Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume XXVIII, Organization and Management of Foreign Policy

221. Memorandum From the Under Secretary of State for Management (Read) to Secretary of State Vance¹

Washington, March 30, 1979

SUBJECT

• Affirmative Action Program for the Handicapped

Even though Bob Gordon² outlined to you at the PER Staff Meeting, on March 22, some of the aspects of our Affirmative Action Program for the Handicapped, I think you might be interested in additional information on this matter. This memorandum summarizes the current status of this program.

As you are aware, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,³ amendments to it, other legislation and statements by the President and you have firmly committed us to an Affirmative Action Program for the Handicapped. Previous efforts devoted to this objective eventually encountered the same difficulty and dilemma, that is, the apparent incompatibility between such a program for the Foreign Service and the current medical standards which were designed to support the thesis of worldwide availability. Also relevant is the fact that these medical standards can also disqualify prospective employees if any of their dependents are unable to meet these standards. Medical standards present no problem as regards the Civil Service.

In deciding how to resolve this problem, I was presented with various options ranging from doing nothing to the complete elimination of our Foreign Service medical standards. Applicable law and ethics (as you said in your March 15, 1977 statement on this matter)⁴ exclude the option of doing nothing. The complete elimination of our Foreign Service medical standards would cause an unnecessary and undesirable reduction in the ability of management to assign the vast majority of Foreign Service personnel to posts all over the world and might cause an unnecessary increase in medical costs. Therefore, I chose to approve a program which would evaluate whether applicants for employment in the Foreign Service have the potential to be successful Foreign Service employees, even though these applicants or their dependents have been disqualified medically under current medical standards. For this purpose, I have established the Employment Review Committee which will make recommendations to the Director General or his designee whether or not applicants who do not meet our current medical standards should be employed.

For Foreign Service Officer candidates, these evaluations and recommendations will be made only after the Committee has received the results of their written and oral examinations and their security investigations. They will then be placed on the appointment register at the same position they would have been placed had there been no question of medical disqualification. This procedure may result in no severely handicapped individual being reached for appointment from the register. Therefore, this may require the establishment of a pilot project for the employment in the Foreign Service of severely handicapped individuals. Applicants for employment in the Foreign Service Staff Corps and Foreign Service Reserve Officer applicants who are not candidates for Foreign Service Officer appointment will be evaluated by the Employment Review Committee on an individual basis since they are not appointed from a register.

For the time being, we see no need for any significant increase in financial or personnel resources to implement this program. Part-time readers for the blind (approximately 15 hours per week) can be employed under current authority. Any modifications to government-owned or leased buildings to accommodate individuals confined to a wheelchair are required in any case by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Act of 1968 (P.L. 90–480), as amended. These modifications are scheduled on a phased basis beginning with the Main State building. Special equipment for handicapped individuals will be decided on an individual basis, if required.

The complete action memorandum on which I based my decision is attached, in case you might wish to peruse it.

Attachment

Action Memorandum From the Handicapped Coordinator in the Bureau of Personnel (Gordon) to the Under Secretary of State for Management (Read)⁵

Washington, February 27, 1979

SUBJECT

• Affirmative Action Program for the Handicapped

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, amendments to it, other legislation, and statements by the President and the Secretary have firmly committed us to an Affirmative Action Program for the Handicapped. All efforts devoted to the objective of proposing an Affirmative Action Program for the Handicapped in the Department of State eventually encounter the same difficulty and dilemma, that is, the apparent incompatibility between such a program for the Foreign Service and the current medical standards which were designed to support the thesis of worldwide availability. Medical standards present no problem as regards the Civil Service.

Also relevant is the fact that these medical standards can also disqualify prospective employees if any of their dependents are unable to meet these standards. A separate proposal concerning this problem may have to be developed later.

