Affirmative action seemed to have been both helped and hindered in November, with two significant events. First, California’s Proposition 209, banning affirmative action in state programs, including college admissions and government contracting, was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court rejected a challenge by civil rights groups that claimed Proposition 209 was unconstitutional, leaving in place a lower court ruling finding it constitutional. California is the first state to ban affirmative action programs.

On the federal front, the House Judiciary Committee tabled H.R. 1909, a bill that would have banned racial and gender preferences in federal contracting. Introduced by Representative Canady (R-FL), the bill did not have full support from Republican members. While conservative Republicans tried to move the legislation forward, more moderate Republicans would like to see a revised plan, focusing on abolishing preferences and set-asides, but balanced with an understanding that discrimination is still a problem. Democrats opposed the legislation outright. We can expect another bill to be introduced in the next session, as the issue is certainly not laid to rest.

Representative Hoekstra (R-Mich) has kicked off a 14-month study of "The American Worker at a Crossroads." The study will be conducted as a series of hearings and is an overview of federal workplace agencies, including the Department of Labor and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and programs and laws that affect the workplace. The initiative began with a Congressional hearing, October 29, 1997, that focused on current challenges to the workplace: changing demographics, increasing complexity of technology, and increasingly global marketplace. In fact, much of the testimony focused on "Workforce 2020," a policy document prepared by the Hudson Institute for the Department of Labor and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, released in April 1997.

A similar initiative, "Education at a Crossroads," has been underway, as part of a Republican effort to reduce or eliminate the federal government’s role in the nation’s education system. Rather than having programs administered through the Department of Education, they prefer to see federal funding issued to states in the form of block grants, giving states total control of implementation of education reforms, programs, and initiatives. Although it’s too soon to tell, if they have a similar agenda in the workplace, federally funded or sponsored programs could ultimately be affected, such as employment services, job training programs, skill standards projects, and school-to-work initiatives. Some of the testimony hinted at such an agenda, in the form of pleas for fewer federal regulations, particularly burdensome for smaller organizations, which are becoming more prevalent.

I’ll continue to monitor this and encourage a reliance on I/O psychologists (most of the panelists at the October hearing seemed to be economists) for expertise. Field hearings are expected to be scheduled in various states, as well as in DC, so watch for one near you!