[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 100 (Monday, June 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8622-S8624]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ON THE VALUE OF PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I appreciate this opportunity to
share with my colleagues the thoughtful comments of National Labor
Relations Board Chairman, William B. Gould IV, to graduates of the Ohio
State University College of Law. In his remarks, Mr. Gould reminds us
of the satisfaction one obtains through service to one's community and
of the many opportunities available for us to do so. His inspiring
comments make clear the value and importance of this commitment to
assisting those around us.
A remark by philosopher Albert Schweitzer has never failed to kindle
my enthusiasm for work in the field of public service. Mr. Schweitzer
once told an audience:
I do not know what your destiny will be, but one thing I
know: the only ones among you who will be truly happy are
those who will have sought and found how to serve.
I thank my colleagues for this opportunity to make Mr. Gould's
remarks a part of the Record.
The remarks follow:
[From the National Labor Relations Board, Washington, DC, May 14, 1995]
NLRB Chairman Gould Urges Law School Grads To Consider Public Service
Careers
In a commencement address on May 14 at the Ohio State
University College of Law, National Labor Relations Board
Chairman William B. Gould IV encouraged the graduates to
consider careers in public service ``even in this period of
government bashing by the 104th Congress'' and as the legal
profession is under attack.
``My hope is that many of you will dedicate yourselves as
lawyers or in other careers to a concern for the public
good,'' Chairman Gould said in the graduation observance in
Columbus, Ohio. ``Now, when Oklahoma City has made it clear
that the idea of government itself as well as the law is
under attack, it is useful to reflect back upon what
government, frequently in conjunction with lawyers, has done
for us in this century alone in moving toward a more
civilized society.'' He stated:.
``What would our society look like without the trust
busters of Theodore Roosevelt's era and the Federal Reserve
System created by Woodrow Wilson? Regulatory approaches to
food and drug administration, the securities market, the
licensing of radio and television stations, labor-management
relations (with which my agency is concerned) and trade
practices are all part of the Roosevelt New Deal legacy which
few would disavow in toto.''
Mr. Gould said ``the challenge of public service in
Washington has never been more exciting or inspirational,''
as a result of ``the Clinton Administration's commitment--not
only to helping the less financially able to use available
educational opportunities and to provide a higher minimum
wage to those who are in economic distress--but also, most
particularly, through the National Service,'' He added:
``My sense is that there is a great opportunity for lawyers
to serve the public good through the public service today--
even in this period of government bashing by the 104th
Congress. More than three decades ago President John F.
Kennedy called upon the sense of a `greater purpose' in a
speech at the University of Michigan when he advocated the
creation of the Peace Corps during the 1960 campaign.
President Bill Clinton's National and Community Service Trust
Act (AmeriCorps.), designed to allow young people tuition
reimbursements for community service, echoes the same spirit
of commitment set forth by President Kennedy--and at an
earlier point by President Roosevelt through the Civilian
Conservation Corps.''
Tracing his own interest in the law and government service,
Mr. Gould said he was inspired by the Supreme Court's
landmark 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the
NAACP's anti-discrimination efforts in the South, and
``[m]ore than anything else . . . the struggle in South
Africa made me see the connection between the rule of law and
dealing with injustice.'' He also spoke of the ``trilogy of
values'' at his ``inner core'' that has guided his life and
fostered his philosophical allegience to the New Deal, the
New Frontier and the Great Society.
The first of these values is the idea from his upbringing
in the Episcopal Church of ``our duty to live by the
Comfortable Words and to help those who `travail and are
heavy laden.' The second was the belief, inspired by his
parents, that ``the average person needs some measure of
protection against both the powerful and unexpected
adversity.'' The third value, Mr. Gould continued, was
``based upon personal exposure to the indignity of racial
discrimination which consigned my parents' generation to a
most fundamental denial of equal opportunity.''
The NLRB Chairman, on leave as the Charles A. Beardsley
Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, said he was proud of
the agency's prominent role in the Major League Baseball
dispute where ``the public was able to obtain a brief glimpse
of the Board's day-to-day commitment to the rule of law in
the workplace.'' On March 26, the Board voted to seek
injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the Act requiring
the owners to reinstate salary arbitration and free agency
while the parties bargain a new contract. He said further:
``What may have been overlooked in the public view was the
fact that the Board was able to proceed through a fast track
approach and make the promise of spontaneous and free
collection bargaining in the workplace a reality. I hope that
the players and owners will now do their part and bargain a
new agreement forthwith!''
