[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 128 (Wednesday, September 14, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: September 14, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
STATE DEPARTMENT'S QUOTAS
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, we are left to suppose, in horror, that the
Serbs are ``ethnically cleansing'' the former Yugoslavia of both
Moslems and Croats. In Rwanda, Hutus and Tutsis are slaughtering each
other. The world has always been polarized but it now has become
violently so.
Meanwhile, the State Department is drumming up a new brand of
polarization called diversity. Foggy Bottom would rather fulfill ethnic
quotas, thereby creating divisions and resentment, than choose the best
qualified people to tend U.S. interests abroad.
The State Department's problem is that the American people reject
ethnic and gender quotas. It is an absurd policy and it is unfair. It
is an insult to basic American precepts and principles.
I hope Senators will take note of a cable written by Lewis Anselem,
the political counselor at the United States Embassy in Bolivia. This
cable, highly critical of the State Department's quota policy, was
published in the July edition of Washingtonian magazine. Mr. Anselem
raises a number of significant questions about the Clinton
administration's pursuit of ethnic quotas at the State Department.
Mr. Anselem deserves forthright answers to his questions but I
recommend that nobody hold his or her breath until answers are
forthcoming from the State Department.
I recall Hubert Humphrey's asking the Senate 30 years ago, ``Do you
want a society that is nothing but an endless power struggle among
organized groups? Do you want a society where there is no place for the
individual?'' If Hubert were still around he would instantly recognize
that this administration has made clear that it values special interest
groups over independent individuals. And Hubert would discover that the
``politically correct'' crowd in charge today is making the ground
fertile for polarization.
Mr. President, the State Department should reject its misguided
efforts to enact quotas. I ask unanimous consent that W. Lewis
Anselem's cable, published by Washingtonian magazine, be printed in the
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
[From the Washingtonian, July 1994]
Undiplomatically Yours
(A cable from W. Lewis Anselem, political counselor in the
United States embassy in La Paz, Bolivia, on diversity within
the State Department has been making the rounds in Foggy
Bottom. Here is the text of the cable.)
1. I am taking advantage of your call for a full exchange
of views of personnel issues to send you this message on
``diversity.'' I probably should use the ``dissent channel''
but given my prior experience with that channel on a
different issue (i.e., eight months to get a reply), I have
chosen to address you directly. A previous cable I sent the
Director General (93 La Paz 15382) on diversity issues was
replied to six weeks later by the acting DIRGEN (State
384875) in a ``form letter'' which ignored the bulk of the
issues I raised. A follow-up cable (La Paz 734) was ignored.
2. I realize senior department officers cannot provide
personal answers to all cables they receive; I certainly
don't expect that. But given repeated calls by those
officials for a full and frank exchange in diversity and
other personnel issues, those officials should be ready and
willing to address such issues in a full and frank manner
somewhere and somehow. That has not happened. What statements
these officials have made on diversity reveal a lack of
understanding of basic issues, are contradictory, deceptive,
condescending in the extreme, insulting, and, above all,
confusing. It is that sort of behavior, I think, which led
the department to be the target of prior lawsuits and creates
an unease in the ranks today that could result in new ones
tomorrow. Current AFSA leadership seems to be management's
pet puppy on diversity, eager to please its master (I urge
everyone I know to stop paying AFSA dues).
3. I won't repeat what I stated in previous cables on
diversity. I want to discuss two articles in the February and
March issues of ``State Magazine.'' Those articles contain
statements by the director general and the legal advisor that
need clarification; anything you can do would be
appreciated. I apologize for this cable's length, but the
topic has many facets.
role of exams
4. In the February ``State Magazine'' report on the January
11 ``townhall meeting'' the director general (pg. 2) is cited
as stating on the issue of FS [Foreign Service] employees who
enter without taking the exam, that ``while some `assume that
we want to give a free pass to people who couldn't pass the
exam' it is rather the opposite, she said, explaining there
are persons who are so highly sought after that State could
never hope to recruit them if it had to wait for the lengthy
exam process.''
