<H2>Diversity revisited: How are we doing?</h2>
The Congress and the president have announced a reassessment of federal affirmative action/equal employment opportunity programs. Hardly a day passes without some news media coverage. The University of California regents have engaged in lively debates about the affirmative action policies of the university. What does all of this mean to the Laboratory? I'd like to share some of my thoughts with you.<p>
President Lyndon Johnson signed Executive Order 11246 in 1965 to provide equal opportunity in federal employment for all qualified persons. President Richard Nixon extended the order to establish goals and timetables. Significant progress has been made since that time to provide greater career opportunities and fulfillment for those who were underrepresented.<p>
I received my undergraduate degree in 1965 during the days when women and minority students were a rarity on the campuses of science and engineering schools. I applaud the fact that today, my four daughters, and many others like them, have professional opportunities that were scarce 30 years ago. I believe that federal programs promoted by the executive order have opened doors wider and faster than we would have experienced otherwise. They have helped to correct some of the historical inequities that have existed in our society.<p>
However, many claim today that the AA/EEO programs have tried to enforce equal outcomes, rather than be guardians of equal opportunity. Many believe that these programs go against the very grain of achieving the unity and equity they are trying to promote. As important as EEO programs were to ensure equal opportunity and as important as affirmative action programs were to opening doors and providing greater access to the underrepresented, these programs represent a regulatory mindset. They suffer from being seen as only benefiting someone else. They often were seen as conveying a sense of guilt and leading to contradicting camps within the organization, rather than leading to unity. They were not cast as also being in the best interest of the institution. Many of the arguments are really directed at "set aside" programs but sweep up all AA/EEO programs in the same rhetoric.<p>
In May of 1992 in this column I wrote about a diversity goal as I saw it -- to achieve institutional strength through diversity. Diversity should be one of our greatest institutional assets. We must strive to have groups of diverse individuals -- men, women, white, black, Native American, Hispanic, Asian, disabled, etc. -- working together as teams to produce great science and to combine their individual strengths and perspectives into a whole that's greater than the sum of the parts.<p>
R. Roosevelt Thomas Jr., a noted social philosopher, wrote in his book "Beyond Race and Gender" that diversity includes everyone; it is not something that is defined by race or gender. It extends to age, personal and corporate background, education, function and personality. It includes lifestyles, sexual preference, geographic origin, tenure with the organization, exempt or nonexempt status, and management or nonmanagement status. Thomas says that managing diversity is a comprehensive managerial process for developing an environment that works well for all employees. I believe we should respect and take advantage of our differences to make our institution the greatest it can be.<p>

So, how are we doing in achieving a diverse work force? Overall, the data suggest we are doing quite well. As shown in some accompanying charts, the percentage of women and minority employees has continued to increase, and today it constitutes half of the Laboratory's University of California work force. Currently, 31.4 percent of our UC employees are women and 32.2 percent are minorities (28.2 percent Hispanic). Minorities dominate the work force of our major subcontractors. Johnson Controls has 70.1 percent minorities (65.5 percent Hispanic), and the security force has 73 percent minorities (69.8 percent Hispanic).<p>
This doesn't mean that all is well at the Laboratory and we can forget about AA/EEO. Some of our employees have expressed great concern about the ability of traditionally underrepresented groups to get a fair shot and to get ahead at the Laboratory. Some have cited the smaller number of women and minorities, both in management positions and on the high end of the pay scale, as continuing evidence of inequities at the Laboratory. There have been several recent articles in the regional news media decrying what they call the "dismal record" of the Laboratory in providing opportunities for minorities.<p>
At a recent town meeting held by the Laboratory in Espaola to seek input on the Laboratory's strategic thinking process, I heard concerns from some of our employees and community members about what they perceive as lack of opportunities for Hispanic employees.<p>
But just how "dismal" is our record? There is no question that representation of women and minorities drops off as we look at positions of higher responsibility (and commensurate higher pay) at the Laboratory. This is not unique to the Laboratory. A recent Department of Labor study pointed out that minorities and women represent 57 percent of the U.S. work force, but they make up only 5 percent of top management in corporate America. At Los Alamos, of the top 58 management positions (including directors and deputy directors), four are minorities (two Hispanic) and eight are women -- that's nearly 21 percent (or four times higher than the national average).<p>
