a in a particular area, an avenue for ble development would be a sysstic disclosure procedure that would ify the private interests and activiof the official covered, but without amounts. Such limited disclosure d go a long way to meet the prob -political and substantive and still 1 the invidious and deterrent conse ces that could ensue if, for example, idates for Congress were required to "sh the sources and amounts of their Des. etter than to force divestment of onal assets, the way should be open an official to disqualify himself from ng for the government in matters re he finds himself in a position of "s-interest. To make this approach cfive, it must also be made clear that sions in fact made by other persons not be "imputed to the official > disqualified himself. Finally, and perhaps most important, need constant reminding tua cuSE mething to get someting The puoi had no idea that each extensor of aflict of interes: restriction id for by exacerbating the prodien drawing skill and leadership into govern ment service, and that, as our society is evolving, the situation is growing worse Men are often evil or weak, or both. And purity in politics is a splendid ideal. But any one ideal pursued singlemindedly will eventually collide with another equally valid. The art of ethics (and politics) lies in the continual search for balance points that are for a time within a range of operable tolerances, as seen from the perspectives of diverse ideals that, in the circumstances, clash. In the matter at hand, the need for public con fidence in the ethical quality of govern ment must be weighed against a good many considerations that argue for caution in imposing more restraints on of ficials in the name of morality. It is very difficult for men in American political ife to approach the conflict of interest proviem in this vein, to speak to their puoires in other than moral absolutes. but the public deserves to be informed, aut we may hope that there will be men #tig oliex wuo will have the insight, sung and political securry to resist nimitet nord escalation and de perty polach. SELECTED ARTICLES AND EDITORIALS PERTAINING TO S. 3779, PRIVACY AND EMPLOYEE RIGHTS [From the Waynesville (N.C.) Mountaineer] SENATOR SAM ERVIN IN DEFENSE OF PRIVACY One way to evaluate the fairness of some of the Federal Government's test programs for incumbent and prospective employes is to ask whether one would object to taking such tests. One would, most emphatically. Certainly would Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat of North Carolina, chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, which indicated that in numerous instances privacy has been unduly invaded. In a report just published the subcommittee cited cases of psychiatric and psychological test, including one that directed a woman to answer 570 personal questions "quickly and without any thinking or deliberation." In the tests, the report stated, the questions ran largely to the subject's family. sex life, religion, and personnal habits, inquiring the number of times a week she prayed, whether sex entered her dreams, her belief or disbelief in the hereafter, and whether some thoughts entering her mind were "too bad to talk about." Other questions concerned whether the subject was "troubled," and if the trouble was "whether I'm really in love . . . being too inhibited in sex matters ...," confused in religious belief, or differing with the family on religious matters. In turn, Senator Ervin asked the State Department for a report on the type of information gained from these tests to "justify such an invasion of privacy." The testing was necessary, he was told, to provide suitable help to the individual and to protect the interest of the Government. In professing to help the individual, the mind-probers would ask him to shed his individuality in superficial questions touching the most profound beliefs. Much of life is an endless search for answers. A person's own findings might vary sharply from year to year, or even hour to hour, and yet the Government agency would impale him instantly and forever on a true-false question. One answer that ought to fit all categories, it seems to us, is: None of your business.-The Norfolk Virginian-Pilot. [From the Charlotte News] INVASION OF PRIVACY Every so often North Carolina's Senator Sam Ervin confounds his liberal detractors by taking a position so shot through with solid sense as to be virtually unassailable by even the most devout of his critics; and dismay must be rife among those who so regularly divine Dark Reactionary Motives in whatever the senator happens to be saying at the moment, because he has seized himself a position lately with which it's pretty hard to disagree. It all started when someone deep in the nether reaches of the federal bureaucracy decided that the best way to make the government's employment machinery blind with regard to race was to require each federal employe to fill out a questionnaire detailing his race and ancestry. Senator Ervin observed that while the desired end was commendable, the curious logic by which it was being pursued was leading the government off on an unjust sally into the privacy of its employes. In the ensuing weeks, Senator Sam has spoken out against some other questionable government employment practices. He has criticized the government's prying into employes' personal lives and sex habits, forcing them to disclose financial holdings and debts, ordering them to buy U.S. savings bonds and attempting to dictate the use of off-duty hours. In fairness to those who conceived all these devices, it must be said that the end, in each case, is desirable. The government has to make an effort to see that it employs without regard to race, and that those it eventually hires are of sound mind and character. But it must also be said that this is another case in which the balance between ends and means is critical. There can be no excusing