Civil Rights Group Faces Rift over Diversity
The Telegraph Online
http://nsnlb.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050725/NEWS01/107250039/-1/sports
By ALBERT McKEON, Telegraph Staff
Mon, Jul 25, 2005
A majority of the states advising the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights believe the organization faces the ultimate irony: Its own makeup could soon ignore the ethnic, racial and religious diversity it has long supported.
The commission’s overseeing board wants to abolish the regulation that requires each state committee to reflect the diversity of its community. New rules could additionally eliminate the percentage of minorities expected on a state advisory committee, also known as a SAC.
These state groups also object to a separate but related development: The principal charters of two-thirds of the SACs have not been renewed. Because the unrecognized SACs are now “paper tigers” – as the New Hampshire chairman said – they cannot investigate civil rights violations and prepare advisory reports, several chairmen said.
Historically, the 51 SACs – representing the 50 states and the District of Columbia – assist the federal commission in its fact-finding work on civil rights. Committees rely on volunteers familiar with local issues, and they produce advisory reports examining larger trends in their states. The New Hampshire committee, for example, last month released a study that showed health-care providers need to improve access to non-English speakers and the hearing-impaired.
But with the majority of SACs lacking official recognition, “there are approximately 500 people in the country just sitting on their hands,” Michael Hanley, the New York state advisory committee chairman, said in a telephone interview from his Rochester law office.
“It was referred once that we looked like lame ducks,” he said. “Now it looks like we’re dead ducks. We can’t function.”
Thirty-seven SAC chairmen have asked the USCCR board to reconsider the proposed changes, and to start granting charters in a process separate from any regulatory revisions, which they predict could last months.
The staff director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Kenneth Marcus, said a new regulation would not eliminate minorities. Rather, the board’s expected proposal will allow SACs to enlist more people of diverse backgrounds. The current regulation stipulating the degree of minority participation on each SAC is actually an unfair cap in many regions, he said.
Further, the board has delayed granting new charters because if membership criteria changes afterward, each SAC would have to unnecessarily repeat the process, Marcus said in a telephone interview from Washington, D.C. The commission hopes to have the revision process completed next month, he said.State committee charters last two years, and expiration dates vary by state. New Hampshire’s ended in February.
Established by Congress in 1957, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is an independent body. The federal organization investigates complaints, prepares reports, appraises federal law and provides recommendations to the president and Congress. The state committees advise the federal commission, but are also the necessary “eyes and ears” of the USCCR, as several SAC advocates have said.
So talk of changing the core structure of the SACs has captured the interest of many, including some members of Congress. Eight House Democrats, including party leader Nancy Pelosi, have asked commission chairman Gerald Reynolds to reconsider his motion.
A SAC should be representative of those who are “the subject of the commission’s jurisdiction,” the Democrats wrote in a letter last week. They should include people of color, both genders and the disabled, the letter said. A lack of diversity prevents proper monitoring of civil rights, whereas a diverse SAC will better recognize violations, the letter said.
Some SAC chairs suspect partisan politics has come into play. The USCCR board has four presidential appointees, who are all Republican. Of the four Congressional appointees, one is independent and the other a Democrat, with the other two seats vacant. Hanley, in a letter to civil rights advocates, said the commission is now weighted heavily against affirmative action.
Michael Yaki, the lone Democratic commissioner, wrote in an e-mail interview that he opposes the proposed regulation. “I believe that the Civil Rights Commission has an obligation to ensure that those directly affected – our stakeholders – should be members of the SAC. Nothing in the proposed regulations guarantees that diversity of membership, especially in terms of race, color, religion, age, sex and disability would be present.”
But Reynolds, according to the commission’s June meeting minutes, said requiring diversity and setting quotas can be discriminative, as it impermissibly classifies by race. “My preference is a nondiscrimination policy, as opposed to achieving a goal, which in my view often evolve into numbers,” he said. Reynolds could not immediately be reached for comment.
The current regulation states that “membership on the advisory committee shall be reflective of the different ethnic, racial and religious communities within each state and the membership shall also be representative with respect to sex, political affiliation, age and disability status.”
And each SAC must have a minority composition of no less than 40 percent and no more than 65 percent, Marcus said.
In contrast, the proposed regulation reads that “membership on the state advisory committee shall be broadly diverse,” according to a copy of the motion obtained by The Telegraph. No person “is to be denied an opportunity to serve” because of race, age, sex, religion, national origin or disability, it reads.
The proposal also calls for SAC members to possess a variety of skills, including expertise in social science research, legal research and analysis, and statistical analysis. This aims to attract educators, lawyers, business and labor leaders, social scientists, researchers, journalists and those in religious groups.
Every SAC should have members with an interest in civil rights issues, the proposal said, and a knowledge of their states’ inner workings. The commission would appoint the members of each state committee.
With the potential changes, the USCCR board looks only to improve its advisory committees, arranging for the best possible skill sets, Marcus said. A diverse lot of experienced and capable members will serve each state well, and it is “hard to imagine no minorities on a state advisory committee,” he said.
Hanley agreed that state members should have civil rights experience, but he said minorities would be underrepresented if the new criteria emphasizes proficiency in areas such as science. If SACs are not inclusive, committees could have members who possess only business interests, he said.
The proposal was on the agenda for a teleconference board meeting last Friday. But two commissioners excused themselves during the meeting, and it was adjourned just as the proposal was about to be discussed. The proposal is slated to be discussed at the August board meeting.
Hanley joined the New York chapter in 1994, and, until now, it had never operated long without a charter, he said. When a charter typically expires, the SAC submits a list of candidates interested in serving the two-year term, and the commission usually appoints them quickly while renewing the charter, he said.
Hanley sees the commission moving to unknown territory with the proposed regulation, the unchartered status of the SACs, and budget constraints at federal headquarters – which has six offices. There are also six regional offices across the country.
The USCCR once had annual budget of about $18 million in the 1980s, but for the past 10 years it has stood at about $9 million, Marcus said.
“There’s no question we had far more resources than we do today,” he said. “But we’re still dong a great deal of work.”
The SACs, meanwhile, have had to put crucial civil rights projects on hold, Hanley said. New York’s committee cannot continue a project examining the equities and inequities of same-sex marriage, he said.
In New Hampshire, committee chairman Andrew Stewart has watched two local police chiefs use trespassing laws to curb illegal immigration. But his group could not begin an inquiry even if it wanted, he said.
“We’re wondering what the future holds,” he said.
Albert McKeon can be reached at 594-5832 or mckeona@telegraph-nh.com.
Copyright © 2005 Telegraph Publishing Company
News and Announcements | AAD Home Page