[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 114 (Monday, August 15, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 15, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   ALLEGATIONS AGAINST A U.S. SENATOR

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, allegations have been made against me 
in my role as a United States Senator.
  One of my greatest joys is to give young professionals a chance early 
in their career so they can become top notch, skilled professionals. 
Paul McDonald is just one of dozens of recent college graduates I have 
hired with the hope that they will learn a great deal about the Senate 
and serving constituents. It saddens me greatly that Paul, who chose to 
leave my office, has made charges against this office that are entirely 
untrue and false. There is not one iota of truth to his charges.
  I take any charges of racial or sexual harassment very seriously. In 
no way did this office try to prevent Paul McDonald from pursuing his 
case. I have no way of knowing if his charges against Princeton and the 
U.S. Department of Education are valid, nor is it my place to make that 
determination. I know that Paul has followed a long course of legal 
action against Princeton. The truth is that my office never stood in 
his way.
  Paul was not discharged from this office. He was not asked to stop 
pursuing his complaint of racial discrimination against Princeton and 
the U.S. Department of Education. He was only asked to not use office 
time to pursue his complaint and to not make it seem that his 
communication was connected to the official functions of the Senate 
office.
  Paul joined my staff in September 1993. He competed in an application 
process and was selected among many other applicants for the job of 
legislative correspondent.
  In December, Paul wrote to every member of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, on which I serve, asking for an investigation into charges 
of racial discrimination he had made against Princeton University and 
the U.S. Department of Education. In his correspondence, Paul included 
his business card and asked members to contact him at my office.
  This left the erroneous impression with my colleagues on the 
Judiciary Committee that this correspondence was officially connected 
to my office. In fact, my legislative director, Susy Elfving, received 
calls from the counsels of other members of the Judiciary Committee to 
ask if this was an official communication from my office. My staff said 
that clearly it was not official and that we learned about this at the 
same time as the other offices.
  After my senior staff brought this fact up to Paul, he agreed to 
write a letter to each member correcting this impression. In addition, 
he agreed that if he chose to write similar letters in the future to 
Members of the Senate that he would simply notify the Senator that the 
communication was independent of the office.
  Three weeks later, on January 25, Paul again wrote each Senator on 
the Judiciary Committee. In this letter, he called a response from 
Senator Specter to the earlier letter ``racist.'' Paul threatened to 
hold a news conference during Black History Month in February and 
publicly expose the complaint if the Judiciary Committee did not 
respond properly. Just a few weeks earlier, Paul had agreed to attach 
to his letter a note explaining that his communication had no 
connection to my office. He failed to do so. This failure created the 
impression that my office had somehow condoned the communication.
  After the second letter was sent to my colleagues, we simply 
reiterated our view that Paul not connect his complaint to this office 
and that he should not pursue it during office hours when he had other 
responsibilities.
  On February 10, Paul notified us of his personal decision to leave 
this office and began looking for another job. He asked if he could 
stay on staff while he looked for a job. Three-and-one-half months 
later, on May 27, he voluntarily resigned to take another position on 
Capitol Hill.
  I would like to submit the following documents for the Record to 
provide background on this matter.
                                                   January 4, 1994
     To: Paul McDonald, Legislative Correspondent.
     From: Michael McGill, Chief of Staff; Susy Elfving, 
         Legislative Director.
     Subject: Agreement to revise personal letter of 12/29/93.
       Per our discussion of this morning, you agreed to 
     personally retrieve all originals of the letter dated 
     December 29, 1993, which you directed to Members of the 
     Judiciary Committee and their staff. You will revise these 
     letters to delete any reference to your employment by this 
     office, including the name of your employer, your office 
     address and phone number, so there is no implication that the 
     issue which you are pursuing as a private citizen has been 
     officially sanctioned by this office.
       Since your employer is a Member of the Judiciary Committee, 
     you further agreed that the copy of your correspondence that 
     you direct to her will include a cover memo from you to her 
     explaining that you are pursuing this action independent of 
     your employment by this office and that you are not informing 
     anyone involved in the process of your employment in this 
     office.
       Upon the successful completion of these actions, we agree 
     that this entire affair will not be treated as a negative 
     item in your personnel file. Rather, it represents a well 
     intentioned but incorrect assumption on your part that such 
     an identification would be useful merely for the purposes of 
     communication between you and the addressees of your letter, 
     and would in no way imply any sort of official sanction or 
     support by this office.
       We appreciate your positive response to this situation.
     Michael S. McGill,
       Chief of Staff
     Susy Elfving,
       Legislative Director
     Paul McDonald,
                                         Legislative Correspondent
                                  ____



                                               Alexandria, VA,

                                                  January 7, 1994.
