"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." The sooner such high-handed activity can be investigated and stopped, the better. If it is not, we may indeed live in what Senator Ervin has predicted will be "the era of the dossiered man." [From the Chicago-American, Aug. 13, 1966] GOVERNMENT AND POLICY Sen. Sam J. Ervin Jr. [D., N.C.] has introduced a bill which would guarantee federal employes their constitutional rights against invasion of privacy and direct and subtle forms of coercion. The bill would prevent official inquiries into government workers' personal affairs, such as their finances, religious beliefs, racial origins, and attitudes and conduct in sexual affairs. It would also seek to end pressures brought on employes for contributing or participating in activities not connected with their jobs, including politics. He introduces the bill at a time when Congress is considering establishment of a national data computer center, which would keep central records on all citizens, detailing activities from the cradle to the grave. The center's potential for abuse should be frighteningly apparent. Santa Clara county, Cal., will begin using a comparable computer system next year. Sen. Ervin's bill is another reminder that our privacy rights are being threatened most by the institution which has taken an oath to uphold them-the government. [From the Kinston Daily Free Press, Aug. 16, 1966] ERVIN'S BILL FOR EMPLOYEES IS SIGNIFICANT A "bill of right" measure to protect the privacy of federal employees has been advanced by U.S. Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., North Carolina Democrat and chairman of the Senate Constitutional Rights Subcommittee. In offering this significant measure Senator Ervin wrote to President Johnson to emphasize the need for such action as soon as possible. What it would prohibit are the following "privacy invasions" caused by outright coercion, requirements, requests or intimidation: (1) Race, religion, national origin questionnaires. (2) Indiscriminate requirements to disclose personal finances, assets, creditors and property interests of employees and their families. (3) Meetings to indoctrinate employees about matters unrelated to their jobs. (4) Requirements that employees take part in activities not directly within the scope of their employment. (5) Requirements to make reports about personal activities and undertakings not related to jobs. (6) Attempts to forbid patronizing any businesses or establishments. (7) Interrogations, examinations, psychological or polygraph tests aimed at securing data about personal relations with relatives, religious beliefs or attitudes and conduct with respect to sexual matters. (8) Coercion to support political activities personally or financially. (9) Coercion to buy bonds or to make contributions to institutions and causes. (10) Interrogation without the presence of counsel or other person of employee's choice. Apparently these practices have spread from the need for security checks on top-flight officials in government, but as Senator Ervin points out they are not in keeping with American freedoms. They are more totalitarian than democratic, he said. The legislation is overdue. Senator Ervin does well to put the freedoms of civil service and other employees in proper perspective. The bill should have the wholehearted support of the 89th Congress. [From the Charlotte Observer, Aug. 16, 1966] FEDERAL, "BILL OF RIGHTS" NEEDED It is not consistent for the U.S. government to bewail the lack of bright, enthusiastic citizens willing to work for the government while it uses policies that discourage applicants or harass employees. Numerous reports cite interviews and questionnaires with unneeded and embarrassing questions about religion, sex and personal relationships. Others tell of employes being reprimanded for private actions not bearing on their government work. There is pressure to give to somebody's favorite charity, to buy government bonds or to pay for tickets for some event that benefits politicians. Not all federal agencies are guilty, but according to Sen. Sam Ervin Jr. there are enough to justify a law setting forth a "bill of rights" for federal employes. For several years, Ervin's subcommittee on constitutional rights has collected complaints from federal employees. Some were sent to the Civil Service Commission and others prompted the committee to prod the agency or even the President's office directly. Because these pressures brought either no response or too little action, Ervin felt a "bill of rights" was necessary. His proposal is drawn to protect federal clerks, secretaries, accountants and lower-level civil servants from invasions of their privacy. The bill would, for example, end a rule that clerks must disclose the financial holdings of their families. This rule was first directed toward policy-makers to prevent conflicts of interest, but it has trickled down to reach those whose work does not expose them to the same temptations. Political appointees and career officials who make policy decisions often must sacrifice anonymity and privacy to larger interests such as that of national security. But Sen. Ervin's bill is a sensible way to insulate lower-level employees from the over-zealous practices of their superiors. [From the Evening Star, Aug. 19, 1966] THE FEDERAL SPOTLIGHT: MODEST FINANCIAL "PERUSAL" BY UNITED STATES AFFECTS HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS (By Joseph Young, Star staff writer) The specter of "big brother" in government continues to grow. What started out as a perusal of the financing affairs of a few hundred top government officials or a few thousand at the most is now developing into financial snooping into the affairs of hundreds of thousands of federal and postal workers. It's one of the many invasions of federal employes' privacy such as questionnaires they must fill out to list their race and nationality, the pressure to buy savings bonds, orders to participate in outside activities that carry forward the Johnson administration's sociological programs, etc. One of the things that has government employes angriest at the moment is the financial statements they are required to fill out, not only for themselves but for all blood relations who live under the same roof with them. When President Johnson issued his code of ethics executive order and the Civil Service Commission subsequently issued regulations to carry it out, the announcement was made that it would apply only to several hundred top executives and perhaps several thousand