blatant invasion of the privacy and personal prerogatives of the many on the grounds that it is necessary to root out the undesirable few. The government is quite clearly going too far, and Senator Ervin has introduced a bill to take legislative cognizance of that fact. It deserves serious consideration and, at least in its essence, eventual passage into law. [From the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times, August 1966] BURY THE SKELETON "It is sad," just as Sen. Sam Ervin said, that legislation should be considered to keep the constitutional rights of U.S. government employes from being trampled asunder by their employer. But, as Sen. Ervin added, "Such legislation is necessary." And the senator is right. Witness the recent, clandestine search of the home of a Central Intelligence Agency employe by a couple of CIA sleuths who feigned interest in buying the house. Examine, if you will, the way lie detector tests are being used to pry into such personal realms as religious beliefs and sexual habits; and the many ways government employes are being pressured and indoctrinated in the management of their off-duty time. Witness, especially, the apparent increase in these tyrannies in recent years. To right these wrongs, Sen. Ervin, a Democrat from North Carolina, has introduced a "civil servants' 'Bill of Rights'." In introducing this bill, Ervin isn't acting as an alarmist. That's not Ervin's way. He and his subcommittee on constitutional rights enjoy one of the finest records of responsibility to be found on Capitol Hill. The tyrannies he sees invading the privacy and molesting the dignity of our government's employes are all too real. Sen. Ervin has performed a service to federal employes and all Americans by finally dragging this skeleton from the closet. Now Congress should bury the skeleton by adopting the legislative solution he's proposed. [From the Asheville Times, July 22, 1966] INVADING BASIC RIGHTS: A STEP FORWARD, TWO BACK The government's propensity for going overboard on matters relating to the rights and privacy of those on the federal payroll was pointed up in the Senate this week by North Carolina's Sen. Sam Ervin. One of the senator's principal targets is a racial classification card which all federal workers have had to fill out. It is a simple and silly-card which asks the employe to check whether he is an American Indian, Negro, Oriental, Spanish American or None of These. Its purpose purportedly is to provide statistics that will assure that every individual gets fair and equal treatment. There is no argument with the goal but there is doubt that this is a proper tactic to achieve it. Many employes have complained that the card is an invasion of their privacy. "Why should an employe who considers himself an American," Sen. Ervin asked, "be asked to sit down with a questionnaire and check what his race or ancestry might be? Whose business is it?" Besides the question of privacy, there is the question whether the card puts new emphasis on racial consciousness in federal employment, and another question whether it will contribute to reverse discrimination, that is, discrimination against the "None of These" who don't fall into any of the minority groups. Listing of federal employes by race was eliminated in 1959, and as a result the equal employment opportunities campaign which has been going on since 1961 has been based on head counts by supervisors of those on their payrolls. Employment of Negroes has risen sharply under this system but now a Civil Service Commission spokesman says more accurate figures are needed to hit the soft spots. In actual practice Negroes in many instances have been hired far out of proportion to their numbers. In one city where this is the case, agency supervisors asked Negro leaders if they were satisfied with the local results of the equal opportunity effort. "No," they said, "you have opened your doors to us because Washington made you, but you haven't opened your hearts to us." Apparently this type of dissatisfaction which seems to linger in spite of all that is done is one reason for the new effort to do even more. Government leaders are increasingly sensitive to Negro demands, and there is an unwritten policy that department heads must lean over backwards in their favor when hiring new employes. The other minority groups are much smaller in number but presumably they get the same treatment. All those others whom the government chooses to classify as "None of These" have reason to wonder whether this means "None of These" can expect equal treatment when it comes to getting a job or a promotion. Many of them feel that not only has their privacy been invaded, but it has been invaded to their distinct disadvantage. Some Negroes, too, are fearful the information will be used to deny them fair treatment. There have been improvements in protecting the rights of federal employes. Sen. Ervin said, but he added, "in the interest of achieving greater national goals, we see increasing reliance on methods, instruments, and devices which tend to invade basic rights which an employe should enjoy simply because he resides in a democracy under the type of Constitution which America has always boasted. Currently, for every step forward, the federal government seems to be taking two steps back." [From the Evening Star, Washington, D.C.] THE FEDERAL SPOTLIGHT: RACE QUESTIONNAIRES RESENTED BY NEGRO AND WHITE EMPLOYES (By Joseph Young, Evening Star staff writer) Negro as well as white government employes are voicing increased concern and resentment over the Johnson administration's use of race questionnaires in the federal service. The postal service, which employs the largest number of Negroes in the government, as well as other federal agencies are receiving increasing complaints from Negro employes over the use of the questionnaires. Employes are asked to list their race and national origin. White employes previously registered