EDITORIAL

The Texaco settlement

People in the U.S. have the right to say hateful, bigoted things. They have the right to be hateful or bigoted, as long as their hate and bigotry do not induce them to commit crimes. People in the U.S. are free to think what they will and to speak their minds, even if in doing so they assign themselves to base ranks of civility.

People, too, are free to disparage the holy produce of popular racial politics: affirmative action, diversity training, and language stripped of meaning by strained exertions never to offend. Affirmative action is, by definition, unfair, even if sometimes justified. The very word "diversity" lacks useful definition, although many organizations have made its pursuit and "celebration" conditions of employment.

Criticizing the bureaucratic excesses of modern corporate culture is not necessarily an act of hatred or bigotry.

Institutional suppression

What people do not have the right to do is to institutionally suppress the freedoms and opportunities of whole categories of humanity. Institutional suppression of this type is a saddening part of American history, a part that the U.S. government these past few decades has been properly at pains to redress.

The former Texaco Inc. executives caught on tape making comments that sounded like racial aspersions were within their rights to harbor uncivil thoughts and to express them. To this extent, they possess no fewer rights than do black employees who may have expressed, at one time or another, ill will toward white colleagues.

Furthermore, the comments themselves turn out not to have been quite as offensive as they first appeared to be-in a flawed transcription by plaintiff's counsel that found its way into news reports.

But the comments came from people with authority to make decisions on behalf of Texaco. They need to be viewed by all as minority group members have reason to see them: as expressions of intent to act. Racial justice demands no less than that. When a top Texaco executive quips about "black jelly beans" sticking to "the bottom of the bag," Texaco, the institution, has a problem.

To his great credit, Texaco Chairman Peter Bijur never pretended otherwise. His initial expression of outrage over the taped comments gave the problem dimensions that it deserved: Texaco had something more serious than chatterbox executives that it needed to make right.

Quickly, Texaco settled the discrimination lawsuit for $176 million in various outlays during 5 years-reported to be a record for an action of its type. As part of the settlement, Texaco will distribute $115 million to 1,400 black employees and former employees. It also will give black employees raises of at least 10%, worth a total of $26 million.

More significant than the settlement's cash value is Texaco's agreement to set up a seven-member task force to oversee "equality and tolerance." The task force will include three people appointed by Texaco, three members named by plaintiffs in the discrimination suit, and a chairperson selected by those six persons. Costing as much as $35 million during 5 years, the task force will have power to directly influence personnel policies at Texaco. For a company to give outsiders so much authority in so important an area is extraordinary.

Confidence and progress

And it's appropriate. Measured surrender of managerial prerogative represents precisely the type of institutional change that Texaco needed to demonstrate. Properly appreciated, it will affect human behavior more than all the diversity training in all of corporate American ever can hope to do. It probably won't satisfy all the firebrands of racial politics, who seem to want retribution more than progress. But it doesn't have to satisfy firebrands. The change needs only to give people in minority groups reason to feel more confident than they do now that at Texaco they'll receive fair, respectful treatment.

That, at any company, would be progress indeed.