government officials involved directly In the awarding of contracts. It was explained that these financial reports were required to prevent any conflict of interests. But agencies have gone hogwild, according to reports gathered by the Senate Constitutional Rights subcommittee headed by Sen. Sam Ervin, D-N.C., which mas directed all departments and agencies to report to the group on how many employes are being required to file financial statements. Although many of the big departments and agencies have yet to be heard from, such as the Defense Department, the reports thus far show that more than 60,000 federal workers are being required to file financial reports. When the big departments are heard from, Ervin expects the number of employes involved will be at least several hundred thousand, probably more. For example, Navy is requiring all grade 13 and above employes in many of Its bureaus to file financial reports. Privacy attacked--The scope of the financial report requirements varies from agency to agency, but most are very comprehensive. Employes are required to list all of their financial holdings, including stocks and bonds, money in the bank, including valuables in safety deposit boxes. This also holds true for their spouses' holdings as well as that of their children and any other relatives living with them such as mothers, fathers, in-laws, etc. In many cases, employes are asked to list all their debts, the amount of the mortgage on their homes, what they owe on television sets, refrigerators, etc. Employes in grades as low as GS-3 are required to participate in some cases. Smithsonian Institution requires that GS-3 must disclose their personal finances. In some instances, agencies are using the information to pressure employes to retire on the grounds that "you are well off financially and don't have to work anymore," Sen. Ervin reports. The Post Office Department, one of the few major departments to report to the Senate committee thus far, requires 10,000 regular employes to disclose their personal finances. How their financial status would result in a conflict of interest is not explained by the department. It has 513 "ethical conduct counselors" to enforce its financial statement requirement. The State Department requires 1,500 of its employes to bare their financial situation, including interior decorators employed by the department. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare has 9,420 of its employes disclosing their finances, while 8,030 in Treasury must report. The effects on employes are humiliation and indignation. There already are instances of very able employes, whose services are desperately needed by government, resigning and taking private industry jobs because of their resentment of the financial questionnaires. Some government personnel officials gloomily predict there will be additional losses to the government. They also predict it will make tougher the government's job of recruiting outstanding college graduates and other top-flight people for government jobs. [From the Advertiser, Montgomery, Ala., Aug. 23, 1966] PRIVACY FOR THE FEDERAL EMPLOYE (The Norfolk Ledger-Star) North Carolina's Senator Sam J. Ervin Jr. struck a blow for the rights of all men the other day when he introduced a bill to protect federal employes from unwarranted invasions of privacy in the line of duty. Mr. Ervin said complaints have come to his Senate Constitutional Rights subcommittee that show federal employes' liberties "are being invaded and seriously circumscribed for reasons which have little or nothing to do with their jobs or national security." His bill would ban such things as personal questionnaires based on race, religion and national origin; unnecessary probing into finances of employes or of their families; meetings to indoctrinate workers about matters unrelated to their jobs, and the like. As far as the federal employe is concerned, we do not know the full extent of the privacy invasions attested to by Senator Ervin. But any observant person today cannot fail to be dismayed by the inroads being made into the privacy of all people in all walks of life, including the sporadic evidence of disturbing practicies within government. The easy availability and sophistication of electronic spying devices is one of the more spectacular instances of this; but others abound. And when it comes to matters of personal privacy, the government employe at any level is in a particularly sensitive posi tion, subject as he often is to the pressures of politics and to the interests of social snoopers who like having a large captive audience. To get and hold a job, any person must reveal certain personal information and abide by reasonable regulations. If the national security is involved, many aspects of his behavior and associations are a legitimate area for scrutiny. But personal dignity and decency require limits to prying and to manipulating of the individual's life. It would set a good precedent for the entire country if the federal government came down strongly on the side of the right to privacy. [From the Greensboro Record, Greensboro, N.C., Sept. 1, 1966] WASHINGTON.-Now and then, climbing the often cloudy congressional peaks one develops a sudden watershed feeling. Public opinion that had been running one way almost imperceptibly begins to run another. A divide of some sort has been crossed. Such a watershed point may be approaching in the field of man's relation to his government. Contrary to certain opinions elsewhere in the world, Americans are not an aggressive or cantankerous people. By and large, they are as submissive as so many sheep. Confronted with official authority, in almost any form, they tell all; they fill in every blank on the form; they are incapable of resistance. The whole system of income taxation rests upon this aspect of our national character. All that is required is a rule or regulation. Few persons pause to inquire whether it is wise, or necessary, or foolish, or impertinent. Big Brother knows best; and even if he doesn't know best, he is bigger. UNTHINKING ACQUIESCENCE Within the government itself, this docility has produced an unthinking acquiescence, until quite recently, to lie detector tests, psychological inventory tests, and other impudent inquiries into the intimate personal lives of federal employes. It led the nation in 1960 to accept a census form that went far beyond the simple factual enumeration envisioned under the Constitution. About two years ago, the tendency produced the first quiet talk of a "Federal Personal Data