficulty in applicationof the pool concept, especially for University faculty, together with great difficulties in estimatingthe demographic composition of pools.The principle illustrated, however, remainsvalid. Accidental happenings will affect someunits one way and some another when hirings aremade completely without reference to sex andminority status. The same principle applies tolooking at a unit in any one year rather than overan extended time period. A unit may be apparently under-utilizing one year and above utilizingin another. To look only at years of underutilization is to present a false picture. It is as if thejudges at a shooting contest were only permittedto observe shots below the bull's-eye.A variation on the above example will bring outone additional idea, the problem that can arisewhen expected numbers are not integers. Again,the availability is 10 percent, but now each department plans to hire only two new employees.Hence the expected number of minority hires is 2x 0. 10 = 0.2 per department. The following outcomes are derived from a simulation based onthese assumptions:0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0In total, one of the twenty hires is minority,which falls short of the combined goal of 10 x 0.2= 2. The shortfall of one minority hire, however,is statistically insignificant by any of the criteria ofsignificance commonly used.By individual departments the picture is as follows:109)epartment t Goal Attained DifferenceA 10% 0% -10%B 10 0 -10C 10 0 -10D 10 0 -10E 10 0 -10F 10 0 -10G 10 5 +40H 10 0 -10I 10 0 -10J 10 0 -10Total 10% 5% - 5%Hence, nine of ten departments have fallenshort of the percentage goal, again by chance.Department G has exceeded the percentage goalby 40 percentage points. Clearly, it would be unwise to infer that nine departments presentedproblems of conformity to affirmative action.If Departments B and J, for example, had hired one minority, overall performance would havebeen above the goal, just as in the first example.Yet seven of ten departments would have fallenshort and been singled out as problems.Note further that if all fractional expectationshad been rounded up from 0.2 to 1, the combinedgoal would have been 10, or 50 percent, which"substantially exceeds the assumed availability of10 percent.Unless the issues treated in this note are properly treated, there is no hope of arriving at a reasoned notion of compliance with affirmative action. Further, if overages cannot be offset in anyway against shortfalls, the idea of affirmative action comes up against a logical contradiction. Forthere is only 10 percent availability in the pool inquestion. If all units (in this organization andothers) are required to have at least 10 percentminority hires, then to the extent that some unitshire more than their goal by chance, there simplywill not be enough minorities to go around.110THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO RECORDVICE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRSRoom 200, Administration BuildingHDCw3os8§o z"3 1 — om S ¦ c 33D O TJig -oS g,^p >S O? - — w (3-j. O m s*-*§ 1