This, in turn, means a return to the proper, Lincolnian traditions of constitutional democracy where rights are a barrier against the omnipotent state and not a subterfuge for the omnipresent state. May I digress just for a moment from the text to again refer to the statements that are often made-I heard them again todayabout the proverbial white males. I mentioned to you that I am a newcomer to these shores from a faraway state in the Balkans. I also remember that at a time the Balkans were suffering under a foreign oppressor when navies guided by people under Spanish surnames were ruling the world. Mr. Chairman, you mentioned the Armenians before who were subjected to many atrocities which should be well-known to every one. All of them can be classified as white males. How come then that I have, in a certain sense, to come to this chamber and be pointed at with a finger as if the myths that are being promulgated about males and whites being always privileged and that others were not are true? I would feel very comforted if at some point some of these thoughts would permeate some of the debates that are later published in the Federal Register or the Congressional Record. I also want to note that some of the most famous court cases of these days, the Bakke, the Weber, and the jailing of Dinnan, are not named by people whom some claim are the victims today. I would rather say that it is people who are the victims of these thoughtlessly expanded regulations are those who have to resort to the courts and try to get some justice. Coming back to the possible remedies, they do not necessarily require a constitutional amendment. For example, one has only to do away with the revised order No. 4, and the executive order of the President could stand with slight modification. Does this mean doing away with affirmative action entirely? Of course not. The original 1965 requirements, while philosophically debatable, are quite reasonable and can be readily implemented; for example, the requirements to cast the net as broadly as possible when looking for candidates. As far as the universities are concerned, UCRA has on numerous occasions offered suggestions which might be useful on formulating an approach that places the best of the present cogerie of programs into the context of a genuine nondiscrimination plan. These proposals are outlined in considerable detail in my testimony. Let me just conclude. It is very unfortunate that to a large extent the present difficulties may have originated from a spirit of implacable mistrust which expresses itself in the belief that no group of expert academics can be trusted to be fair to women and minorities. In truth, however, this objection is without merit. The very fact that Federal guidelines speak of remedying underutilization and not of correcting discrimination indicates that the problem all along has been one of inadequate supply. The absence of substantial pools of unemployed academic women and minorities in the past, in contrast to significant numbers of un- or under-employed white male Ph. D.'s, substantiates this. Even where it can be presumed that there was a department or a dean who discriminated or would like to on the basis of, but not limited to, race, sex, religion, or national origin, it is wholly unrealistic to think that among the range and scope of American academics, none can be found who will be fair to a complainant. The thoroughgoing suspicion that refuses to cooperate with those who are to be regulated and which seeks to treat them as guilty in principle cannot possibly lead to nondiscrimination in an area in which so much depends on consideration of professional merit as judged by peers. It is absolutely necessary for the future that regulations be replaced by a spirit of mutual respect, trust, and cooperation. I would like to close with a peculiarly striking bit of logic that Prof. Sidney Hook offered to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance during hearings on the revised order No. 4 some years ago: If universities are urged to select the most qualified candidates, regardless of race, sex, or ethnic origin, how in heaven's name can they strive to achieve numerical goals? The most qualified person is always an individual person. How can one guarantee any particular numerical distribution? Suppose we were to proclaim, as we should, that in tryouts for any position on any team we shall select the most qualified person regardless of race, sex, or ethnic origin? And suppose we did so? Would that lead to any proportional representation whether racial, sexual, or ethnic? Obviously not. The implication is clear that whoever defends quotas or numerical goals of any variety cannot sincerely or consistently believe that universities should "select the most qualified candidates, regardless of race, sex, or ethnic origins." My friends and colleagues in UCRA and I sincerely hope that the Congress will muster the necessary wisdom and resolve to remove the noneducational impediments from our educational process and thus permit us to resume with all our faculties our scholarly work. As citizens, of course we are dutybound to obey all laws of the land, and the devotion of our profession to equality and equal opportunity has been amply demonstrated. We are convinced, however, that there need not be any conflict between good citizenship and superior scholarship. I trust that the senators share this view. Thank you very much for your attention. [The prepared statement of Mr. Todorovick and additional