     Sent to all Judiciary Committee Counsels:
       Attached is a letter from my father and a revision of the 
     first page of my December 29, 1993 letter requesting a 
     meeting with the Committee on the Judiciary members and their 
     counsel to discuss my family's call for a Committee 
     investigation of our complaints of racial discrimination, 
     harassment and bias against Princeton University and the U.S. 
     Department of Education. The first page has been revised to 
     delete the reference to my employment by Senator Dianne 
     Feinstein in order to emphasize that my request is 
     independent of my employment. The reference to my employment 
     was informational and for the purpose of identifying how I 
     may be contacted during working hours to discuss this 
     request. I have made this request on behalf of my family and 
     as a private citizen. Questions should be addressed either to 
     my father, Walter E. McDonald, or to me. My father can be 
     reached at these phone numbers: Home: (713) 265-2056, Work: 
     (713) 656-6334.
       The first page has also been revised to include Ruth 
     Simmons, Vice Provost of Princeton University, in the list of 
     administrators and trustees of Princeton University who 
     supported or participated in acts of racial discrimination 
     and harassment against me.
       Please return to me the original first page to confirm 
     receipt of this revision. I have enclosed a self-addressed, 
     stamped envelope for your convenience.
                                                    Paul McDonald.
                                  ____



                                               Alexandria, VA,

                                                December 29, 1993.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     Counsel,
     Hart Senate Office Building.
       I am requesting a meeting with Committee on the Judiciary 
     members and their counsel to discuss my family's call for a 
     Committee investigation of our complaints of racial 
     discrimination, harassment and bias against Princeton 
     University and the U.S. Department of Education. My request 
     has been delivered to Chairman Joseph Biden and the Chief 
     Counsel Cynthia Hogan; this letter is being delivered to each 
     member of the Committee. Our complaints are based on:
       Princeton University administrators' racial discrimination 
     against and harassment of me, an African-American male 
     student leader with the support and participation of: Harold 
     Shapiro, President of Princeton University; Hugo 
     Sonnenschein, then Provost of Princeton University, now 
     President of the University of Chicago; Ruth Simmons, Vice 
     Provost of Princeton University; R.H. Rawson, Chairman of the 
     Board of Trustees; Senator John Danforth, Member of the Board 
     of Trustees; Hodding Carter, Member of the Board of Trustees.
       U.S. Department of Education's racial discrimination and 
     bias against my family in repeated refusal to investigate 
     discrimination complaints against Princeton University and 
     mistreatment of my family with the support and participation 
     of: Richard Riley, Secretary of the U.S. Department of 
     Education; Norma Cantu, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 
     U.S. Department of Education; Paula Kuebler, Regional Civil 
     Rights Director, U.S. Department of Education.
       I am an African-American male, recent graduate of Princeton 
     University and former President of the Princeton University 
     Undergraduate Student Government (president of the student 
     body). My accomplishments at Princeton University while I was 
     being discriminated against and harassed by university 
     administrators are described in my resume and a Princeton 
     Alumni Weekly article which are enclosed. I am appealing to 
     the Judiciary Committee because my family has made every 
     attempt to resolve my complaints against Princeton University 
     with the U.S. Department of Education. In our pursuit of 
     equal justice and protection under Title VI of the Civil 
     Rights Act of 1964, we have been misled, lied to, 
     disrespected, patronized, and summarily dismissed by Office 
     for Civil Rights Region II Director Paula Kuebler, Assistant 
     Secretary for Civil Rights Norma V. Cantu, and Secretary 
     Richard Riley. Each has demonstrated racial discrimination 
     and bias against me and my family in their refusal to 
     investigate my complaints against Princeton University's 
     highest-ranking administrators.
       My complaints against Princeton University administrators 
     are serious; this is not just my family's belief.
       In his January 15, 1993 letter to me, R.H. Rawson, Chairman 
     of the Princeton Board of Trustees wrote, ``Your allegations 
     are serious and need to be addressed forthrightly and 
     promptly. . .''
       In her May 2, 1993 letter to my father (attached at end of 
     this letter), Senator Carol Moseley-Braun wrote, ``The 
     problem of discrimination in higher education is of great 
     concern to me . . . The allegations you raise . . . are very 
     serious.''
       My complaints against Princeton University administrators 
     address discrimination and harassment during my last four 
     semesters at Princeton. The stress and frustration of 
     fighting this racism had its toll. I had abnormal fatigue and 
     migraine headaches that were diagnosed after my junior year 
     in the summer of 1992; I had to take medication for the 
     migraines during my senior year. I also had periods of 
     depression and was often unable to focus or concentrate on 
     academics because of the persistent and isolating nature of 
     harassment I experienced. I had considered withdrawing from 
     the university before my father made his first of two trips 
     to Princeton to remove me from campus so that I could 
     concentrate and complete assignments without harassment. 