For a category that the government defines as officials and managers (including all levels of management from supervisors to team, project office and group leaders to top management -- a total population of 1,186), we have 18.8 percent women and 18 percent minorities (15.7 percent Hispanic) -- or a combined total of 31.6 percent. In non-management professional SSM positions (a total population of 757) we have 56.9 percent women and 33.8 percent minorities (30.9 percent Hispanic) -- or a combined total of 72 percent. (These totals do not represent arithmetic sums because of double counting.) In nonmanagement TSM positions we have 13.9 percent women and 11.9 percent minorities (6.5 percent Hispanic). We are continuing to work hard to improve the diversity of our technical, professional and management work force -- but these numbers are not dismal.<p>
I am concerned about the lower representation of Native Americans, African- Americans, and Asian Americans in all of the above job categories. Additionally, although our management restructuring of over a year ago improved the diversity of the top management team, we lost representation at the group level. We are paying special attention to these concerns.<p>
What can we do to enhance diversity throughout the Laboratory, particularly for the job categories mentioned? We must ensure that all barriers are removed and that we have mechanisms in place to attract minorities and women to the Laboratory. We all must continue to fill positions (with an aggressive outreach to minorities and women) to make sure everyone has equal opportunity. We must all be vigilant in promoting an environment in which differences are valued and we must strive to derive benefit in our work from those differences. We must not allow prejudice to hold back the talents of any of our employees.<p>
In addition, we must continue to stress the importance of education. The Laboratory's product is science and technology for the nation. Education is the most important requisite for success. It is the key for competing at the national level and getting a job at the Laboratory and for career advancement. To increase representation from the local communities among the scientific staff of the Laboratory, we must all work together to increase the interests of our children in math and science. The Laboratory is eager to help, but it will require collaboration with and support from employees, parents, teachers and public officials in northern New Mexico.<p>
The national figures are still not very encouraging. Of all bachelor's, master's and first professional degrees granted in 1993, less than 4 percent were earned by Hispanics and less than 0.5 percent by Native Americans. In the physical sciences, only 89 doctorates were awarded to Hispanics and 11 to Native Americans out of 6,496 nationally (with 3,475 going to U.S. citizens). In engineering, Hispanics were awarded 56 doctorates and Native Americans two out of 5,696 nationally (2,225 to U.S. citizens). Women are doing somewhat better but still lack full participation. In 1993, only 521 of 5,696 doctorates were awarded to women in engineering and 1,344 out of 6,497 in the physical sciences.<p>
The Laboratory's current educational outreach effort is substantial. We have excellent support from the Department of Energy. We spend about $8 million per year direct DOE funding on science education programs and additionally contribute hundreds of hours of employees' time to science education and outreach activities. We are proud of such programs as Science Beginnings that reach thousands of elementary school students annually and the New Mexico High School Supercomputer Challenge for some 600 high school students from every corner of the state. Our outreach programs reach a large minority population. They are also in the enlightened self-interest of the Laboratory, which will benefit from a better qualified work force in years to come. We invite the communities to help us make these programs even more effective.<p>
We continue to look for better mechanisms to engage our employees and the communities in helping us promote diversity, as well as build a better and more unified workplace. Deputy Director Jim Jackson and Nick Ovalle (head of diversity activities at the Laboratory) have been leading a Labwide effort to develop a diversity strategic plan that meets the spirit of the DOE's diversity vision and addresses our own diversity issues and needs. The plan attempts to address concerns expressed by our employees and managers. Employee input provided a foundation for the plan, and we will continue to seek feedback as the plan is further refined and implemented. It looks not only at the issue of work force diversity but also how we interface with local communities and tribes to promote a better Laboratory and a better New Mexico. This plan soon will go out for broad stakeholder comment, including taking it back out to our neighboring communities. We invite your participation and comments.<p>
Minorities and women have made a lot of progress at the Laboratory over the past several years. It is important for us to acknowledge this progress and celebrate our success. Yet, much remains to be done. Institutional progress depends on our willingness to make personal commitments. I believe that further progress is best achieved not in a regulatory framework but by recognizing that diversity is not only the right thing to do but that it makes good business sense.<p>
The demographics are clear -- much of the future work force will be composed of minorities and women. We want Los Alamos to be able to attract the best. To do so, we will need to be an employer of choice -- one where it is clearly recognized that all employees can get ahead on the basis of their skills and contributions. It will have to be a work place where differences are respected and valued. Further, it should be a work place that has the enthusiastic backing of its surrounding communities so that we can face the challenges the future brings with unity, strength and diversity.<p>