material follow:] UNIVERSITY CENTERS FOR RATIONAL ALTERNATIVES, INC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS. Abba Lerner, Florida State U (President) Paul Seabury, Berkeley (Vice-President) Sidney Hook, Hoover Inst. (Chairman, Publications Board) M.M. Todorovich, CUNY. BCC (Executive Secretary) Howard Adelson, CUNY - CCNY Isadore Blumen, Cornell John Bunzel, Hoover Inst. Gray L Dorsey, Washington U Oscar Handlin, Harvard Gertrude Himmelfarb, CUNY - Grad, Center Jack Hirshieifer, UCLA Morton Kaplan, U of Chicago FACULTY SPONSORS AND MEMBERS (Partial Listing") Reuben Abel, New School Samuel Abrahamsen, Brooklyn Coll Emile Benoit, Columbia Morroe Berger, Princeton Gustav Bergmann, U of towa Abram Bergson, Harvard Aldo S. Bernardo, SUNY Binghamton 570 Seventh Avenue New York, N.Y. 10018 (212) 391-2396 PREPARED STATEMENT OF PROF. MIRO TODOROVICH Ladies and Gentlemen, I would like to thank Senator Hatch for inviting me to speak to you about Affirmative Action this morning. To begin with, I have to explain why I, Miro Todorovich, an immigrant from Yugoslavia and a Physics Professor at City University of New York should be testifying before a Senate Subcommittee considering a reevaluation all. During the political and social turmoil Walter Berns, American Enterprise Inst. in my native country the prospect of unlimited Alvin Bernstein, Cornell Martin Bernstein, NYU Bruno Bettelheim, U of Chicago Ruth Bevan, Yeshiva Joseph Bishop Jr., Yale Paul Bixler, Antioch Virginia Black, SUNY- Purchase Brand Blanshard, Yale Daniel J. Boorstin, Lib. of Congress Walter Cerf, CUNY Herschel B. Chipp, Berkeley opportunity in the United States served as a beacon for my own hopes and aspirations. I followed that beacon and am a living testimony to the fact that the United States is not a closed society, but does extend opportunities to all who are willing to reach for them. I will be forever grateful for a chance to raise my family and pursue my career in political and social freedom. There are numerous reasons why I should be for a government "Affirmative Action" in order to make sure that no minorities, physics in the City University of New York, revolve around the process of seeking out and helping students of all ages, races, nationalities and creeds to understand the scientific explanations of the universe. Second, the future of my two college age children, a girl and a boy, depend on their right to the educational opportunities they can earn with their dedication and hard work. I want to be very sure that no door will close on them because of their ancestry, and that they will be treated no differently from any other candidates for whatever they aim for. Third, any acceptable theory of education will have at its roots the idea of reaching out to inspire all developing individuals. As education is practiced today at our colleges and universities, affirmative action is part of every professor's daily routine. Why then am I before this committee testifying against current Affirmative Action policies, when I have such powerful reasons as a recent immigrant, as a father of two children and as a college professor to support Affirmative Action? then am I here? My reason is that Affirmative Action as currently practiced violates all the ethical presuppositions that inspired its initial promulgation. It substitutes for the Why invidious discrimination of the past new forms of discrimination in the present. Instead of recognizing that merit should college students to wear body suits with only a slit open at city. I hope that this strong language brings the point across. I would like to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I have put more than a decade of unremitting thought and effort into this issue, in active consultation with some of the nation's finest and fairest academic minds. This condemnation of the current policies promulgated in the name of Affirmative Action is based on a reaffirmation, not repudiation of the principle of equal treatment under just law. Thus I speak for a much broader consensus as Executive Secretary, of University Centers for Rational Alternatives, an organization of university professors active in educational policy since the late sixties. To my personal reasons for being here I now have to add an explanation of the organization I represent at these hearings. UCRA was formed in a climate of intense pressure to combat campus violence and disruption and to provide faculty members concerned with maintaining academic order in universities with a rallying point and organizational structure. Under the leadership of Sidney Hook, Paul Seabury, Abba Lerner and others, and with the support of then professors Hayakawa, Moynihan, Brzezinski, Ackley, Friedman, Bettleheim and many others, UCRA managed to unite a considerable number of distinguished scholars and teachers behind the principle that academic values, particularly the freedom to learn and the freedom to teach, should have primacy over radical politics. UCRA can proudly claim partial credit for the categorical rejection by responsible faculty of attempts to close universities or to transform them into beachheads for extremist thought. After the violence subsided, UCRA put to good use the brainpower it had organized: it sponsored a series of conferences to reexamine the basic assumptions of the academy. Yet while we were defending the viability of the academy after the firestorm of student activism in the volatile political climate of the early seventies, a new and unexpected threat |