December 5, 2004

INTRODUCTION

The following statement is for the December 6, 2004 African American focus group teleconference facilitated by the Kaleidoscope Group, LLC. The statement is in regards to the African American component in the entire Forest Service. It is not limited to the California region. The statement will offer recommendations to assist in the success of future diversity projects in regards to the African American component. It will also describe the shortcomings of the previous Forest Service diversity program. NOTE: The author of this document, Allen P. Spencer, hereby waves all confidentiality and anonymity.

FAILURE OF TOWARDS A MULTICULTURAL WORKFORCE POLICY

The current Forest Service diversity project appears to be a continuation of the Forest Service’s Towards a Multicultural Workforce policy that was developed in the 1980’s and fully implemented in 1991. It is apparent that the Towards a Multicultural Workforce diversity policy has failed.

In a December 17, 2003 letter to Regional Foresters, Station Directors, Area Directors, IITF Director, Job Corps, and WO Staff, Mr. Thomas Mills, former Deputy Chief of the Forest Service, made it clear that the Forest Service diversity policy and diversity programs are a failure. He stated:

While we made great strides in diversifying our workforce in the 1970’s and 1980’s, we have made little progress since the early 1990’s.

He further stated:

But even with our increased hiring in the last three years, less than half of which are "fire hires", we have not returned to a path of increased diversity. We need to return to the path of increasing the diversity of our workforce.

Mr. Mills is correct --- Forest Service employment data shows that there has been no progress in the representation of African Americans in the Forest Service for over a decade, including the imbalance in occupational and geographic representation. NOTE: Forest Service employment data is available at http://www.xusda.com

In an October 6, 2004 letter to all employees, Mr. Dale Bosworth, Forest Service Chief, referred to the current diversity project as a "diversity awareness [emphasis added] program". That means that the current Kaleidoscope Group project is no different from the existing Towards a Multicultural Workforce policy --- it is only an "awareness" thing. Simply saying you are aware of a problem does not mean the problem is going to be adequately addressed.

Based on the statements of Mr. Mills and Mr. Bosworth, it is no surprise that the Towards a Multicultural Workforce policy did not improve diversity in the Forest Service. The current Kaleidoscope, LLC., diversity project survey questions are a direct reflection of the questions and concepts posed in the 1980’s by the Towards a Multicultural Workforce project and possibly a duplication of that project. If the new diversity project is similar to the Towards a Multicultural Workforce policy, then the new project will also fail. Unless major changes are placed into the current/new diversity project, the project will surely fail, especially in regards to the African American diversity component.

FOREST SERVICE DELIBERATE OPPOSITION TO AFRICAN AMERICAN REPRESENTATION

The Forest Service failure to increase the African American component is no accident --- it is deliberate. Forest Service efforts to prevent such representation came to the surface in the late 1980’s, with the greatest kill occurring in 1991, which coincides with the implementation of the Towards a Multicultural Workforce policy.

In 1985 the African American employees of the Forest Service in California filed a class complaint where the substantial issue was African American representation. The Regional Forester, Mr. Zane Smith, and the agents of the class reached a settlement agreement that committed the Forest Service to increasing the number of African Americans. Several years later, after Mr. Zane Smith retired from the Forest Service, it was discovered by the class agents that the Forest Service was not complying with the agreement.

In 1991 the lead agent of the African American class complaint submitted a non-compliance notice to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Forest Service’s parent agency. The USDA analyzed the situation and, on April 26, 1991 concluded:

We find that the Agency did not comply with the provision regarding efforts toward elimination of underrepresentation [of African Americans]

USDA, in collusion with the Forest Service, then ordered the complaint to be sent back to the pre-complaint stage rather than ordering the Forest Service to stick to its word. By sending the complaint back to the pre-complaint stage, the USDA and the Forest Service pulled a trick whereby they could, in collusion with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and USDA, dismiss the class complaint.

