Harvard Keeps Employee Files Despite Relaxation of Title IX

Harvard will continue to keep records on all job applicants despite new Congressional action that may abolish the record-keeping requirement mandated by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare under an anti-sex discrimination law.

Last week the House and Senate conferees clarified Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in educational institutions receiving federal aid, by removing the record-keeping provision, saying that it imposed an "unreasonable amount of paper work."

Daniel Steiner '54, general counsel to the University, said yesterday that he was unaware the record-keeping requirement had been dropped and that Harvard would continue to keep files on all job applicants, even if they were not required.

"It is a very important part in seeing whether the affirmative action program is working. The records can be used to see if the applicants were not hired because of a lack of qualifications or for discriminatory reasons," Steiner said.

The conferees' report stated that it was not the intent of Congress to require educational institutions to submit reports on all applicants rejected for employment. "Such a requirement should not be imposed on educational institutions, most of which are having financial problems."

The conferees also directed the Secretary of HEW to see that the "law is administered more rationally in the future."

Caspar W. Weinberger '38, secretary of HEW, said last week that his department could not be led by a conference report or an appropriation bill. He said that if Congress wanted to change the law, it must be done by amending Title IX.

Rep. Edith Green, (D-Ore.), author of Title IX, initiated the action of the Labor HEW Appropriation Bill conference, which decided the budget for HEW's fiscal year of 1974-5.

The report came out of conference on November 1 and passed in both the House and the Senate as part of the 1974-75 HEW Appropriation Bill on November 26.

The entire bill has been sent to President Ford for his signature, which may or may not be obtained by January 9. "The clarifying language should not be vetoed, even if the bill is," Becky Berg, legislative aid to Green said yesterday.