Ban on Quotas Spurs Rights Debate
|
|
Republicans and Democrats fought today to control the political high ground of being against the use of quotas in employment, the biggest emotional issue in this year’s civil rights bill. First, President Bush’s spokesman said that a new Democratic addition to the bill to make the use of quotas illegal would not change the Administration’s view that the civil rights measure was “a quota bill.” The spokesman, Roman Popadiuk, who is the deputy White House press secretary, criticized the bill this morning while acknowledging that the White House had not “seen the actual language” of the ban on quotas. Ralph Neas, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, an umbrella lobbying group backing the bill, hit back by saying: “There is no langauge that would satisfy the White House because the White House obviously doesn’t want a bill. To make a statement before even seeing a bill is irresponsible. What the White House wants is a political issue to demagogue.” ‘Quotas Are Not Permitted’ This afternoon the bill was announced, though not distributed, at a news conference by Representative Jack Brooks, the Texas Democrat who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. He said the bill, being promoted by the House Democratic leadership, would include langauge saying “very clearly that quotas are not permitted.” Aides said later that if this language became law it would be possible for men to sue and collect damages if, although qualified, they had been denied a job because an employer used a specific numerical or percentage quota to insure, for example, that one of every three people hired was a woman. After that news conference two Republican House leaders held their own news conference and attacked the anti-quota language as meaningless. Representatives Newt Gingrich, the Georgian who is the House Republican whip, and Henry J. Hyde of Illinois, the senior Republican on the Judiciary subcommittee that handled the legislation, said other provisions of the bill would lead employers to use quotasto hire enough minority members and women. The provision, they added, would then make it harder on them because it would give workers who had been passed over an opportunity to sue on the ground that quotas had been used. “God help the employers,” said Mr. Hyde. The Illinois lawmaker also attacked as phony the limit on damages for victims of job discrimination based on sex, religion or disability. The bill would allow compensatory damages and punitive damges of up to $150,000 or the total of compensatory damages, whichever was more. Mr. Hyde called this provision unfair to employers because it had only illusory limits. The disagreemnts were not entirely along party lines. Representative Hamilton Fish Jr. of upstate New York, the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, joined Mr. Brooks at the news conference and said he supported the measure because it dealt with concerns raised by businesses about earlier House versions of the bill this year. In particular, Mr. Fish had urged putting a limit on damages like the one proposed today. Clear Political Motivations But generally, the political motivations were clear on both sides today, if only rarely admitted. Representative Vic Fazio, the California Democrat who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, came as close as anyone when he issued a statement maintaining that his party’s plans had made Republican faces as long as they were when Mr. Bush endorsed higher taxes. “Democrats are about to make quotas illegal, driving reverse discrimination out of the workplace and driving Republican race-baiting out of politics,” he said. Both sides acknowledged, if only in passing, that the use of numerical or percentage quotas is generally illegal under current law, with the exception of court orders imposed on employers who have repeatedly discriminated. Democrats said their measure would codify existing law by saying nothing in the bill “shall be construed to require or encourage or permit an employer to adopt hiring or promotion quotas on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” Two Key Words Are Added |