On July 26, 1991 the Forest Service forwarded the complaint to the EEOC and requested that it be dismissed because it was in conflict with the Bernardi v. Yeuter, class complaint on behalf of women employees [and obviously by and for European American women and spouses of European American Forest Service managers]. The

EEOC administrative judge, Mr. Thomas Cosentino, criticized the Forest Service for having its head where the sun does not shine regarding the conciliation features of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The administrative judge remanded the complaint back to the agency so the agency and the class agent could mutually work out a solution. The Forest Service, however, ignored administrative judge Cosentino’s recommendation and re-submitted the case. Mr. Cosentino then dismissed the African American class, but also stated, in regards to the Forest Service’s clear intent to avoid increasing the African American component in the Forest Service:

Since Title VII specifically encourages voluntary conciliation, and the issue raised in the CA's complaint poses a very complex question concerning an existing court ordered consent decree, I decided that the most propitious course of conduct would be to remand the complaint to the agency to give the parties a sufficient amount of time to work out another settlement.

On November 14, 1991, the agency re-submitted the case for a determination, notwithstanding the reasons for my initial remand.

The administrative judge then dismissed the African American class complaint that sought to increase the African American component in the Forest Service.

Thus, the Forest Service made significant progress in trying to kill African American issues. It is interesting that the Forest Service’s extreme opposition to an already agreed upon class complaint resolution agreement, and the Forest Service failure to recruit African Americans occurred during the period when the Towards a Multicultural Workforce policy was being developed. Additionally, the actual squashing of African American representation occurred during the same time period the Towards a Multicultural Workforce was implemented. Thus, the Forest Service deliberately and successfully prevented an increase in African American representation.

BUSINESS ENTERPRISE MOTIVE V. GOVERNMENT AGENCY MOTIVE

In an Internet search on diversity it was discovered that many private businesses, both in the United States and Europe, have adopted the diversity concept. It was further discovered that those businesses appear to be focused on using diversity solely to increase their profit margins, rather than on eliminating racial discrimination and enforcing equal employment opportunity to achieve justice and fairness in the workplace. Many writings emphasize the benefits for employers in terms of the productivity and marketing objectives. That concept won’t work for government agencies. Government agencies such as the USDA Forest Service are not concerned with a bottom line profit margin. In fact, the typical concern of government employees is their own individual promotions and advancement to higher grades. Forest Service

management is seldom held accountable for diversity. There is lots of talk, but no product.

The USDA Forest Service units are preoccupied with serving its local community. Inasmuch as most Forest Service units are located in rural areas in the western states where the local community is predominantly European American, it is apparent that there could not be any real motive for the Forest Service to increase its diversity. Thus, the Forest Service efforts to satisfy its local community actually prevents diversity rather than increasing diversity. The use of the diversity concept as used by private enterprises will not increase diversity in the Forest Service --- it would actually decrease diversity.

The failure of the Forest Service to increase diversity is especially true where African Americans are concerned. It appears that, in those rural and predominantly European American communities, there are different levels of prejudice in regards to specific groups as defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order 11478. When it comes to which groups are faced with the greatest barriers in those rural areas, it is clear and evident that African Americans are faced with the greatest barriers due to the historical legacy of racial discrimination and hatred towards us.

CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 AND EXECUTIVE ORDER 11478

As defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended (CRA64), we are a race group. The CRA64 specifically identifies race, color, religion, sex, and national origin in that specific order. The CRA64 does not ever mention "ethnicity". Yet, in the invitation to participate in the Kaliedoscope Group focus group African Americans were referred to as an "ethnicity" group.

For African Americans, the Towards a Multicultural Workforce policy and the so-called "diversity" projects have worked to dismantle the intents of the CRA64 and the intents of Executive Order 11478. How? By using the concepts of ethnicity in lieu of race which, in effect, totally excludes African Americans. In addition, those concepts usurp the intent of Executive Order 11478, especially the clause that states "…employment opportunity through a continuing affirmative program in each executive department and agency". Similar to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Executive Order 11478 refers to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, or age. It never refers to ethnicity.

