The recent revelations about the Texaco oil and Avis car rental companies makes a clear and undeniable statement, racism is alive and well all the way up to corporate boardrooms.

Faced with irrefutable evidence, Texaco apologized, suspended 2 senior executives and cut the retirement benefits of 2 others. In the face of a nationwide boycott, it settled a 2 year-old law suit filed by minority employees claiming discrimination. The settlement, $176.1 million, goes on record as the largest racial discrimination penalty resolution the history of the United States.

"With this litigation behind us, we can now move forward on our broader, urgent mission to make Texaco a model of wordplace opportunity for all men and women," Peter Bijur, Texaco's chairman and chief executive, said in a statement.

Although some may believe that Texaco's actions were not nearly enough, action was taken. However, since the proof was beyond dispute, skeptics will say that Texaco had no other choice. What else could they have done?

One answer is, Texaco could have done what the federal Drug Enforcement Admininstration does when faced with similar problems: put its head in the sand and deny that discrimination exists. Yet, a well-known example of discrimination in DEA was recently publicized in the case of Special Agent Peter Probst.

In his law suit Probst alleged that he was discriminated against after he informed his superiors that his African-American partner was subjected to racial discrimination during an investigation into a major crack distribution organization. For trying to 'do the right thing' Probst was suspended 10 days for alleged misconduct and insubordination. Not satisfied with going after Probst, certain Justice Department employees went on to conduct an unwarranted investigation into his wife, Assistant United States Attorney, Vilija A. Bilaisis.

Before trial lawyers for the government admitted that Probst had been discriminated against and subjected to retaliation but disputed compensatory damages. A bench trial was held before United States District Judge James F. Holdermen who wrote in a 21 paragraph opinion, "There is no question based on the preponderance of the evidence that defendants intentionally and unlawfully acted against Probst for his having spoken out against racial discrimination within the ranks of the DEA."

Probst was awarded $180,000 of which $30,000 in damages was awarded because of actions taken against his wife. "The DOJ/OPR investigation of AUSA Bilaisis was an act of intentional unlawful retaliation against plaintiff Probst for his speaking out and opposing the racial discrimination in the DEA," Holderman further wrote.

As in the Texaco case, the proof was irrefutable and a Federal District Judge found that the actions taken against Peter Probst and his wife were pretextual, the real reason being abhorrent, intolerable and contrary to the principles of Justice. However, DEC Administrator Thomas Constantine put his head in the sand, ignoring the veracity of the evidence and the wisdom of a long standing US Judge. After the trial Constantine stated in a letter to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "When I authorized settlement of the Probst case, I did not believe that the poor treatment Probst received was the product of a racial conspiracy to retaliate against Probst for his efforts on behalf of his black junior partner."

Well then, what did Constantine think caused the intentional and unlawful actions against Peter Probst and his wife?

In the same letter, Administrator Constantine also wrote, "Since becoming administrator of DEA, I have made the establishment of a meaningful integrity program my highest priority." If that be the case, what punitive action was taken against the DEA perpetrators of actions found to be both intentional and unlawful by a federal Judge?