``I am particularly proud to head an agency which is
celebrating its 60th anniversary this summer and which, from
the very beginning of its origins in the Great Depression of
the 1930s, has contributed to the public good through
adherence to a statute which encourages the practice and
procedures of collective bargaining. . . .''
____
Serving the Public Interest Through the Rule of Law: A Trilogy of
Values
(By William B. Gould IV, May 14, 1995)
Ladies and gentlemen. Members of the faculty. Honored
guess. I am indeed honored to be with you here today in
Columbus and to have the opportunity to address the graduates
of this distinguished College of Law School as well as their
parents, relatives, and friends on this most significant rite
of passage. Looking backward 34 years to June 1961, my own
law school graduation day was certainly one of the most
important and memorable in my life. It was the beginning of a
long involvement in labor and employment law as well as civil
rights and international human rights.
But I confess that today I am hardly able to recall any of
the wise words of advice that the graduation speaker imparted
to us that shining day at Cornell Law School in Ithaca, New
York. So, as I address you today I don't have any illusions
that what I say is likely to change the course of your lives.
But my hope is that my story will provide some context
relevant to the professional pathways upon which you are
about to embark.
Both governmental service and the furtherance of the rule
of law by the legal profession have possessed a centrality
and thus constituted abiding themes in my professional life.
I hope that my remarks to you here today will induce some of
you to consider government as an option at some point in your
careers, notwithstanding the anti-government tenor of these
times.
The tragedy of Oklahoma City has dramatized the
contemporary vulnerability of these values to sustained
attack, both verbal and violent. As the New York Times said
last month, we must ``confront the reality that over the past
few years the language of politics has become infected with
violent words and a mindset of animosity toward the
institutions of government.'' The columnist Mark Shields has
noted that this phenomenon has been fueled by the idea that
the ``red scare'' should give way to the ``fed scare.''
My own view is that government does best when it intervenes
to help those in genuine need of assistance--but I am aware
that this point does not enjoy much popularity in Congress
these days. Again Shields, in discussing recent comments of
Senator Robert [[Page S 8623]] Kerry of Nebraska, put it well
when he characterized the conservative view of the nation's
problem: ``The problem with the Poor is that they have too
much money; the problem with the Rich is that they have too
little.''
Although I cannot recall the Great Depression and its
desperate circumstances, a trilogy of values have always made
up my inner core. The first of these is the idea that I heard
in Long Branch, New Jersey's St. James' Episcopal Church
every Sunday, i.e., that it is our duty to live by the
Comfortable Words and to help those who ``travail and are
heavy laden.'' Fused together with this was a belief,
inculcated by my parents, that the average person needs some
measure of protection against both the powerful and
unexpected adversity. The third was based upon personal
exposure to the indignity of racial discrimination which
consigned my parents' generation to a most fundamental denial
of equal opportunity. It is this trilogy of values which
fostered my philosophical allegiance to the New Deal, the New
Frontier and the Great Society.
Simply put, I came to the law and Cornell Law School
because of my view that law any lawyers can reduce arbitrary
inequities and the fact that Chief Justice Earl Warren's May
17, 1954, opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court in Brown v.
Board of Education represented an accurate illustration of
that point. As you know, the holding was that separate but
equal was unconstitutional in public education.
A unanimous Court rendered that historic decision--in some
sense a corollary to President Harry Truman's desegregation
of the Armed Forces--which possessed sweeping implications
for all aspects of American society. The High Court's ruling
prompted a new focus upon fair treatment in general and
discrimination based upon such arbitrary considerations as
sex age, religion, sexual orientation and disabilities in
particular.
As a high school senior reading of NAACP Counsel Thurgood
Marshall's courageous efforts throughout the South--and one
who was heavily influenced by the Democratic Party's
commitment to civil rights platforms in `48 and `52, as well
as President Truman's insistence upon comprehensive medical
insurance--I thought that the legal profession was one in
which the moral order of human rights was relevant. The
prominence of lawyers in political life, like Adlai Stevenson
who ``talked sense'' to the American people, was also a
factor in my choice of the law as a career.
More than anything else, though, the struggle in South
Africa made me see the connection between the development of
the rule of law and dealing with injustice. I watched the
United Nations focus its attention upon that country when a
young lawyer named Nelson Mandela and so many other brave
activists were imprisoned, or, worse yet, tortured or killed
for political reasons. My very first publication was a review
of Alan Paton's ``Hope for South Africa'' in ``The New
Republic'' in September 1959. In the early `90s I had the
privilege to meet Mr. Mandela twice in South Africa--and then
to attend President Mandela's inauguration just a year ago in
Pretoria.