As mentioned earlier, many business enterprises in the United States and Europe, use the diversity and ethnicity concept with the purpose of improving their profit margins rather than the purpose of reducing racial discrimination and enforcing equal employment opportunity to achieve justice and fairness in the workplace. Such a concept has not worked for the Forest Service. In the Forest Service that concept tends to reduce diversity rather than improve diversity. Is the use of the business motive and

ethnicity deliberately intended to reduce the effect of the CRA64 and Executive Order 11478? I do not know. But, it is clear that the business motive and focus on ethnicity has, indeed, palliated the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

AFRICAN AMERICAN ISSUES

In the invitation to participate in the African American male focus group, we were referred to as an "ethnicity" group. But, are we an ethnic group? We speak the same language, participate in the same religions, eat the same food, and have the same national allegiance as the majority of United States citizens. Whatever differences that exist are minor differences and they do not necessarily justify a different ethnicity. African Americans are solely Americans; we are not visitors or naturalized citizens; we do not have a "home" country that we emigrated from. African Americans do face unique and extreme racial prejudice and discrimination in the United States of America. Much more extreme than the discrimination towards most of the other groups. You won’t see many African Americans at the Western Union store on payday night sending money back to the country they came from.

What is the issue? The issue is this: African Americans have a unique state and condition in the United States. The unique situation is due to the legacy of slavery and discriminatory federal legislation such as: slavery, the fugitive slave act, the Missouri Compromise, and restrictive covenants. Most importantly, we are currently faced with the hatred developed against us during the post slavery reconstruction period --- Jim Crow, and the massacres and lynchings of African Americans that have taken place in the United States. It is a racial issue that developed over centuries of abuse and hatred towards us. Most importantly, African Americans were deprived of their heritage and subjected to forced behaviorial changes by European Americans. That episode is a crime against humanity that supersedes the holocaust commited by Nazi Germany during the late 1930’s and early 1940’s; it is a crime that continues to influence current day people to have prejudice and hatred towards African Americans; it is a crime that historically was approved by our Federal government. It is now the responsibility of our government and all of it’s citizens to remedy that situation.

NOTE: due to the historical legacy of federal legislation and discrimination that restricted African American geographic mobility, the majority of African Americans are clustered in the southern states and the eastern seaboard. As a result, the African American component in the western states is severely restricted, especially in Forest Service units in the western states. Forest Service data as of July 2, 2004, shows African Americans as 10.115% of Forest Service employees east of the Pecos river demarcation line, whereas they are only 1.369% of Forest Service employees west of the Pecos river.

ACTIONS TO INCREASE THE AFRICAN AMERICAN COMPONENT

In order to be successful in effectively increasing the African American diversity component in the Forest Service the following actions are necessary:

  1. Establish an internal Line Officer and Professional African American Membership Organization. A successful example of this type of membership organization can be observed in the Natural Resources Conservation Service, one of the Forest Service’s sister agencies. Such an organization would facilitate appropriate training, along with establishing communications, coaching, and guidance that will increase the success rate of African Americans. NOTE: recently the Forest Service began to use administrative GS series to fill line officer positions. It is important that line officers be a part of the organization with other employees who are in professional positions.

  2. Establish an effective inner city urban African American recruitment program. The Forest Service must accomplish recruitment job fairs within the African American communities. This must also include public service announcements via the urban media to inform African Americans of opportunities in the Forest Service.

  3. Increase recruitment at western colleges and universities. It has been said that it is difficult to get African Americans from the southern academic institutions to take Forest Service jobs in the western states. African American graduates of western colleges and universities, however, are most likely to accept employment in the western states. Thus, the Forest Service should increase its efforts to recruit at western academic institutions. Inasmuch as the great majority of Forest Service activities, issues, and personnel are in the western states, it is critically important that we make strong efforts to increase the African American component in the western states. As mentioned above, African Americans are only 1.369% of the Forest Service western workforce. NOTE: the increased recruitment at western campuses must not offset recruitment at southern colleges and universities.

