nations as to who shall file. The Commission will, of course, be pleased to cooperate with you in correcting any situation that represents a disclosure that is truly unnecessary. I must respectfully disagree with the statement that the Commission and the agencies are failing in their assignment to operate a merit system for our Federal civil service. I feel that both the minority group status questionnaires and the disclosure requirements under the ethical conduct program are reasonable and legitimate forward steps in improving operations within the civil service in the executive branch. I agree that these, like other new programs, must be reviewed to assure that they are operating as intended. In behalf of the President I assure you that full consideration will be given to any specific cases which you may refer to me in connection with the matters discussed. Sincerely yours, JOHN W. MACY, Jr., Chairman. Section 1(a) To require, or request, or to attempt to require or request, any employee of the United States serving in the department or agency or any person seeking employment in the executive branch of the United States Government, to disclose his race, religion, or national origin, or the race, religion, or national origin of any of his forebears. To Employee MINORITY GROUP STATUS QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Please read the statement on the other side of this card if you have not already done so. 2. Draw a circle around the one block which best describes your race or national origin. 3. Then Punch out that block with a pencil point. American Indian Negro Spanish American None of these (Punch this block if you are other than listed above) 4. After you have checked your answer, return this card according to the instructions given by your supervisor. To: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (employee name). The Federal Government and this Department want to be sure that every individual whatever his race or national origin gets fair and equal treatment. Το do this, we need to know how many minority group employees there are, what kinds of jobs they hold, what grade level their jobs are, and other things that will show whether or not there is discrimination. Minority group records are being set up for this purpose. ALL employees are asked to help by checking the block on the other side of this card which describes your race or national origin. Your answer will be kept confidential. CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THE MINORITY GROUP STATUS QUESTIONNAIRE Hon. JOHN W. MACY, Jr., Chairman, Civil Service Commission, MAY 3, 1966. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In connection with the study of the rights of Federal employees, the Subcommittee has received inquiries about the implications of a "Minority Group Status Questionnaire" currently being circulated to government employees. On it are listed five categories: "American Indians", "Negro," "Oriental", "Spanish American", and "none of these." The employee is directed to "check the one block which best describes your race or national origin". The questionnaire form indicates that it is submitted in the interest of setting up minority group records to show whether or not there is discrimination. The Subcommitee, however, would appreciate clarification of the significance of this questionnaire. Is the employee required to answer it? Is there any reprisal for failure to do so? If not, are individual employees made aware of the voluntary nature of the questionnaire? Complaints received by the Subcommittee indicate that there may be serious questions of invasion of privacy involved here. 371 mastatury that mojejus for the pasticcoume Exmplates the KANAVAR that the data may be entered on CERID WAR, KAMA) KAR, with inter veranda Senders are ad inBAK NA NAMau yrihut te kentity of the individual emplogue. Bordspy of our FPM Letter No. 29-5 of Mart £ 198 The gate JAURA MANGANE W Yederal agencies as to how the minority grap statisties siss Herefore, which statistics were gathered annually by a "he KAPON?! made by supervisors. We feel that the use of automatie data pressof denghent by wyencies that have this capability will produce more vald se V of Al has the further advantages of: (1) insuring confidentiality. (%) permitting the employee, rather than his supervisor, to designate his race of national origin; and (2) providing the means for a more penetrating occupati za wowiges of minority group employment. The way and sentence on page 4 of the inclosed FPM Letter 296-5 instructs #yowiem w follows: "However, no employee will be required to provide information about his mnority group status and no disciplinary action will be taken against an employer who does not furnish the information." Again in the proposed instructions to supervisors (Exhibit C of FPM Letter 2494 55), there appears a similar statement in the third sentence of the second *m*mgraph An employee will be required to complete the questionnaire against his wishes and no disciplinary netion will be threatened or taken for his failure to do so.” It was our feeling that these quoted statements should get the point across that This is an entirely voluntary effort. However, we do need a sizeable responfrom employees in order to have really useful data. I appreciate the concern about invasion of privacy. The automated system is eet up in such a way as to protect the identity of the individual. At the sa time, then employees who object to filling out the questionnaire on any ground do not have to fill it out. The authority group categories shown on the questionnaire represent the gro whoan members have filed complaints of discrimination in significant numbers We are afrlyle for a time when there will be no valid basis for such complaints and no need to maintain statistics on the employment of minority group members The purpose of the minority group statistics system is to provide some s best data to ten of the inexact data we have had so far, to help determine tha anvas of Bderal employment in which there may be denial to minority group imbers of an equal opportunity for employment. There is no intent to comper to the put iple of open competition for civil service jobs in any way or to esta> Tha pot stem for any group. We are firmly committed to combat dis valnination Awath ta mafority group as well as against minority groups. If you wish additional information about the statistics system, please let ** MAY 24, 1966. DEAR MR. MACY: Thank you for your letter of May 17 describing the purpose of the Minority Group Status Questionnaire which is being circulated to all Federal employees. Despite the assurances expressed in your letter, several aspects of this questionnaire continue to disturb me. The Subcommittee was pleased to learn that the Commission has no intent to compromise the principle of open competition for civil service jobs or to establish a quota system for any group. Unfortunately, however, regardless of intent, I fear that this ultimately may be the unavoidable result of such a process as you are inaugurating. I sincerely doubt the wisdom of any such attempt to categorize millions of Federal workers and their families by race or ancestry. It would seem that extreme care must be exercised at all levels to insure that the new system does not serve to increase the very problems which you seek to alleviate. I am not at all sure that we have in government people who are sufficiently equipped to deal with all of the problems which can arise under such procedures, nor that it is possible to train them adequately for the job. The many letters and telegrams received by the Subcommittee from individuals and organizations indicate a widespread concern throughout the country over the