The Brown ruling, its judicial and legislative progeny and
the inspiration of lawyers dedicated to principles and
practicality--lawyers like Marshall, Mandela, Stevenson and
President Lincoln in the fiery storm of our own Civil War--
promoted my belief in the rule of law. And the fact is that
my faith in the law as a vehicle for change has been
reinforced and realized over these many years through the
opportunities that I have had to work in private practice,
teaching and government service.
My sense is that there is a great opportunity for lawyers
to serve the public good through the public service today--
even in this period of government bashing by the 104th
Congress. More than three decades ago President John F.
Kennedy called upon the sense of a ``greater purpose'' in a
speech at the University of Michigan when he advocated the
creation of the Peace Corps during the 1960 campaign.
President Bill Clinton's National and Community Service Trust
Act (AmeriCorps), designed to allow young people tuition
reimbursements for community service, echoes the same spirit
of commitment set forth by President Kennedy--and at an
earlier point by President Franklin D. Roosevelt through the
Civilian Conservation Corps.
This sense of idealism and purpose was at work in the New
Deal which brought so many bright, public spirited young
people to Washington committed and dedicated to the reform of
our social, economic and political institutions. The same
spirit has been rekindled by both President Kennedy as well
as President Clinton since the arrival of this Administration
in Washington almost two-and-one-half-years ago.
In a sense, this has come about by virtue of the Clinton
Administration's commitment--not only to child immunization
initiatives and helping the less financially able to use
available educational opportunities and to provide a higher
minimum wage to those who are in economic distress--but also,
most particularly, through the National Service.
You have an unparalleled opportunity in the '90s to serve
the public good. Your course offering which includes Social
and Environmental Litigation, Right of Privacy, Society,
Deviance and the Law, Foreign Relations Law, Employment
Discrimination Law and Law of Politics, to mention a few,
reflect our times and provide you with a framework that my
contemporaries never possessed.
Though most of my words today are focused upon government
or public service as a career or part of a career, the fact
is that your commitment to the public interest and the rule
of law can be realized in a number of forms. It is vital to
the public interest that those committed to it are involved
in a wide variety of legal, business and social careers--
representing, for instance, corporations, unions, as well as
public interest organizations.
But our commitment to law and the public interest is made
more difficult given the fact that our legal profession is in
the midst of a tumultuous and confusing environment. On the
one hand, lawyer bashing, sometimes justified and sometimes
not, seems to be moving full steam ahead. Part of this
phenomenon seems to be attributable to the fear that the
production of so many law students will soon result in too
many lawyers for a society's own good.
Only two years ago a National Law Journal poll showed that
only five percent of parents, given the choice of several
professions, wanted their children to be attorneys.
Undoubtedly, this unpopularity is what has fueled a number of
the legal initiatives undertaken by the Republican Congress
to the effect, for instance, that the loser in litigation
should pay all costs, that caps be devised for punitive
damages, etc.
A 1993 ABA poll comparing public attitudes toward nine
professions ranked lawyers third from the bottom, ranking
higher than only stockbrokers and politicians in popularity.
In attempting to discover the reasons for the low public
opinion of lawyers the poll asked what percentage of lawyers
and of five other occupations lack the ethical standards and
honesty to serve the public.
The results revealed an appalling ethical image of lawyers.
Lawyers ranked well below accountants, doctors and bankers
and barely above auto mechanics. According to the ABA poll
half of the public thinks one-third or more of lawyers are
dishonest, including one in four Americans who believe that a
majority of lawyers are dishonest. The pollster concluded
that ``the legal profession must do some soul searching about
the status quo, resolve to make some sacrifices to ensure a
positive future, and, above all, clean up its own house.''
One way for the profession to clean its own house is to
find new substitutes for lengthy litigation, frequently both
wasteful and unnecessarily acrimonious, such as alternative
dispute resolution--particularly in my own area of employment
law. More than a decade ago I chaired a Committee of the
California State Bar which recommended that new methods be
devised for many employment cases, and that where employees
could have access to economical and expeditious procedures,
it was appropriate to limit or cap damages. But the difficult
balance involved is to avoid limitation of the basic rights
of ordinary people to sue for the enforcement of consumer and
employment related legislation.