their protests, many of them listing themselves as "American Indians" to show their disapproval of the program. Negro employes are now complaining also, many of them on the basis that such information could be used by supervisors and management people to discriminate against them in promotions. Ironically, the administration says the race questionnaire is, in the words of Civil Service Commission Chairman John Macy, "essential for agency management in fulfilling its responsibility to insure equal employment opportunity in the federal service." White employes are suspicious that the purpose is to set up a quota system for promotions that would assure Negroes a specific percentage of promotions whether they qualified for them or not. Negro employes are suspicious that such data on race and ethnic groups would fall in the hands of the wrong people who would use such data to deny them promotions. Macy says the entire data will be used for statistical purposes only. Sen. Sam Ervin, D-N.C., chairman of the Senate Constitutional Rights subcommittee, whose group is investigating the situation, has grave doubts about the program. Ervin feels the questionnaires "invade the privacy" of individual government employes and that there are no safeguards against the information's being used against individual employes if supervisors want to discriminate. One thing is certain. Nobody is happy about the program. [From the Greensboro Daily News, July 23, 1966] "A CLIMATE OF FEAR" Since Sen. Joe McCarthy's morale-busting raids on the State Department, the U.S. Information Agency, the Bureau of Standards and even the U.S. Army in the 1950s complaints in that quarter have been reasonably rare. But the quiet may be deceptive a quiet in which the privacy and morale of public employes are being dangerously eroded. According to Sen. Sam Ervin, Jr., whose Senate constitutional rights subcommittee will soon be looking into the matter, "a climate of fear, apprehension and coercion" is evident. The senator, in a press release, compiled a formidable list of intrusions of various kinds upon the privacy of public employes: "... psychological testing, psychiatric interviews, race questionnaires, lie detectors, loyalty oaths, probing personnel forms and background investigations, restrictions on communications with Congress, pressure to support political parties financially, coercion to buy Savings Bonds, extensive limitations on outside activities, rules for speaking and writing, and even thinking, forms for revealing personal data about finances, creditors, property and other interests." Undoubtedly some invasions of privacy are necessary evils in the federal service, deplorable as they may be in principle. But quite a few are not. They represent gratuitous curiosity, prurience in some cases, all quite unessential to a sound and energetic public service. One particularly vicious abuse of federal employes current at the moment is the arm-twisting campaign to sell federal savings bonds. U.S. Savings Bonds may be a good buy, but that is hardly the point. A bulletin recently circulated at Andrews AFB Hospital offered personnel a pleasant choice among the three following statements, which had to be signed and returned to a department head: I am now supporting the President by buying U.S. Savings Bonds on an allotment from my pay. I wish to show my support for the President by adding to my allotment or by beginning an allotment. I do not accept my responsibility to support the President in this U.S. Savings Bond campaign. I do not now have an allotment and I will not begin an allotment from my pay for the purchase of U.S. Savings Bonds. Here, we see the government's whiphand fully displayed over its employes. This is one of the many abuses Senator Ervin should thoroughly examine. [From the Winston-Salem Twin City Sentinel, July 25, 1966] EDITORIALS: THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY Senator Sam J. Ervin Jr. is right in questioning whether the federal government is snooping too much into the private lives of its employes. Although federal personnel practices may not be as outrageous as the Senator suggests, the trend toward invasion of privacy is moving too quickly in this country and should be stubbornly resisted. Like any private employer, the government is entitled to know certain basic things about the people it hires-about personal and family background, about character and credit ratings and so forth. But, if Senator Ervin is correct, some government agencies are going well beyond this basic information. In a recent news release announcing that his Constitutional Rights Subcommittee will hold hearings on this subject soon, the Senator listed these intrusions on public employes: 66 Psychological testing, psychiatric interviews, race questionnaries, lie detectors, loyalty oaths, probing personnel forms and background investigations, restrictions on communications with Congress, pressure to support political parties financially, coercion to buy savings bonds, extensive limitations on outside activities, rules for speaking and writing, and even thinking, forms for revealing personal data about finances, creditors, property and other interests." Some of these things can be justified perhaps as an effort to assure that the government hires only stable, trustworthy employes who have no conceivable conflict of interest with their jobs. But some seem clearly unnecessary. Senator Ervin, who is considerably more of a civil libertarian than his views on civil rights would make him appear, will do a service for the country if he can determine in his hearings just how far these intrusions go and, if they are unjustified, what can be done to stop them. One horrid example of what the Senator wants to investigate is a letter recently circulated among employes at Andrews Air Force Base Hospital. It urged workers to buy savings bonds and asked them to sign one of these three statements: 71-994-67-59 |