5. Is this an accurate characterization of the director
general's position on the exam issue? If so, is that an
accurate reflection of Department policy? Who are these
persons ``who are so highly sought after?'' What special
skills do they bring to the promoting of American overseas
interests? Does the department consider those who took the
exam and put up with the lengthy exam process as second-class
citizens? Why have exams if they only draw second-raters such
as myself? Will a warning label be placed on the exam so that
potential test-takers know they are not ``highly sought
after?'' Perhaps something similar to what we have on tobacco
goods: Warning: The Director General has determined that if
you take this test you are second-rate.
6. Will the same attitude of disregard for the exam extend
to the EER [employee evaluation report]? Can we anticipate
that certain persons will be promoted outside of the EER
process (because they are so ``valuable'') while only we non-
valuable ones need worry about EER ratings?
the evils of merit
7. In the same issue of ``State,'' the department's legal
advisor (identified as black although no one else's race is
mentioned, a matter which should be taken up with the editor)
is portrayed as claiming the following (pg. 3): ```We must
get rid of the notion that merit has been such a success that
we don't have a problem * * * It just doesn't do to walk into
a bureau and to see no one or only one person who looks like
me.' The fact is, he added, that white males are
overrepresented in the department * * * He continued: * * *
`We shouldn't assume that because a woman or minority winds
up as a DAS [deputy assistant secretary], that this was
reserved for a woman or a minority. What we should assume is
that the person was qualified for the job.'''
8. Is this an accurate characterization of the legal
advisor's position? Can we conclude that, under this
administration, merit is no longer the basis for employment
and advancement in the department? If, indeed, merit is no
longer the basis of assignment, advancement, etc., why should
we assume a person holding a particular job is qualified for
the job? Why shouldn't women and minorities feel stigmatized,
as the director general rightly worries they are? How can the
legal advisor's statements be reconciled with repeated
assertions (including in that same article, pg. 2) by the
director general and others that no dichotomy exists between
diversity and merit?
9. Is it department policy that white males are
``overrepresented?'' What others does the department consider
``overrepresented?'' Are there too many Jews in the
department? How will the department solve the ``Jewish
problem?'' Too many Catholics? Too many Baptists? Too many
Asians? Too many Mormons? Too many left-handed Protestants?
What else is there too many of? Is the legal advisor out to
cull the herd? What is the legal advisor's position on the
Chicago Bulls? That organization doesn't have too many people
who look like me, but as a team based on merit, not
diversity, they play great ball. Should we lower the net
and shorten the court so short, fat, cigar-smoking white
guys can play? What about the engineering school at UCLA?
Not many folks who look like me there, either, but they
sure are good engineers. From the charts provided in the
director general's article in the March ``State'' it seems
minorities are ``over-represented'' in the government
workforce in general (see chart on pg. 20). Will the
advisor propose minorities in other agencies be fired to
bring down their representation to the ``proper'' level?
Or is it only OK to insult and degrade white males?
10. The legal advisor is also quoted as saying (pg. 3) that
litigation is ``a blunt instrument but one that gets our
attention.'' I predict that if the department adopts the
attitude apparently held by the legal advisor, a lot more
``blunt instruments'' will get your attention.
on definitions and the plastic medium of statistics
11. In the March issue of ``State'' (pp. 18-25), the
director general presents a number of statistics on the
department workforce. Most of these are partial and
misleading. I note, however, that the second chart on pg. 21
clearly makes the point that there is ``gender bending''
going on in promotions. Since 1989 female officers are
consistently more likely to be promoted than are their male
colleagues. The 1993 figures are very telling. In that chart
alone, I suspect there is enough for a lawsuit. What that
chart doesn't show (but previous stats laboriously squeezed
out of the department do) is that women are much more likely
to cross the FS-1 to senior officer threshold than are men.
In addition, they are much more likely to get DCM [deputy
chief of mission] or P.O. [principal officer] jobs in
desirable postings than are men (a glance through the ``Key
Officers'' book shows that). And, please, despite what the
director general claims, we all know some positions are held
as long as possible for applicants of the ``right'' sex,
race, or ethnicity; it's one of the worst kept secrets in the
department.
