Clarence Thomas at the EEOC

DataLine has received many calls from readers, including several in which we were asked if we were deliberately excluding minority men from our concerns. No, we said, we decided to begin this publication with what we knew best, and to expand as we develop sources and information.

In August, we heard from colleagues of two African-American men who had hit their own glass ceilings: Norman Drake of Lockheed Missiles and Space Corporation and Sam Wright of International Technology Corporation. As we began researching their stories, another reader commented that we should contrast their stories with another African-American man, Clarence Thomas, recently nominated to replace Justice Thurgood Marshall on the U.S. Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas had definitely broken through his own glass ceiling - so far. His story raises many of the questions about the glass ceiling we encounter every day: does a "reverse" quota exist for women and minorities in high-level, visible positions? Is there a need for affirmative action at entry levels? At upper levels? What impact do individual men and women who have "broken through" the glass ceiling have on others following them?

We decided to focus on Clarence Thomas's story, and in particular on his performance and track record during the years when he was head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (E.E.O.C.). We had heard much about Thomas's childhood in Georgia, his experience with racism at a Catholic University, and his philosophy - or lack thereof - on issues of privacy and reproductive rights. We grew curious about Thomas as an executive, and about the impact he had on other minorities and women.

DataLine spoke with current and former employees of the E.E.O.C. who had had significant contact with Thomas when he ran the agency. We found a dramatically wide range of opinions about Thomas. One of the best known former E.E.O.C. managers is Frank Quinn. Thomas transferred Quinn from his position as District Director of the San Francisco office to Alabama, less than six months before Quinn was to retire. Quinn fought the transfer, and successfully countered the Commission's claim that he had not informed his superiors of his intention to retire. (He had.) In addition, the Acting Director of the Alabama office, along with several others, had applied to be promoted to the Directorship. Further, no District Director of the E.E.O.C. had ever been transferred without his or her consent. The District Court Judge who heard the case found "no rational basis for the Agency's conduct ... and all of the evidence tends to support Mr. Quinn's view that this was a deliberate, arbitrary and capricious desire to punish Mr. Quinn for the exercise of his first amendment right".

Judge Schnake further compared Thomas's decision regarding Quinn with J. Edgar Hoover: "we used to have a whole investigative agency of the United States that was operated in a highly efficient fashion ... by an old gentleman ... Any special agent of this particular agency that ever raised his head above the ground without permission suddenly found himself to be in North Dakota or Montana in the middle of the winter ... It was extremely efficient ... but it isn't looked upon as an appropriate method of employee management in today's world."

Clarence Thomas was fairly new to his job when he was forced to reverse his decision to transfer Frank Quinn in 1983. But four years later, Thomas planned to demote another District Director, Lynn Bruner in St. Louis, who had, like Quinn, publicly criticized the E.E.O.C. (this time for the agency's handling of age discrimination cases). Bruner's case seems less clear-cut than Quinn's, because of the bureaucratic intricacies of handling thousands of cases, and because the law governing age discrimination is not as tough as the laws governing other types of discrimination, according to E.E.O.C. veterans. Further, Bruner never had to fight in court. The Washington Post commented that Thomas's decision to restore Bruner's previously excellent performance rating seemed tied to his nomination to a federal judgeship.

Other District Directors were reluctant to comment on Quinn's or Bruner's situation, but they did respond to questions about Thomas's overall impact on the agency and his views of affirmative action. Several current Directors, including Harriet Ehrlich in the Houston office and Patricia Fields Bivins in New Orleans, spoke at length about the positive changes Thomas achieved during his tenure. Bivins said, "Clarence Thomas moved the agency from the dark ages. We were finally given appropriate resources, and Thomas pushed the agency into doing full investigations ... This agency is in a better position today to enforce the law, and we are beginning to get some respect". Bivins attributes the improvements to adminstrative, policy, and procedural changes ordered by Thomas. Bivins emphasized that she and Thomas disagreed philosophically, and argued frequently. She added that she didn't think he realized the impact his statements on affimative action would have.

Ehrlich echoed much of what Bivins said. "Thomas professionalized this agency, and revolutionalized it. He upgraded systems, facilities, training. Before Thomas, the agency had no computerized database or systems for tracking cases or seeing how old cases were or how fast they were moving ... In a bureaucracy, it's incredibly important to track cases and move paper ... every piece of paper represents a life. We weren't really an enforcement agency until Thomas. He did a superb job of training, teaching investigators how to get proper evidence, interviewing techniques, how to take an affidavit."

Ehrlich also emphasized that she and Thomas differed philosphically, but disagreed with Bivins and others that Thomas doesn't believe in affirmative action. "He does believe in affirmative action! How else could he have hired 53% women and minorities (when he ran E.E.O.C.)?" Ehrlich cited Thomas's departure from tradition in that "he didn't bring a lot of White House referrals". She added that he "relied on women, including his Chief of Staff, Pam Talkin, who ran the agency on a day-to-day basis, and he promoted large numbers of women and minorities." Ehrlich countered the criticism that Thomas ignored the Hispanic community by pointing to Thomas's decision to upgrade the San Antonio office from an area office to a full-service District Office with a full staff, because of the significant needs of the San Antonio Hispanic population.

The most common charge we heard about Thomas was that he ended the agency's effectiveness in bringing large class action lawsuits, by halting the agency's use of its one "big gun" against discrimination. Frank Quinn said that Thomas had a "chilling" effect on the pursuit of class actions. Ehrlich and Bivins disagreed, but both conceded that they were concerned about the new regulations when they heard about them, and thought they could have been presented differently. Both found that Thomas personally supported their District's pursuit of large class actions, and said that the agency has won major cases and multi-million dollar awards in class action lawsuits that were begun and investigated under Thomas's leadership.

Veteran agency watcher Aileen Hernandez, who was a Commissioner on the first E.E.O.C. in the mid-sixties, believes that "Thomas is fundamentally opposed to affirmative action. He is more concerned about reverse discrimination than about changing the discrimination against women and minorities. The whole purpose of the law was to change what was being done."

There is one characteristic we have seen in many individuals who have broken through the glass ceiling: if they are at all controversial, as most leaders are, their words and actions have impact far beyond what they imagine. As a result, some "token" high-level women and minorities retreat into a neutral, circumscribed, aggressively non-controversial style. Others, like Thomas in his management of the E.E.O.C., act decisively and pay a very heavy price in terms of others' expectations and criticisms. Or was this Thomas, up until the time he was nominated to the Supreme Court?

We will return next month to Norman Drake, who sued Lockheed for race discrimination and won, and who still works for Lockheed. We are interested in following the company's actions in appealing the decision, particularly because Lockheed's new CEO has spoken so vociferously about Lockheed's commitment to diversity. We will also return to Sam Wright, who received International Technology's highest award for project management, but was denied a highly-visible project management position because he was "too laid back". We may also return to Clarence Thomas, especially if it is to comment on the impact of his Supreme Court opinions on his successors at the E.E.O.C.