  4. Sociological preparation must be provided to new African American employees. Frequently African Americans are hired into a social environment that they are not familiar with, i.e., a recent African American college graduates being assigned to a remote Ranger District where crude and insensitive European Americans frequently harass each other in the "Good ole Boy/ Girl" manner. This includes units where racial discrimination is present. Prior to arriving at the unit, African Americans must receive training or substantial orientation in regards to the social environment they might be placed in. That way they may be prepared to deal with the hostility in a knowledgeable manner. Training must be done by knowledgeable and qualified social scientists. European Americans must also receive training from qualified and knowledgeable social scientists. Training alone, however, will not be enough. Holding management officials accountable is the key to the success of this program.

  5. Management must be held accountable by an non-Forest Service source. Managers must be held accountable for the prevention of racial discrimination, rude, and adolescent behavior by European American employees, especially at remote units and in fire suppression units. The Forest Service has supposedly evaluated its managers performance in regards to diversity and civil rights. However, it has been very ineffective due to the "Good ole Boy/Girl" factor, the simple "awareness" concept rather than products, and the zeal to serve the local and predominantly European American community. Thus, it is necessary to acquire evaluation from an outside source that is qualified and thoroughly knowledgeable of the Forest Service. This action should be integrated with recommendation number 4, above and number 6, below. NOTE: although the EEOC requires diversity reports from the agencies, and some perceptions exist that EEOC has some role in ensuring accountability in the agencies, the fact is the EEOC collaborates with the agencies efforts to avoid diversity. The EEOC is absolutely useless.

  6. Establish a national cadre of sociologists to act on and evaluate civil rights incidents. The Forest Service must establish a cadre of professional sociologists to analyze incidents of racial hostility towards African Americans in the workplace and in the community and to take action to remedy the racial hostility. This cadre must not consist of Forest Service employees. In the past the Forest Service has implemented things such as providing an immediate investigation when civil rights incidents occur. However, the investigations are performed by bureaucrats and technocrats working under a contract that contains no humanitarian substance. Thus, substantial remedies are never an outcome of such simplistic investigations. The new cadre must consist of fully educated and qualified professionals who have an effective and substantial contract with the Forest Service.

  7. The Forest Service must implement incentives for African Americans to relocate to the new western service centers. Since 1991 the Forest Service has established "consolidated centers" in the western states. Some of them have been referred to as "Western Washington, D.C. Offices", i.e., Missoula Montana, Boise Idaho, Fort Collins Colorado, and Albuquerque, New Mexico. Although Congress has objected to such "Western Washington, D.C. Offices", the political strength of the Forest Service has prevailed over our Congress.

Inasmuch as the centers are in the western states and African Americans are in the southern states and eastern seaboard, it is extremely difficult to increase the African American component in those western centers. Additionally preventing the establishment of such western centers if futile. Thus, the Forest Service must implement programs that successfully encourage African Americans to relocate to the western centers. What kind of encouragement? It is difficult to identify

determine how that should be done. However, intensive discussions about the benefits of moving westward, providing training so we can adapt or deal with the new social environment, and perhaps providing some economic incentives pursuant to the "affirmative program" of Executive Order 11478 for African Americans is a good start.

The Forest Service must act quickly to implement this recommendation because centralization of the Information Technology function is already taking place. Centralization of Fiscal and Financial Services, Human Resources Management, and perhaps Civil Rights functions are scheduled to be implemented in the near future.

CONCLUSION

It is sincerely hoped that the Forest Service will accept and effectively implement the forgoing recommendations regarding action to increase the African American component in the Forest Service, especially in the western states. There is a serious need for a Forest Service that treats everyone with equality and respect. The quest for our being judged by the content of our character has met many barriers and has suffered many setbacks in the Forest Service. Although the Towards a Multicultural Workforce policy of the Forest Service has failed, it does not mean we should give up. We must continue the quest for true equal employment opportunity from both a humanitarian and a legal standpoint.

Allen P. Spencer
220 Altgelt Avenue
San Antonio, Texas 78201
Email: spencer@xusda.com
Web Site: http://www.xusda.com
December 5, 2004