Bank." This whole trend, to risk a metaphysical phrase, has been part of a growing attitude, at the highest intellectual level, to treat man not as a child of God, but as a child of the state. In this view, the individual becomes a mere digital entity: he computes to a Social Security number. He does not dwell in a home, but in a unit of housing. He does not work; he produces units of production. He does not eat or drink; he accounts for units of consumption. The system is faceless, impersonal, anonymous. And as Vance Packard told a House committee the other day, it is terrifying. Packard was testifying before a Commerce sub-committee, headed by Cornelius Gallagher of New Jersey, which is inquiring anxiously into these vague proposals for the Human Data Bank. The idea is for all the material on a citizen, in all of the government's files, to be stored in the memory banks of a single central computer. Within ten years, it is thought, such dossiers could be made current. Then, through the fantastic process of instant data retrieval, a simple computer operation could print out the whole of a man's life-his birth date, parentage, schooling, marriage, service record, children, income by years, his jobs, his home address, his applications for multiple governmental permits. In fairness to the government's efficiency experts, it should be conceded that such a system certainly would be efficient. And if there were some way to "sanitize" the data, in Gallagher's verb, in order to strip the factual matter of personal identification, perhaps a central data center could be a most useful tool in wise governmental planning. But neither Packard nor Gallagher is satisfied that such safeguards can be built in. Names do not compute, but Social Security numbers do, and one identifying number is enough. The encouraging thing is that Gallagher's sub-committee is maintaining a watchful eye on this business in the House. In the Senate, North Carolina's able Sam Ervin has been joined by 33 of his colleagues in sponsoring a bill (S. 3703) to protect the privacy of the government's own employees from unwarranted invasion. Meanwhile, indications are growing that members of both houses will insist upon a cool and critical look at the information forms proposed by the Bureau of the Census for 1970. ERVIN'S BILL Ervin's bill would prohibit government agencies from prying into an employe's race or religion. It would ban indiscriminate requirements for disclosure of personal finances and property ownership. It would outlaw the use of psychological tests to elicit information about an employe's attitude toward sexual matters. It would put an end to the great Washington shakedown game, by which many employes are coerced into political contributions against their will. The bil doubtless requires some refinements, in order to permit proper pre-employment investigations in sensitive posts, and it has been introduced too late in this session to have any hope of passage. But its principle is sound. One hesitates to be too optimistic. The willingness of the ordinary American citizen to strip for examination, at the drop of a brusque command, cannot be overstated. When a pollster calls on the telephone, he answers; when the questionnaire arrives by mail, he fills it out. The late Dr. Kinsey had no trouble finding volunteers to talk about their sex life; his problem was fighting them off. Yet the watershed impression persists. After years of submitting quiety to increasing invasion of his privacy, the faceless American is showing occasional signs rebellion. He is tired of being a number; and even if it does not compute, he wants back his name. [From the Louisville Times, Louisville, Ky., Sept. 2, 1966] FEAR ON THE JOB FEDERAL WORKERS CHARGE "BIG BROTHER" NOSINESS AND (By James K. Batten, Chicago Daily News Service) WASHINGTON.-Last summer an 18-year-old coed from a small college in Virginia applied to the State Department for a job. She thought it would be a pleasant way to spend her vacation. But because the job required a security clearance, the girl was summoned to an interview with a security investigator. When the interrogator began to probe her relations with her boyfriend, the girl was stunned by questions like these: "Did he abuse you?" "Did he do anything unnatural with you?" "You didn't get pregnant, did you?" Bewildered, the girl decided she had no interest in working for the federal government. In another federal agency recently, a woman worker with two children declined to participate in the President's campaign to have civil servants invest in U.S. Savings Bonds. She felt she could not afford them. When it developed that she was the only holdout keeping the agency from "hitting 100 per cent," the woman was called into a staff meeting and bawled out in front of her fellow workers. At the Defense Department, a bright young woman entered the federal service under the "management intern" program, designed to attract unusually capable young people to government service and to prepare them for positions of responsibility. As part of her job, this young woman invited a senator to address a group of interns at one of their regular, on-duty seminars. But when the young woman's supervisor, making about $17,500 a year, intercepted the senator's routine letter of acceptance, he threw a "terrible tantrum." Rank-and-file federal employes are not authorized to contact members of Congress, he told the nonplussed young woman. "I suggest you better not have any more lettrs coming here from the Hill." (In Washington jargon, "the Hill" refers to Capitol Hill, the home of Congress.) Incidents like these, documented by the Senate subcommittee on constitutional rights, are cited by some members of Congress as symptomatic of a growing sickness in the federal establishment. "I believe," said the subcommittee chairman, Sen. Sam J. Ervin Jr., D-N.C.. "there is now being created in the federal service a climate of fear, apprehension and coercion which is detrimental to the health of the service and is corroding the rights of federal employes." Ervin said hearings are planned for early fall on his "bill of rights for federal employes" to ban many of the disputed practices. No one can really be sure how pervasive the problem is. Spokesmen for federal employe unions are egging Ervin on, declaring that unwarranted invasions of employes privacy are increasing. The constitutional rights subcommittee's files are bulging with complaints. Each reported grievance, explained one staff member, probably represents hundreds of unreported grievances. |