tentional infliction of emotional distress.rnBut then, why punish harassment alonernwhen you can curtail Christianity at thernsame time?rnCongress, prodded by over 100,000rnwrathful letters and calls, eventually liftedrnits snout from the public trough longrnenough to turn a sleepy eye on thernEEOC. On May 26, 1994, in HousernResolution 446, some 100 members ofrnCongress expressed their “sense” thatrnthe new definition of harassment “mayrnresult in the infringement of religiousrnliberty.” On June 7, the Senate passed arnsimilar resolution, S. 219, criticizing thernEEOC for expanding the definition ofrnreligious harassment beyond currentrnstandards. Of course, neither resolutionrnwas legally binding.rnIn testimony before Congress on Junern6, EEOC Chairman Tony E. Gallegos, arnReagan-Bush appointee, responded thatrnthe proposed guidelines would only prohibitrnreligious harassment, not religiousrnexpression. They would not prevent therndisplay of a crucifix, the wearing of arnyarmulke, or the placement of a Bible onrna desk, he claimed. Gallegos’ well-meaningrnnaivete would be precious were itrnnot so dangerous. (Recall, on its 30thrnanniversary, the congressional debate inrn1964 over the Civil Rights Act, whenrnSenator Hubert Humphrey repeatedlyrnassured suspicious “hicks” from thernHeartland that passage of the act wouldrnnever, ever lead to forced busing.)rnOn June 27, a dissatisfied Housernupped the ante when it adopted, by arnvote of 366 to 37, an amendment to thernEEOC appropriations bill that blocksrnfunding to implement the guidelines.rnOn July 21, debate shifted to the Senate,rnwhere three Clinton administrationrnnominees to the EEOC declined torncomment on whether they agreed withrnthe proposed guidelines. The Senate,rnled by an obviously annoyed HowellrnHeflin of Alabama and Hank Brown ofrnColorado, reacted on July 22 by approvingrnan amendment to delete religionrnfrom the EEOC’s proposal. The irony isrnthat, compared to the EEOC’s radicalrnestrangement from Middle Americanrnpiety, the posturing of our insular andrnomnicompetent Congress seems virtuous.rnIn mid-September, a spokesman forrnthe EEOC told us that the agency hadrnno timetable for finalizing the guidelinesrnand that the guidelines as originallyrndrafted were still under consideration.rnHowever, one senator—probably a Republican,rnwe are told—then exercisedrnhis privilege of holding up confirmationrnfor not only the three EEOC nominees,rnbut for all nominees before the Laborrnand Human Resources Committee. Althoughrnno one officially knows why thernprivilege was invoked or by whom, thernconclusion drawn by some senate staffersrnis that the unknown senator wanted tornbring the EEOC to heel.rnFaced with still more delay in fillingrnthree of the five slots on the EEOCrnCommission, the remaining commissionersrnfinally caved in and voted unanimouslyrnto withdraw the guidelines onrnSeptember 20. The way was now clearrnfor the Clinton nominees, which meansrnthat the commission will now be controlledrnby persons presumed to favor thernguidelines. Congressmen come and gorn(eventually), but the EEOC and federalrncourt opinions are with us always.rnOremus.rnCharles R. Helms and JeffS. ‘Turner arernattorneys in Dallas, Texas.rnAffirmative Actionrnand the LubavitcherrnRebbernby San ford PinskerrnAs if it wasn’t bad enough that thern92-year-old Menachem Schneerson,rnthe Lubavitcher Rebbe, died withoutrnan heir, or that he sorely disappointedrna considerable faction of his mostrnzealous disciples by refusing to cheatrndeath and thus show himself as the Messiah,rnwhat followed the traditional sevenrndays of mourning turned out to be farrnworse. Eor it seems that the painful,rncomplicated process of choosing a successorrnwill run into a thicket of governmentalrninterference. The following transcriptrnof a phone conversation betweenrnMs. Leah Lichtenstein of the city’s FairrnHiring Practices Office and a member ofrnthe Lubavitcher’s inner council suggestsrnthis is only the first shot in a war of redrntape and regulations that will unfold inrnthe next few months.rnMs. Lichtenstein: Rabbi Rosenberg,rnthis is Ms. Leah Lichtenstein callingrnfrom the mayor’s office. First, let me extendrnmy sincere condolences. RebbernSchneerson was indeed a remarkablernindividual.rnRabbi Rosenberg: Yes.. .yes, he was.rnWe are all in great shock.rnMs. Lichtenstein: Nonetheless, thernLubavitcher Movement must forge on,rnand that’s why I’m calling. Because, yournsee, the position of Lubavitcher Rebbernfalls within the guidelines of the FairrnHiring Practices Office.rnRabbi Rosenberg: Fair? We have alwaysrnbeen a fair people, even a just people.rnIs that what you want to know?rnMs. Lichtenstein: Not exactly. Whatrnour office needs to know is how you planrnto advertise the position and what specificrnsteps you are taking to insure thernwidest possible diversity in your applicantrnpool.rnRabbi Rosenberg: Pool? I’m afraid Irndon’t understand. Lubavitcher Hasidimrnstudy, they pray, they do good works.rnThey have no time for swimming.rnMs. Lichtenstein: Not that kind ofrnswimming, not that kind of pool. No,rnwhat 1 mean is, are you planning to runrna job description of the position in placesrnlike the New York Times and the Fost, inrnthe Amsterdam News and La Raza, inrnVariety and Women’s Wear Daily?rnRabbi Rosenberg: Why would wernwant to do that?rnMs. Lichtenstein: Why, to make surernthat you attract a sufficient number ofrnminority candidates, of course. Besides,rnit’s the law. I’ll send you forms 27-A-34rnand 37-8G-B, which outline your responsibilitiesrnin detail. Naturally, your officernwill need to keep a record of each applicant’srnaffirmative action profile—yournknow, how many are Hispanic, African-rnAmerican, women. Native American,rnhomosexual, and, of course, “other.”rnRabbi Rosenberg: Are we required tornchose somebody from one of these categories?rnMs. Lichtenstein: An interestingrnquestion. As I understand it, all the previousrnLubavitcher rebbes have been Jewishrnmen. This constitutes what we call arnpattern of discrimination, and I’m afraidrnthat the courts would not look kindlyrnon a new hire that perpetuates old prejudices.rnThat’s why the job description isrnso important. For example, is there arngood reason why the post couldn’t go tornsomebody with administration experience,rnperhaps in a city agency or even thernprivate sector?rnRabbi Rosenberg: I don’t think so.rnThe Lubavitcher rebbe must be a scholar,rna teacher, and, most of all, a holyrnDECEMBER 1994/43rnrnrn