     Before the harassment began I had maintained a 3.6 grade 
     point average while chairing the Undergraduate Student 
     Government committee on undergraduate life, and I had been 
     nominated for the Harry S. Truman Scholarship for which I 
     later became a national finalist. The harassment and 
     discrimination caused significant drops in my grades and 
     effectively denied me opportunities for academic honors and 
     graduate scholarships, influencing my decision to postpone 
     law school studies. In my last semester, administrators 
     placed me on disciplinary probation with a threat to expel me 
     after I initially filed a complaint against them with the 
     U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights Region 
     II and mailed information to fellow minority students 
     advising them to do the same if they had complaints against 
     representatives of the university.
       That my complaints were found without racial discrimination 
     or harassment by Office for Civil Rights Region II Director 
     Paula Kuebler, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Norma 
     Contu, and Secretary Richard Riley without investigation 
     suggests they are more interested in closing my case against 
     Princeton University than in enforcing the law. It is 
     therefore my family's position that the U.S. Department of 
     Education must not be involved in any forthcoming 
     investigation or adjudication of my complaints against 
     Princeton University. With this letter, I am filing racial 
     discrimination and bias complaints against Paula Kuebler, 
     Norma Cantu and Richard Riley for their actions as 
     representatives of the U.S. Department of Education; it is my 
     family's hope that their actions are not indicative of a 
     general insensitivity to and condoning of racial 
     discrimination and harassment of African-American males on 
     the part of public officials who are charged with protecting 
     our civil rights. To this point, my family has found that 
     there are few advocates for young African-American males who 
     commit themselves to excellence and demand equal justice and 
     respect. It appears the only young African-American males 
     whom public officials are concerned about are those who are 
     incarcerated.
       Proper and thorough investigation of my complaints against 
     Princeton University is important in the struggle for equal 
     protection and justice for African-American students on 
     predominantly white college campuses across the nation. The 
     racism I experienced on the Princeton University campus is 
     indicative of the `new age' racism confronting African-
     American students. The `new age' racists on college campuses 
     are administrators and faculty who use their positions of 
     authority in the university community to demean African-
     Americans, treating us as if we have no reason to expect the 
     same attention, treatment and respect white students receive 
     and seeking to confine us to subordinate roles they have set 
     aside for us. For African-Americans to challenge these 
     administrators or faculty members instead of accepting or 
     tolerating mistreatment is unacceptable. Their response is 
     seldom to call us `nigger'; calling us `nigger' is often 
     rejected in their circles as `unsophisticated' and, for the 
     purposes of punishing us for standing up to them, is often 
     not considered damaging enough. Instead their response is to 
     use their authority to undermine our academics and 
     activities, intending to dismantle us from the inside as our 
     frustration and feelings of isolation increase with the 
     realization that in this environment they determine what is 
     right and wrong and answer to no one. Some students transfer 
     from one college to another. Some students take time off from 
     college. Some students dropout and do not complete their 
     degrees. All African-American students that have experienced 
     this `new age' racism are denied their potential--the grades, 
     opportunities, experiences, and peace of mind they would and 
     should have had.
       The following are brief accounts of my experiences. More 
     information is available upon request.


                          PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

       Princeton University's highest-ranking administrators 
     demeaned me as a person, stigmatizing me as an African-
     American male representing a threat to white females and 
     stigmatizing my parents as ``rude and inappropriate'' when 
     they challenged administrators' mistreatment of me. They 
     demeaned me as a student, stereotyping me as an irresponsible 
     and underqualified African-American student fortunate to 
     attend Princeton in communications to professors, threatening 
     to rescind the university's sponsorship of a colleague's 
     nomination of me for the Harry S. Truman Scholarship (I 
     became a national finalist for the scholarship) and causing a 
     significant drop in grades from the psychological stress 
     associated with their actions against me. They demeaned me as 
     a leader, refusing to accept me as the legitimate and elected 
     president of the student body and subverting my agenda at the 
     behest of a white female student who held a lower position in 
     the student government. Again, I ask you to look at my 
     resume. Had I been white, administrators would have heralded 
     me instead of harassing me; they would have lifted me up 
     instead of trying to string me up.
       Enclosed are complaints I filed in the Office of the 
     Provost at Princeton University and the U.S. Department of 
     Education Region II Office for Civil Rights. These complaints 
     describe specific acts of racial discrimination and 
     harassment committee against me by: Thomas Wright, Vice 
     President and General Counsel; Ruth Simmons, Vice Provost; 
     Nancy Weiss Malkiel, Dean of the College; Diane Balestri, 
     Assistant Dean of the College; Eugene Lowe, Dean of Students; 
     Joyce Clark, Associate Dean of Students; Kathleen Deignan, 
     Associate Dean of Students; Sandy Silverman, Assistant Dean 
     of Students; Michael Rodriguez, Director of the Third World 
     Center.
       These complaints also describe racist actions taken against 
     me with the assistance or approval of administrators by 
     Jennifer Weller-Polley '93, a white female student, and the 
     student editors of The Daily Princetonian campus newspaper. 
     The academic department I was enrolled in, the Woodrow Wilson 
     School of Public and International Affairs, also 
     discriminated against me in assigning me to a public policy 
     conference.
       President Harold Shapiro is implicated in these complaints 
     because the McDonald family appealed to him, in person and in 
     letters, to protect me from the racial discrimination and 
     harassment of the administrators listed above. From our 
     communications, Shapiro understood the injurious effects the 
     actions of administrators had on me (academic, physical and 
     psychological) but did nothing to stop the harassment. I 
     appealed to Chairman of the Princeton University Board of 
     Trustees Robert H. Rawson and Trustees Senator John Danforth 
     and journalist W. Hodding Carter III asking that the Board of 
     Trustees intervene since the highest-ranking administrators 
     were involved. In his response Rawson acknowledged my charges 
     were ``serious and need to be addressed forthrightly and 
     promptly by the University'' but insisted the administration 
     could handle my charges despite the fact top administrators 
     had either committed, supported, or condoned the racist 
     actions that I was challenging. Through their silence on the 
     matter after I had sent copies of my complaint to them, the 
     entire membership of the Board of Trustees also indicated 
     that their interest was not in addressing racism on campus 
     but instead in covering up campus racism.
       Princeton University's indifference and sometime hostility 
     to student concerns of racial discrimination and harassment 
     in the past and present (as I have documented in the enclosed 
     race record and my open letters to the university community) 
     and its failure to adopt a racial harassment policy despite 
     repeated attempts by students to establish a policy as 
     recently as this past March make it clear that minority 
     students on Princeton's campus have no rights white 
     administrators, faculty or students have to respect. The fact 
     that no minority student has been successful in challenging 
     administrators has permitted them to become more resistant 
     and arrogant in their racism over the years. Minority 
     students have no recourse on Princeton University's campus.
       Administrators placed me on disciplinary probation with a 
     threat to expel me after I had filed a complaint against the 
     university with the U.S. Department of Education Office for 
     Civil Rights and mailed information to fellow minority 
     students advising them to do the same if they were 
     unsatisfied with the university's handling of their racial 
     discrimination and harassment complaints (see enclosed New 
     York Times and Associated Press articles). They isolated me 
     on campus with the assistance of student editors of the Daily 
     Princetonian through their attempts to assassinate my 
     character in campus newspaper articles. Vice Provost Ruth 
     Simmons, an African-American female who was supposed to be an 
     advocate for minority student concerns, took every 
     opportunity to make false accusations about me in articles in 
     an effort to discredit me. Frankly, she considered my 
     statements on the university's lack of commitment on racial 
     issues a threat to her career plans; the Provost Hugo 
     Sonnenschein and announced he would be leaving to become 
     president of the University of Chicago, and Simmons had been 
     mentioned for the position because of her supposed efforts to 
     improve race relations. The administration and editors of the 
     campus newspaper made repeated personal attacks on my 
     character, but one instance particularly stands out from 
     others. The editor-and-chief of the newspaper decided to 
     print a negative article about me written by the son of an 
     administrator against whom I had filed a racial 
     discrimination complaint. The editor printed this negative 
     article after I had written a letter to President Harold 
     Shapiro, Vice Provost Ruth Simmons, and her asking that the 
     article not be run because of the personal bias of the 
     reporter. The editor then refused to print letters written in 
     support of me after running the negative article; two 
     students even contacted me to tell me their letters of 
     support had been refused by the editorial board.
       Dean of Students Eugene Y. Lowe admitted to my father that 
     there were, in Lowe's words, ``several administrators'' who 
     were ``upset'' with me during my father's trip to Princeton 
     in March 1993. Lowe's comment was remarkable--not just 
     because it was so candid a statement of administrator's 
     biases against me, but also because he even spoke with my 
     father. After my father had arrived for a meeting scheduled 
     in the previous fall semester with an Associate Provost to 
     discuss my family's concerns about racial discrimination 
     against me, he had been handed a letter informing him that 
     Vice President and General Counsel Thomas Wright had 
     ``directed university administrators not to deal with you [my 
     father] either by telephone, or in person, or in writing'' 
     and that the meeting had been cancelled. My father wrote a 
     letter to Wright and President Harold Shapiro indicating that 
     he had not been notified of the cancellation before he had 
     arrived for the meeting. Wright refused to apologize or offer 
     to reimburse my father for the expenses he incurred making 
     the trip from Houston to Princeton. Furthermore, Wright 
     wrote, ``I regret that you believe a number of University 
     administrators have treated you and your son unfairly on the 
     basis of race. In light of the way you make these charges, I 
     do not see any productive means of responding to them.''


          u.s. department of education office for civil rights

       After the Princeton University Board of Trustees had failed 
     to intervene, I filed racial discrimination and harassment 
     complaints against Princeton administrators at the U.S. 
     Department of Education Region II Office for Civil Rights 
     (OCR) in New York City. I thought I had found an impartial 
     agent that had authority by law (Title VI of the 1964 Civil 
     Rights Act) to both adjudicate the complaints and impose 
     sanctions upon those found to have discriminated against me. 
     But OCR Region II demonstrated a lack of will and commitment 
     to confronting racial discrimination. More importantly OCR 
     officials in their insensitive questioning of whether the 
     discrimination and harassment I had experienced was based on 
     my race, their reluctance to either investigate complaints in 
     a timely fashion (by their own official timelines) or 
     investigate the most serious complaints at all, and their 
     disrespectful treatment of my family in their communications 
     to us have proven they are not qualified to investigate 
     `new age' racism and are in fact racist themselves.
       Consider that in OCR's Annual Report to Congress: Fiscal 
     year 1991 it is reported that their offices receive few if 
     any alleged racial discrimination or harassment complaints 
     brought by students against universities or colleges based on 
     direct actions employees or representatives of the 
     institution took against the complainant.
       Seventy-nine percent of the complaints received in FY 1991 
     alleged discrimination in the delivery of services, while 
     most of the remainder alleged discrimination in employment. 
     As in previous years, nearly two-thirds of all complaints 
     alleged discrimination on the basis of handicap.
       Only 17 percent of complaints alleged discrimination on the 
     basis of race. This is not because racism has declined on 
     campuses across the nation; according to most reports, there 
     has been an increase of racist incidents on campuses. The 
     small percentage of complaints alleging racial discrimination 
     can be attributed to the general lack of information about 
     the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights and 
     its purpose. Simply put, most minority students (it is 
     possible 90 percent or more) do not know OCR exists because 
     OCR has made no attempt to increase awareness among minority 
     students. It appears that African-Americans whose 
     grandparents and parents gave and risked the most for civil 
     rights are among the last to be protected by OCR's annual $48 
     million efforts to insure compliance of civil rights laws. 
     Yet members of Congress certainly assume, if for no other 
     reason than the title ``Office for Civil Rights,'' that OCR 
     champions equal justice and respect for African-Americans. My 
     experience proves otherwise and is strong argument that OCR 
     should be investigated by Congress for condoning the racism 
     the office is supposed to fight.
       My father and I personally delivered a 30 page racial 
     discrimination and harassment complaint to OCR Region II in 
     New York City on January 21. This complaint, which I had 
     previously filed in the Office of the Provost at Princeton 
     University, fully detailed the racial discrimination and 
     harassment that I had experienced at Princeton University in 
     the previous semesters. Eddie Pinkney of OCR reviewed this 30 
     page complaint and told my father and me that it was too 
     lengthy and detailed for purposes of filing a complaint at 
     OCR. Pinkney did not indicate that the 30 page complaint 
     lacked any information needed to initiate an investigation 
     nor did he question the validity of my charges of racial 
     discrimination. He did suggest I fill in one of the standard 
     OCR discrimination complaint forms while in the office and 
     submit this form instead of the 30 page complaint. The 
     official discrimination complaint form has little space for 
     detailed description of a complaint; Pinkney said simple 
     statements to the effect ``I was discriminated by * * *'' for 
     each instance of discrimination would be enough for filing a 
     complaint. He also instructed me to request an extension of 
     the normal six month OCR filing period in a letter to Paula 
     Kuebler, Regional Director of OCR Region II.
       I submitted a complaint and request for a waiver of the 6 
     month limit normally applied to complaints to Paula Kuebler, 
     Regional Director of OCR Region II, on January 26 (enclosed). 
     In a letter to me dated February 12 (enclosed), OCR Region II 
     stated ``We have carefully reviewed your complaint and 
     determined that you have provided this Office with 
     insufficient information concerning most of your allegations 
     to initiate an investigation.'' OCR also stated ``it will be 
     necessary for you to request a waiver of the timeliness 
     requirement [180 calendar days of the last act of alleged 
     discriminatory conduct].'' OCR listed nine requests for 
     information.
