THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL | SEPTEMBER 2024 53 Barrier Analysis at State Barrier analysis—required by equal employment opportunity (EEO) management directives but rarely conducted by the State Department across multiple administrations—involves the identification and analysis of obstacles to diversity and equal opportunity and the development of appropriate remedies. Both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and State’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) had identified concerns with State’s Office of Civil Rights (S/OCR), responsible for barrier analysis, repeatedly over the years (in 1989, 1993, and 2006). In a 2016 deposition, Director of the Office of Civil Rights John Robinson confirmed that barrier analysis was not done as required by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and recommended by GAO in its 1989 report. In 2020 GAO concluded in its report “State Department: Additional Steps Are Needed to Identify Potential Barriers to Diversity” that the department “should look at the longstanding issues … and do a better job of addressing barriers to equal opportunity in its workforce.” —M.A. Congressman Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) continued his focus on the issue as well. At a June 13, 2023, hearing with State’s Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer Ambassador Gina AbercrombieWinstanley, he raised the issue of assignment restrictions and their impact on morale and diplomatic readiness. The previous year Lieu and Reps. Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), and Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) had introduced HR 5275, the Accountability in Assignment Restrictions Act. President Biden signed the Department of State Authorization Act of 2023 into law on Dec. 22 of that year. Its Section 6110 provides employees with an independent appeals process for any assignment restriction or assignment review; codifies the Security Appeals Panel (SAP) as the final, independent appeals mechanism; and includes an annual reporting requirement on the cumulative number of individuals impacted by assignment restrictions as well as any pending assignment restriction or review open for more than 30 days. Lessons and Next Steps This campaign, like previous personnel reforms, was successful because we raised awareness through media and external partners, engaged career and political leadership at the department, and educated congressional partners on potential legislative fixes. In her 2023 oral history for the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training, AFSA’s General Counsel Sharon Papp proudly notes that AFSA’s advocacy on assignment restrictions had resulted in a “big, big win.” In 2024 AFSA Vice President Tina Wong successfully negotiated the implementation of the new law. Both 12 FAM 230 and 12 FAM 260 specify that SAP membership includes the Office of Civil Rights and confirm that the State Department will not apply any new assignment restrictions to the workforce. With the new statutory right, implementing regulation, and reporting requirements, it is perhaps time for an external (OIG or GAO) review of these programs as the last one was conducted in 2011. This should include workload analysis, examination of the demographic composition of DS program staff, and assessment of the security clearance adjudicative guidelines, which may assume widespread foreign influence and blackmail concerns without sufficient supporting data. Also, the State Department has acknowledged that Asian Americans are underrepresented at the SFS levels. Asian Americans were represented at Department of Labor–defined reasonable entry- and mid-levels (6.61 percent) but underrepresented at the Senior Foreign Service levels (2.36 percent) in 2012. Data from State’s own online interactive “Demographic Baseline Report” notes that Asian Americans are underrepresented in the SFS as compared to their representation at other grades, suggesting a barrier analysis is needed to identify why and how best to address. Meanwhile, a Jan. 2, 2024, New York Times front-page article, “Asian American Officials Cite Unfair Scrutiny and Lost Jobs in China Spy Tensions,” reminds us that the problem persists more broadly. Several employees from across the foreign affairs and national security agencies who were approached for the article declined to speak, not wanting to “rock the boat” and afraid of adverse career consequences, including fears of retaliation related to their current assignments or security clearances. It is worth remembering that the progress made so far at the State Department started when one young diplomat, who had exhausted all internal efforts to redress his grievance, found the courage to speak out publicly. Michael Young’s 2013 interview in The Washington Post helped spur the AAFAA and AFSA campaigns and subsequent congressional action. We at State joined our voices together, each with his own personal motivation. For my part, I spoke up then and now to honor my Japanese American grandparents, who were born as American citizens yet deprived of their constitutional liberties during World War II. But a colleague said it best, speaking for us all: “I spoke out because I know that the Department of State can do better … and I felt I had a moral obligation. The department needs to acknowledge an inconvenient truth, that race has been and is a factor in these decisions.” n
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODIyMDU=