Increased use by Federal employees of ani appeals procedure in matters of suspected racial discrimination has given rise to controversy and conicerni. The writer, in the summiier of 1962, examined the appeals records in 27 cases filed in the last 10 years in a Northeastern Federal manufacturing and repair center of 10,000 employees. Special attention was paid to the fact that 25 of 27 appellants were Negroes, most appeals involved failure to secure promotions, and only one appeal was decided in the appellants' favor. Analysis suggested that despite the official record of losses the procedure served the appellants in four ways: It provided a day in court. It was a source of answers. It was a locus of hope. And it was aln instrumelnt of pressure. Similarly, the center found several uses for the procedure: It was a safety valve. It was a spotlight on sources of friction. It was a device for correcting mis-impressions. And it was an effective check on the conduct of supervisory personnel. Overall, however, the writer concludes tihat the procedure is a limited tool with an essentially negative character. It must 1)-. supl):clnented by mnore positive measures if it is not to undo its own slim contribution to inidustrial race relations. F or nearly 20 years now, a unique form of appeals procedure has been available to any federal employee wlho believed his status threatened or his status aspirations thwarted l)y racial or religious discrimination.1 WVhile Friedland and others have discussed the formal -details in journal articles, t'ie appeals procedure has seldom, if ever, beeii analyzed in terms of actutal cases and their outcomes. Little dacta, if any, has been available to answer tlte questions: Is the status of appellants really protected? Wlho seeks status protection? And what is the futll usefulness of the appeals procedure? Today, in part as a result of ignorance concerning answers to these questions, and as a result of the Negro's new militance in race relations, the appeals procedure in federal employment is the subject of miiucli controversy and concern. Somiie high-level government officials think tlle procedure is an adequate index of industrial race relations. OCthers disagree, and question whether it serves any good purpose at all. Some representative line supervisors consider it just another tool; others, in contrast, think it the only tool necessary to protect the status of minority group members. F;inally, some representative employee spokesmen, usually wlhite employees, believe appellants always win their way. Other spokesmen, often minority group members, believe appel-
Read full abstract