government invasion of personal privacy represented by this questionnaire. In balancing the interests, I think you may find on reconsideration that the value of privacy being affected here is far more important to our society and to the principle of the dignity of the individual which we have always sought to promote than are the time and effort saved by the use of such a personnel short-cut. the census. You state in your letter that the replies are voluntary; however, I invite your attention to the various provisions in your regulations for obtaining compliance and for follow-up checks by supervisors to insure full participation in In one instance reported to the Subcommittee, field employees of an agency were told the questionnaire was voluntary, yet a list of names of those who elected not to complete it was sent to the regional office. To my mind, the "voluntary" nature of this management tool raises issues similar to the use of polygraphs and psychological tests by government. When a man wants a job, when a supervisor knows the success of his performance may be noted, it might be said that there is implicit in such procedures a form of economic coercion to the employee's consent to such an invasion of his privacy. For these reasons, I was particularly alarmed to discover that these questions are being asked not only of present employees, of which there are about two and a half million, but that they will be asked of all future applicants, which will mean countless thousands in the years ahead. It would appear, furthermore, that the policy which is being initiated with this questionnaire contradicts the Commission's letter of May 11, 1959 (C2-19) which prohibits any inquiry concerning the race or religious beliefs of employees or applicants. The Subcommittee would like to know therefore, whether or not that regulation has been rescinded and, if not, how it can be reconciled with your regulations of March 4 authorizing the questionnaire. The major points I wish to stress are these: the purpose of the questionnaire and the motives behind this new policy are, I am sure, commendable and worthy. The Federal government should not discriminate because of race or color or ancestry. I do, however, question the reasonableness of the methods chosen to try to attain the goals. The goal of equality of opportunity for some citizens does not and should not encompass the denial of personal privacy to millions. This is especially true when there is no proof that the information solicited will be of any relevant or overriding value to the nation or to the operation of government, or that it will be instrumental in achieving the goals of public policy as expressed by Congress. In the light of these comments, I hope that the Commission will reconsider the advisability of using the Minority Group Status Questionnaire. I would be interested in receiving your views on these matters. With all kind wishes, I am, Sincerely yours, SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., Chairman. U.S. CIVII. SERVICE COMMISSION, Hon. SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., Chairman, Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am glad to furnish our views on the further questions raised in your letter of May 24 concerning the minority group statistics system prescribed for Federal departments and agencies. The principal questions relate to the reasonableness or propriety of obtaining statistical data on the employment of members of minority groups in the Federal work force, which involves the matter of personal privacy, and whether such data will be relevant and instrumental in achieving the goals of equal employment op portunity pursuant to public policy as expressed by the Congress. It is our experience that data on current minority employment is essential information for agency management in fulfilling its responsibility to ensure equal employment opportunity in the Federal service. It has proved extremely useful in appraising employment practices ever since the first statistical survey was directed by President Kennedy in Executive Order 10925, dated March 6, 1961. The Congress recognized the propriety and necessity for such data by directing private employers, in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, to make and keep such records relevant to the determination of whether unlawful employment practices have been or are being committed, and to make such reports therefrom, as are prescribed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The same Title provided that it shall be the policy of the United States to insure equal employment opportunities for Federal employees and that the President should utilize his existing authority to effectuate this policy. The minority data requirements established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for reporting by covered employers were established after extensive consultation with representatives of the employers and other interested parties and the public hearing prescribed by the Act. They call for data reports showing the total number of employees and the number of American Indian, Negro, Oriental, and Spanish American employees, by specified occupational categories, Employers are authorized to obtain the necessary information either by visual surveys of the work force or, at their option, by the maintenance of postemployment records as to the racial or ethnic identity of employees. In the latte: case, however, the EEO Commission recommended that any such records maintained be kept separate from the employee's records available to those responsible for personnel decisions. The same rules were established for Government contractors covered under Executive Order 11246 and for employers participating in the Plans for Progress program. The minority group statistics system established by the Civil Service Commission for Federal employees, under Executive Order 11246, covers the same minority groups and follows the same pattern of maintaining data as described above. Being mindful of the desirability of preserving personal privacy to the maximum extent possible, our regulations specify-where data is being gathered by employee questionnaire the conditions of employee option, privacy in completing the questionnaire, and confidentiality in collecting and maintaining the data outside the normal personnel process, as reported in my May 17 letter. A point which my letter apparently did not make clear is that the minority statistics system does not apply to applicants but only to employees in the Government. We are concerned, of course, to see that these safeguards are carefully preserved in the operation of the system. If any of the complaints received by the Subcommittee allege a violation of the safeguards, which are mandatory, we would appreciate very much your sharing them with us so that we can make a prompt investigation. The follow-up provisions in the system are for the purpose of insuring that employees have not been overlooked in the distribution of questionnaires or merely neglected to return them, and to correct questionnaires that are incomplete or illegible. This procedure is normal in statistical surveys and is not intended to compromise the voluntary character of surveys. If an employee returns the questionnaire telling his supervisor that he does not wish to complete it, there should be no follow-up to the employee. Even if another questionnaire should be sent to this employee, he need only return it again uncompleted to his supervisor. The Commission's letter of May 11, 1959, prohibiting inquiries into the race or religious beliefs of employees provided that such inquiries were permissable when required for employment surveys. The general prohibition on inquiries into race |