And my memory is a little fuzzy. Oddly enough, the ninety days I was in
almost, I think, exactly coincided with the heaviest work on the Adam's
criteria. I mean, it was just one of those things. And I got involved
with it almost right away. And probably saw through at least, you know,
a major part of it in the formative period. My memory of it is as
follows. Peter Libassi was on board by that time and had been given, you
know, the responsibility to work this out. And I was sort of delegated,
almost to an offense to his staff, to help on it. And I don't know,
Page 8to be honest, whether it was—whose idea it was. I
mean, I certainly remember him expressing it. But the idea—and I don't
know if it was Joe Califano's, or maybe it came out of Judge Pratt's
orders or something. Anyway, the whole notion was that a big change was
going to be made in that instead of having a whole series of rules and
regulations and kind of process controls on desegregation, which is the
way the previous experience was portrayed—you know, people were trying
to specify, you have to do this, and you have to do that, etcetera,
etcetera. Libassi was suggesting he wanted to shift to an outcomes
orientation where the department would back off entirely on procedure. I
mean, sort of let the universities and the states do whatever they felt
was the most efficient or politically effective way to go about doing
it. But set up a series of clear measures, outcome measures, that would
be looked at down the road and, you know, you would be judged in
compliance if you measured up on those measures. And if you didn't then
the weight of the government would come on your back. So that
was—philosophically, that was the scheme that we were trying to devise
was what would be a set of measures, and what would be a—what would be a
reasonable period of time to expect somebody to meet those measures. And
I don't remember all the details, but they had to do with the percentage
of—of, you
Page 9know, looking at the black/white
population—relevant age group population of the state. Specifying, and I
don't remember if it was parity in enrollment rates or, you know,
exactly what it was but it was a, you know, series of enrollment related
measures. A series of graduation related measures. A series of faculty
measures. I think those were the key ones. I'm sure there were others.
And so on. But that's what we were working on was, you know, that you
would be in compliance when your share of minority enrollment hit some
kind of target. And when your faculty ranks hit some kind of target. And
I and Arlene—what was her name? Arlene Horowitz?