       A critique of OCR's requests for more information 
     (enclosed) in light of the details in the complaint filed on 
     January 26 reveals that OCR did not ``carefully review'' my 
     complaint and that their claim of ``insufficient 
     information'' had no merit. OCR's insincere response to my 
     complaint intended to either postpone investigation or 
     discourage me from further pursuing the entire complaint in 
     their office. OCR hoped to appease me in stating that the 
     complaint against instructors for refusal to grant class 
     assignment extensions was complete; this complaint in fact 
     had less detail than the other complaints against top 
     Princeton University administrators, but appears to be the 
     easiest complaint to resolve because at first glance there 
     seems to be a possible compromise or conciliation, i.e. the 
     granting of extensions and changing of grades. But the 
     complaints against administrators do not suggest means of 
     conciliation; these complaints require confrontation and 
     strict sanctions to resolve. I am convinced that OCR never 
     intended to investigate my complaints against Princeton 
     University administrators.
       I did not respond to OCR's requests for more information; 
     as stated and demonstrated in the enclosed critique of OCR's 
     requests, my original complaint was in fact complete. I was 
     frustrated by OCR's insensitivity and incompetence and had 
     more or less abandoned hope. University administrators had 
     begun to retaliate against me for making minority students 
     aware of the option of filing discrimination complaints 
     against the university with OCR. In order to graduate in 
     June, I had to research and write an 80 page thesis by April 
     5. I did not have the time or energy to conduct the 
     investigation for OCR, which is what OCR seemed to expect me 
     to do in their repeated requests for ``factual information 
     which would support your feeling that these actions were 
     discriminatory because other individuals in similar 
     circumstances were treated in a more favorable manner than 
     yourself.'' The determination of discrimination--through the 
     gathering of factual information from all parties and through 
     considering both the treatment of others in similar 
     circumstances and the potential that the circumstances 
     affecting the complainant are unique--is OCR's job, not the 
     complainants. This is so if for no other reason than the fact 
     that the accused institution has no incentive to cooperate 
     with the complainant and provide him or her factual 
     information supporting his or her feeling that the 
     institution's actions were discriminatory but must cooperate 
     with OCR because OCR has authority to enforce Title VI of the 
     Civil Rights Act of 1964.
       My father and I called OCR and asked to speak with Regional 
     Director Paula Kuebler, but she refused to discuss the 
     original complaint with us. My father filed a retaliation 
     complaint on my behalf on April 12 against Princeton 
     University administrators for their placing me on 
     disciplinary probation after I had informed minority students 
     of their right to file discrimination and harassment 
     complaints against the university with OCR; this complaint 
     was sent with a cover letter to Secretary of Education 
     Richard Riley and Attorney General Janet Reno (enclosed) 
     requesting that they take action from their offices because 
     of the incompetence and insensitivity demonstrated by OCR 
     Region II. When my father called the Department of Education 
     to inquire about the retaliation complaint, he was 
     transferred to the office of Jeanette Lim, then Acting 
     Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. Lim's assistant said 
     that she had prepared a letter to be sent to my father. My 
     father asked if the letter could be faxed to him, to which 
     Lim's assistant replied, ``We don't fax letters and don't 
     call here again.'' My father then faxed letters to Secretary 
     Riley and Attorney General Reno requesting meetings to 
     discuss all my complaints (the entire original complaint and 
     the retaliation complaint) and OCR's mistreatment of us. On 
     June 3, Norma Cantu, who had recently been appointed 
     Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, responded to my 
     father's request to meet with Secretary Riley stating that 
     ``communicating with increasingly higher level Government 
     officials will not affect the OCR regional offices' careful, 
     deliberate evaluation * * *'' She told us to direct questions 
     about all complaints to OCR Region II despite the fact we had 
     indicated reservations about the regional office's handling 
     of the original complaints. OCR agreed to investigate the 
     retaliation complaint after Senator Carol Moseley-Braun, whom 
     my father had copied in his letter attached to the 
     retaliation complaint, wrote Secretary of Education Riley in 
     support of our request for a full investigation of all my 
     complaints. But in her response to Senator Moseley-Braun, 
     Cantu purposely misled the Senator, stating that ``my staff 
     have looked into your constituent's situation and advised me 
     that Mr. McDonald's complaints are under investigation.'' In 
     fact, the majority of the original complaints addressing the 
     most damaging actions against me were still not being 
     investigated.