Attitudes towards lawyers are inevitably affected by one's
view of the law and the legal process. I hope that you will
look very seriously at government service as you seek to use
your newly acquired skills to better the position of your
fellow human being. This is the most basic contribution that
lawyers can make to society--and it is obvious that an
increased commitment to government or, if you choose private
practice or some other area of activity, pro bono work is
central to this effort.
I am particularly proud to head an agency which is
celebrating its 60th anniversary this summer and which, from
the very beginning of its origins in the Great Depression of
the 1930s, has contributed to the public good through
adherence to a statute which encourages the practice and
procedure of collective bargaining--as well as in other
portions of our law. Since its inception, the National Labor
Relations Board has possessed a culture of commitment to hard
work, excellence, and to the promotion of a rule of law which
is designed to allow both workers and business to peaceably
resolve their difficulties through their own procedures.
Illustrative of this process was the NLRB's prominent role
in the baseball dispute. It was not the Board's job to take
sides between the players and the owners or to determine
whose economic position ought to prevail. Consistent with
this approach, it was our job to decide whether there was
sufficient merit, as reflected by the facts and law, to
proceed into federal district court to obtain an injunction
against certain unilateral changes in conditions of
employment made by the owners. The Board handled the baseball
case as it does any other case.
Nor is it our job to take into account policy arguments
arising out of the peculiarities of this industry, the income
or status or notoriety of particular individuals on
either side. The statute applies--properly in my judgment--
to the unskilled and the skilled, to those who make the
minimum wage and those who are financially secure.
In the baseball case, the public was able to obtain a brief
glimpse of the Board's day-by-day commitment to the rule of
law in the workplace. Where parties are involved in an
established collective bargaining arrangement, our mandate
under the statute is to act in a manner consistent with the
fostering of the bargaining process--and I believe that we
discharged our duty in baseball in a manner consistent with
that objective.
What may have been overlooked in the public view was the
fact that the Board was [[Page S 8624]] able to proceed
through a fast track approach and make the promise of
spontaneous and free collective bargaining in the workplace a
reality. I hope that the players and owners will now do their
part and bargain a new agreement forthwith!
Our March 26 decision to seek an injunction seems to have
facilitated the resumption of baseball and thus was a great
victory for the public in renewing its contact with the game
which, like the Constitution, the Flag, and straight-ahead
jazz is so central to the essence of the country. Hopefully,
it will have the effect of promoting the collective
bargaining process sooner rather than later.
Frequently, the public gains its impressions of lawyers and
law from such high visibility cases and from exposure through
television rather than books. I can tell you that another
factor stimulating my interest in the law was watching the
McCarthy-Army hearings in the spring of 1954, that fateful
spring when Brown was decided. The hearings focused upon the
Wisconsin Senator's investigation of alleged Communist
infiltration of Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey, where my father
worked. Because of ideological hysteria, ``guilt'' by
association and rank anti-Semitism, many of our closest
friends were dismissed--and, indeed, I feared that this would
be my father's fate, particularly because of his announced
sympathy for Paul Robeson, a hero to so many black people of
his generation.
Later I had the opportunity to attend the so-called Watkins
Hearings in the following September in Washington which
ultimately led to MaCarthy's censure. Ft. Monmouth and the
McCarthy-Army hearings demonstrated how excessive government
authority can trample upon individual civil liberties--and
the aftermath of the Watkins Hearings redeemed our country's
constitutional protection of individual rights of belief and
association.
Since then, I think that televised Congressional hearings,
the Watergate hearings for instance, have contributed to the
public's understanding about the rule of law and its
relationship to the preservation of this Republic's
principles. Though, regrettably less conclusive, it may be
that the Iran-Contra hearings of 1988 and the Hill-Thomas
hearings of October 1991 performed a similar function in that
the assumption underlying both proceedings was that
government, like private individuals, must adhere
unwaveringly to the rule of law.
Again, this is to be contrasted with the spectacle of law
as show business on television. In my state of California,
the O.J. Simpson trial has treated the nation to an episodic
soap opera which appears to be more about the business of the
money chase than the real substance of law and the legal
profession. As Attorney General Janet Reno said about the
trial:
``I'm just amazed at the number of people who are watching
it. If we put as much energy into watching the O.J. Simpson
trial in America . . . into other issues as Americans seem to
have done in watching the trial, we might be further down the
road.''