12. Nowhere in the article does the director general
provide a definition of ``minority.'' This is a critical
failing I have noticed throughout the discussions of the
diversity issue. What is a minority in a country of
minorities? From what I can tell if you don't file a lawsuit,
you ain't a minority.
13. The issue of defining ``minority'' is a critical one.
When we join the Foreign Service we have to auto-declare
ourselves Hispanic, black, white, Native American, etc. Is
this the only means we have? Surely this is not very
accurate. Many Americans (myself included) are of mixed
background. How do we know who is ``truly'' white, black, or
Hispanic? How many white ancestors must you have before you
are no longer another race? What if you have one black great-
grandmother? Would a person with one European-origin parent
and one African-origin parent be white or black? What about
one with an Asian and an African parent? How does the
department know it is not being conned by unscrupulous race
and ethnic jumpers? What if you are currently a man but
``feel'' you are really a woman? Can those of us who listed
ourselves as in one group get reclassified?
14. If you are serious about racial labels, then department
medical services should be brought in to determine degrees of
racial ``purity.'' You can hire phrenologists and other
experts on racial traits. There are lots of those people now
unemployed in South Africa or under false names in Paraguay
(better move on this last group fast, they're getting old).
AH, YES * * * ONE MORE DEFINITION
15. In the whole debate on diversity, including in the two
articles I mention, I have yet to see a definition of
``diversity.'' I just can't believe personnel officers would
launch a policy without knowing what it is. Please provide a
definition of ``diversity.'' How will we know when we have
it? What are the exact quotas established? Once those are
reached, will the department have a ``diversity maintenance''
program to ensure old devil merit doesn't upset the correct
mix?
16. Will only race and gender be considered? What about
regional diversity? Are there too many Californians? Too many
Alaskans? What about elderly Americans? What about those of
Albanian descent? I have an Albanian-American friend from
Chicago; I would like him to know what his quota is. Would
Albanian-Americans from Philadelphia have a different quota
than those from Chicago (my friend has a brother in
Philadelphia)? What's the point system?
OH YES, I WANT MY COUNTRY TO BE JUST LIKE YUGOSLAVIA
17. I find diversity's obsession with race and gender
repugnant and potentially dangerous. Despite what the
director general claims, it is not those who object to
diversity who corrode efficiency and morale in the service,
it is those who promote diversity who do so. I might add, the
director general takes a cheap shot in her March article (pg.
18) by implying that those opposing diversity so do either
out of fear of change or resentment over diminished promotion
possibilities.
18. There are many legitimate and idealistic reasons to
oppose diversity. Not the least is that qualified women and
minority officers are being stigmatized by diversity and the
obvious ``white man's burden'' mentality behind it. The
assumption is that women and minorities (however defined)
can't compete unless the Great White Father designs a
``special program'' for them (what would the Bulls say about
that?). Diversity is causing serious, perhaps permanent
damage to a service already battered by years of abuse as a
playground for unqualified political appointees (not always:
I've served under some very fine political appointees). Can
you imagine a used car salesman commanding a nuclear aircraft
carrier? No? How about one as ambassador of the world's most
important country?
19. My parents did not immigrate to America so their kids
could face quotas. They came to get away from prejudice. The
social engineers in the department and its AFSA sidekick have
forgotten that the idea of America is to let people be their
best and in that way we all benefit. If engineering schools
have an ``overrepresentation'' of Asian-origin students, it
doesn't bother me. If for whatever reasons one group or
another has a greater tendency to go into one sort of
business rather than another, that doesn't bother me at all.
Diversity zealots are toying with explosive issues; no matter
how ``civilized'' we think we are, eventually, as we have
seen in Yugoslavia and only God knows how many other places,
we all will come out to defend our ethnicity, race, religion,
etc.--and at times violently. Call it tribalism or whatever
you want, but it's there under the surface. Let it stay
there; don't stir it up with misguided polices.
20. Thank you for this opportunity to express my views.
____________________