       When we finally spoke with Regional Director Paula Kuebler, 
     we indicated that we wanted to appeal OCR Region II's 
     determination that insufficient information had been provided 
     on the complaints against Princeton administrators and OCR 
     Region II's subsequent decision not to investigate these 
     complaints; she said there was no appeal process and accused 
     us of ``asking for special treatment.'' On August 3, I wrote 
     a letter to Norma Cantu appealing OCR Region II's decision 
     not to investigate my original racial discrimination 
     complaints against Princeton administrators; I included the 
     critique of OCR's request for more information that is 
     enclosed here. I requested that Cantu appoint a special 
     counsel to investigate all my complaints and the mishandling 
     of the original complaint by OCR Region II. In Cantu's 
     response (signed by Jeanette Lim), she once again lied 
     about the status of the original complaints against 
     university administrators stating that the ``regional 
     office is currently investigating your complaint'' in 
     response to my specific inquiry about the original 
     complaints against administrators. She again told us to 
     direct further questions to OCR Region II despite the fact 
     I had specifically called for an investigation of that 
     office in my appeal. OCR Region II should have been 
     disqualified from investigating or adjudicating any of my 
     complaints based on their mishandling of complaints and 
     mistreatment of me and my father. I delivered a letter to 
     Cantu's office on August 24 requesting a meeting with her. 
     Her chief of staff responded in a letter that Cantu would 
     not meet with me and that OCR was ``sorry if we have been 
     unable to resolve this matter to your satisfaction.
       I did receive an OCR letter of finding dated October 21 
     from OCR Region II Director Paula Kuebler. This letter of 
     finding was considerably late in its issuance by OCR's 
     official timelines for complaint decisions. The letter of 
     finding addressed the complaint I had filed against two 
     professors for denying me extensions on class assignments 
     that conflicted with my attempts to resolve my racial 
     discrimination complaints with the university. OCR Region II 
     found the professors innocent of the charges I filed. My 
     critique of the OCR letter of finding is included in my 
     December 29 letter to Senator Edward Kennedy. This letter to 
     Senator Kennedy also addresses a December 10 letter Cantu 
     sent to him in response to his November 9 request for her 
     report on the status of the appeal of OCR Region II that I 
     had filed. These letters are all in the last section of the 
     enclosures binder. I have still heard nothing from OCR on the 
     retaliation complaint. The official deadline for a decision 
     on the retaliation complaint has long passed. The fact that 
     Cantu does not refer to it in her correspondence to Senator 
     Kennedy suggests that OCR does not intend to investigate the 
     retaliation complaint even though it was deemed complete and 
     given a case number.
       New age racists like the Princeton University 
     administrators named in my discrimination and harassment 
     complaints hold African-American students captive on college 
     campuses. The university community is their plantation--and 
     on this plantation African-American students have no rights 
     these administrators, or faculty and white students, have to 
     respect. These administrators do whatever they want to 
     whenever they want to because they believe that African-
     American students have no recourse. Unfortunately, my 
     experience with the U.S. Department of Education Office for 
     Civil Rights supports this belief. It appears no one is 
     willing to stand with young African-Americans who are 
     committed to excellence and demand respect, equal justice, 
     and equal protection under the law.
       If you have any questions or need more information, please 
     do not hesitate to contact me. I have accumulated extensive 
     documentation, including letters to and from individuals 
     involved in my complaints, in support of my claims. My family 
     and I thank you for your time and consideration. We look 
     forward to hearing from you.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Paul L. McDonald.
                                  ____

                                                 January 25, 1994.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     Counsel,
     Hart Senate Office Building.
       Attached is a January 12, 1994 letter Senator Arlen Specter 
     sent to me regarding my December 29, 1993 request for a 
     meeting with Committee on the Judiciary members and counsel 
     to discuss my family's call for a Committee investigation of 
     our complaints of racial discrimination, harassment and bias 
     against Princeton University and the U.S. Department of 
     Education. This letter in response is being delivered to each 
     member of the Committee.
       It is my family's hope that Senator Specter's response is 
     not an indication of the Committee's position as we consider 
     his response racist in its condoning of the U.S. Department 
     of Education Office for Civil Rights' (OCR) actions to deny 
     me due process and equal protection. We consider Senator 
     Specter's response to be hostile to the plight of African-
     American students on predominantly white campuses, which I 
     described in my December 29, 1993 letter to you as the `new 
     racism.' It is apparent Senator Specter is comfortable with 
     assuming this public posture; as we have not received a 
     response from the Committee on our request, it remains to be 
     seen if the membership is also.