A recent Los Angeles Times Mirror poll reported by Peter
Jennings last month revealed that only 45 percent of adults
surveyed said that they had read a newspaper the previous
day, and a quarter of those responding said they spent so
much time watching the Simpson trial that they did not have
time for the rest of the news. At best, the siren song of
sensationalism is a distraction--and, at worst, it reinforces
excessively negative perceptions of law and lawyers.
My hope is that many of you will dedicate yourselves as
lawyers or in other careers to a concern for the public good.
Now, when Oklahoma City has made it clear that the idea of
government itself as well as the law is under attack, it is
useful to reflect back upon what government, frequently in
conjunction with lawyers, has done for us in this century
alone in moving toward a more civilized society.
Justice Holmes said, ``Taxes are what we pay for civilized
society,''--an axiom often forgotten in the politics of the
mid-'90s. What would our society look like without the trust
busters of Theodore Roosevelt's era and the Federal Reserve
System created by Woodrow Wilson? Regulatory approaches to
food and drug administration, the securities market, the
licensing of radio and television stations, labor-management
relations (with which my agency is concerned) and trade
practices are all part of the Roosevelt New Deal legacy which
few would disavow in toto.
It should not be forgotten that all three branches of
federal government took the lead in the fight against racial
discrimination and other forms of arbitrary treatment. And as
Judge (now Counsel to the President) Abner Mikva has noted:
``The history of the growth of the franchise is a shining
example of why we needed . . . [the] federal approach.''
Today, the challenge of public service in Washington has
never been more exciting or inspirational. As I have
indicated, President Clinton's National Public Service echoes
anew the similar initiatives undertaken by both Roosevelt and
Kennedy.
I urge you to think of the government as a career in which
you can use your legal experience in pursuit of the public
interest. That does not mean that you have to be a Washington
or ``inside the Beltway'' careerist, although that is another
way in which to make a contribution. Many of you may choose
to serve in your communities throughout
the country and, at a point where your career is well-
developed, elect to serve through an appointment such as
mine.
In particular, if you accept such an appointment consisting
of a limited term (in the case of the Board five years), I
hope that you will keep in mind President (then-Senator)
Kennedy's characterization of eight law makers who were the
subject of this book, ``Profiles in Courage.'' Said the
junior Senator from Massachusetts:
``His desire to win or maintain a reputation for integrity
and courage were stronger than his desire to maintain his
office . . . his conscience, his personal standards of
ethics, his integrity or morality . . . were stronger than
the pressures of public disapproval.''
This is a particularly vexatious problem for those who are
appointed and not elected because of the inevitable and
appropriate subordination of appointees--even in the arena of
independent regulation--to the people's elected
representatives. My own view on serving in Washington is to
do the very best you can to implement the public interest in
the time allotted in your term, with the expectation that you
will return to your community, reestablish your roots and
feel satisfied that you have--to paraphrase President
Kennedy--done your duty notwithstanding some of the immediate
``pressures of public disapproval.''
While I consider the term limits issue to be an entirely
different proposition--the people ought always to be able to
freely choose their elected leaders amongst the widest
possible number of candidates--my view is that the proper
standard for those who are subordinate to such leaders is
that attributed to Cincinnatus, the Roman general and
statesman of the fifth century, who upon discharging his
public duty, returned to his community rather than taking the
opportunity to seize power and perpetuate himself in office.
The independence of administrative agencies might be
enhanced by legislation limiting Board Members or
Commissioners to one term of service. The temptation to
please elected superiors might decline accordingly.
Of course, all of us cannot win victories within 15 days,
like Cincinnatus, and be back on our farms or in our
communities so quickly. But true public service involves a
self-sacrifice which rises above the immediate pressures. Do
the best that you can to serve the public good.
This does not assure success or complete effectiveness. But
it does allow you to make use of your acquired expertise for
the best possible reasons. And this, in turn, puts you in the
best position to see it through to the end with a measure of
serenity that comes when you have expended your very best
effort despite setbacks and criticisms you may endure in the
process.
As President Lincoln said:
``If I were to try to read, much less answer, all the
attacks made on me, this shop might as well be closed for any
other business. I do the very best I know how--the very best
I can and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end
brings me out all right, what is said against me won't amount
to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels
swearing I was right would make no difference.''
You graduate from a distinguished institution in the most
exciting political period since the reforms undertaken by the
Administration of the 1960s. I hope that some of you will be
attracted to public service and help advance our society
through the rule of law.
As you embark upon the excitement of a new career and
challenges in the days ahead, I wish you all good luck and
success on whatever path you choose.
____________________