Within this context various options are available: (A) modify current medical standards for the Foreign Service to permit the hiring of individuals and dependents with all types of medical problems, including severe physical handicaps; (B) maintain our current policy of disqualifying all prospective employees if they or any of their dependents do not meet the standards for worldwide availability at the time of employment; (C) establish an Employment Review Committee to evaluate all individuals qualified in all respects except for the fact that they or their dependents have not met current medical standards; (D) develop a pilot project aimed only at the severely handicapped with a waiver of current medical standards; (E) combine Options C and D if Option D does not result in the employment in the Foreign Service of some severely handicapped persons.

Option A would completely eliminate the concept of “worldwide availability” on medical grounds and cause an unnecessary and undesirable reduction in the ability of management to assign the vast majority of Foreign Service personnel to posts all over the world. In addition, it would probably increase greatly the cost of our medical program.

Option B would not be in keeping with pronouncements on the subject of an Affirmative Action Program for the Handicapped made by the President and the Secretary. Neither would it be in keeping with either the letter or spirit of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, or expectations of groups representing the handicapped.

Option C has the merit of probably meeting the claims of alleged discrimination against candidates for Foreign Service employment who maintain that they did not have a thorough evaluation of their qualifications because the security investigation portion of their evaluation was terminated when they or their dependents were disqualified on medical grounds. (So far two individuals, one a medically disqualified FSO candidate and one a mid-level applicant with a medically disqualified dependent, have notified us that they may contest these disqualifications in the courts if the present State Department procedure continues.) In this Option there is the problem that the proposed ERC will face an extremely difficult task in reaching and justifying its recommendations concerning both relatively minor medical disqualifications and the severely handicapped.

Option D might provide some employment in the Foreign Service for the severely handicapped but it would not provide a mechanism to meet the allegations referred to in Option C.

Option E meets the spirit and letter of applicable laws, high-level statements on the subject and the hopes and expectations of various interest groups. It is costly since more security investigations and suitability evaluations will have to be made and there is the possibility that some medical expenses will increase. This latter cost is not now measurable and we cannot even speculate intelligently regarding it.

Attached hereto at Tab 1⁶ is a paper discussing the implications of Option E and suggesting how it might be put into action. Attached at Tab 2 are the suggested Guidelines for the Employment Review Committee proposed at Tab 1.

Attached at Tab 3 are copies of the relevant portions of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a statement by the President and a statement by the Secretary supporting prohibition of discrimination against the handicapped.

Attached at Tab 4 is a proposed letter to all applicants still eligible for appointment to the Foreign Service who have been disqualified because they or their dependents have not been able to meet current Foreign Service medical standards. This letter states that their candidacy will be reinstated if they so wish and cautions Foreign Service Officer candidates that this is but one step toward a possible successful candidacy. This letter would be sent to previously medically disqualified applicants if the proposal contained in Tab 1 is approved.

Note: The necessary changes in this letter will be made for FSS, FSR and FSRU candidates whose possible appointment does not depend upon their being reached on a register.

Recommendation

We recommend Option E and request that you meet with us soon to discuss the implications of this Option which is attached at Tab 1.

APPROVE—OPTION E⁷

DISAPPROVE

1. Source: National Archives, RG 59, Records of the Under Secretary for Management (M), 1978–1979, Box 11, Chron March 27–30, 1979. No classification marking.
2. Handicapped Coordinator in the Bureau of Personnel.
3. P.L. 93–112.
4. See the attachment to Document 186.
5. No classification marking. Drafted by Gordon on February 23; cleared by Gershenson, Nancy Rawls (DGP/PER), William Bacchus (DGP/PC), Kang Huang (DGP/PC), Burroughs, Bourbon, Paul Coran (L/M), Eben Dustin (M/MED), Dwight Babcock (M/MED), William Galloway (M), John Karkashian (M/CT), Thomas McCloskey (REM/EMP), Dudley Miller (PER/REE), Lynwood Eaton (PER/REE), Lawrence Russell (PER/MGT/EX), Douglas Watson (PER/FCA/ARA), and Wever Gim (REE/BEX). Sent through Barnes. Printed from an uninitialed copy.
6. Tabs 1–4 are attached but not printed.
7. Read initialed this line on March 15.