       In his statement that my ``administrative claim has been 
     concluded'' because of ``[my] failure to file an * * * appeal 
     within the time provided by law,'' Senator Specter 
     conveniently chooses to ignore both my complaints against the 
     U.S. Department of Education in my December 29 letter to the 
     Committee membership and my critique of the Office for Civil 
     Rights' findings in my December 29 letter to Senator Edward 
     Kennedy enclosed with the materials sent to the Committee 
     membership. In his attempt to clean his hands of the matter, 
     however, he betrays his own reasoning. Senator Specter 
     states, ``The allegations you make regarding Princeton 
     University * * * are quite serious.'' (Senator Carol Moseley-
     Braun had also stated that the ``allegations you raise * * * 
     are very serious'' in her May 2, 1993 letter to my father 
     attached to the December 29 letter to you.) But Senator 
     Specter has concluded that my complaints are ``serious'' 
     based on the same information that the U.S. Department of 
     Education determined was insufficient to warrant 
     investigation. In effect, Senator Specter acknowledges that 
     my family has a complaint against the U.S. Department of 
     Education for denying us due process. It is our complaint 
     that the U.S. Department of Education has been more 
     interested in closing our case against Princeton University 
     than in enforcing the law. There is no other explanation for 
     the U.S. Department of Education's decision not to 
     investigate complaints two members of the Senator Committee 
     on the Judiciary have characterized as ``serious.''
       In my December 29 letters to the Committee membership, I 
     stated that I had written to Assistant Secretary for Civil 
     Rights Norma Cantu on August 3, 1993 to appeal OCR Region 
     II's decision not to investigate my complaints. I critiqued 
     OCR Region II's request for more information and maintained 
     through point-by-point analysis that sufficient information 
     had been provided in the original complaint I sent to OCR to 
     initiate an investigation. OCR Region II had 
     ``administratively closed'' the majority of the original 
     complaint based on its reasoning that I had failed to provide 
     sufficient information by a later deadline, but if enough 
     information had in fact been provided initially as I 
     maintain, the deadline is moot. I remind the Committee that 
     Senators Carol Moseley-Braun and Arlen Specter characterized 
     my complaints as ``serious'' based on the same information 
     that the U.S. Department of Education determined was 
     insufficient to warrant investigation. I also remind you that 
     OCR Region II after ``carefully reviewing'' my original 
     complaint had informed me in their February 12, 1993 letter 
     that it would ``be necessary for [me] to request a waiver of 
     the timeliness requirement [180 calendar days of the last act 
     of alleged discriminatory conduct]'' and address this 
     request to Regional Director Paula Kuebler. I had made 
     this request in the third sentence of my January 26, 1993 
     letter to Paula Kuebler included with my original 
     complaint. (The letters and critiques referred to here 
     were enclosed with the materials sent to the Committee 
     membership with my December 29 letter.)
       Although the Office for Civil Rights has issued a letter of 
     finding on my complaints against German professors (Case. No. 
     02-93-2051), i.e. ``administratively closed'' this case, OCR 
     has not issued a letter of finding on the retaliation 
     complaint my father filed against Princeton University 
     administrators for their placing me on disciplinary probation 
     after I had informed minority students of their right to file 
     complaints against the university with the Office for Civil 
     Rights. This retaliation complaint (Case No. 02-93-2092) has 
     not been closed by any official regulations. OCR simply does 
     not intend to investigate this complaint. It is incredible 
     that Senator Specter could ignore this pending case, and it 
     further suggests that he has no interest in insuring due 
     process or equal protection for African-Americans.
       In his closing, Senator Specter ``question[s] the propriety 
     of Judiciary Committee review over the issues [I] present.'' 
     I came to this Committee because my family has been 
     discriminated against by a federal agency responsible for 
     enforcing civil rights laws. Senator Specter is suggesting 
     that those responsible for enforcing the law may not be held 
     accountable when breaking the law and, furthermore, that law 
     enforcement officials may adjudicate and subsequently 
     ``administratively close'' cases in which they have 
     participated in the breaking of laws in order to escape 
     appeals, scrutiny, and sanctions. Must there be an abuse of 
     force on the part of the police before the Judiciary decides 
     it has propriety over the issues? It appears that although 
     Senator Specter has admitted that my complaints are serious, 
     he has no moral qualms about condoning the U.S. Department of 
     Education's decision to ignore them. My family and I are 
     convinced he has not taken me seriously because I am an 
     African-American male. If I were a woman alleging sexual 
     harassment, the public officials with whom my family has 
     dealt would have shown more sensitivity and concern. It seems 
     the only African-American males whom public officials are 
     concerned about are those of us who are incarcerated.
       My family and I remain hopeful that Senator Specter's 
     feelings are not shared by the Committee membership. We would 
     appreciate a response from the Committee on our request by 
     Wednesday, February 9 as we are now making preparations to 
     publicly expose our complaints and experiences during Black 
     History Month if it is necessary to continue our pursuit of 
     equal justice. We have been fighting for more than two years 
     now. We have not come this far to turn back.
           Sincerely,
     Paul L. McDonald.
     Walter E. McDonald.

                          ____________________