,
a
. •
• ;.*
f. ••
■?<
.
....
< • • '* :
••
. •«
•
.’
.
• "
.
. ■
’ ■■-----f t • , ■
/ r *
-C '. u à - i» < Â - U . ? J w L x ?
. ...
*
;
» •* '$ A ?
-
*
'
•
:
\
. '.
*
P age A4
J une 5, 1995 • T he P ortland O bserver
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
America
Japanese
For
Action:
End Of Jobs II
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION COMMENTS
m P roe . M c K inlev B i r i
present day U rban D e v e lo p
A fter twenty years o f begging
m ent). N ot to m ention a tax base
and pleading for fairness and “ Equal
alm ost as favorable as that be
O pportunity" in the Japanese mar
ing granted to com puter c h ip
ketplace, the U S. government is
m anufacturers.
boasting that it has at last gained a
The U S. Supreme Court in its
number o f Set-Asides for its M inor-
infinite wisdom has called for a
ity automotive business.
“ narrowly tailored” approach to af
Thursday our newspapers and
firmative action, and, then, when
television screens were filled with
limited to a specific time period and
scenes o f happy, giddy owners and
only as a "las, resort” . W ill that be
employees o f importers o f Japanese
at the time o f your last stomach
cars. Champagne flowed like our
cramp'.’ The body’s last gurgle?
downtown fountains as Toyota,
In these times o f economic
Nissan Mazda and Honda were said
downturn in most sectors, contin
to have agreed to specific Quotas
ued layoffs coupled with failures o f
and set-asides in respect to the pur
many employee pension plans, and
chase of auto parts and the produc
the rapid increase in outsourcing
tion o f autos in America.
jobs to private contractors by both
W hile it is true that autos and
industry and governmental agen
car parts were responsible for h alf
cies, we can expect an increasingly
the $66 b illio n U S . Trade deficit
competitive situation where “ each
with Japan, it has not been made
takes care o f his own"...and “ the
entirely clear how the new roles and
devil takes the hindmost.” A t my
guidelines w ill be enforced. Are we
meetings with the Association o f
to look forward to a decade o f argu
Oregon Industries, business lead
ing and bickering over Compliance
ers speak openly o f continued ef
and D iscrim in atio n in the auto
forts to “ boost the bottom line” .
place? W ill there be a special court
Darwinian Sociobiology is here.
set up to hear violations o f automo
W hatever way th is is ac
bile rights? To m onitor Equal Op
c o m p lis h e d the real “ b o tto m
portunity?
lin e ” is few er em ployees. The
Obviously, what we are saying
challenge to A fric a n A m e rican
here is that “ what is good for the
and H ispanic leaders is to de
goose is in no way good for the
ve lo p new and in n o v a tiv e ways
gander in Am erica". The opponents
o f im p ro v in g the econom ic sta
o f A ffirm ative Action for Human
tus o f th e ir co n stitu en cy. The
Beings have screamed from the roof
la tte r group seem to be d o in g
tops that "Am erica is no place to
fa irly w e ll at .this, but A fric a n
expect special or favored treatment-
A m ericans can loo k fo rw a rd to
all may come forward’ in equality
“ the M o th e r o f A ll M arche s" on
and prosper in this great egalitarian
W ashington, D C. To be led by
society. Racial minorities and wom
who? M r. C havis, the re ce n tly
en should have no rights or p rivileg
deposed leader o f the N A A C P
es beyond their abilities to compete
( " I am th e fin a l a u t h o r it y
in the marketplace” . Irony o f iro
h e re !” )? H is new o rg a n iza tio n
nies, the ultimate hypocrisy.
needs p u b lic ity ...a n d m oney.
Right! L et’s “ come forward” .
A m id a ll these z illio n s o f
As one reader suggests, we should
black college graduates we have
begin with a blizzard o fjo b a p p lica
w orked , b orro w ed and begged
tions to those firms along Martin
fo r to obtain degrees, where are
Luther King Jr. Boulevard who have
those equipped fo r leadership
never in anyone’s memory hired an
to a new econom ic Z io n ? And
A frican American in any capacity.
speaking o fZ io n , where are the
B u t, w ho d id m ost strenu
m in iste rs lik e the Rev. Leon
o u sly o b je c t to the name change
S u lliv a n w ho to ok the $10 d o
fro m “ U n io n A venue” . A num
nations o f his P h ila d e lp h ia M t.
ber o f these enterprises have
Z io n B a ptist C hurch and b u ilt
(and are) p ro fitin g most m ag
the w o n d e rfu l “ O p p o rtu n itie s
n ific e n tly from federal funds
In d u stria liz a tio n Centers? Since
spent to “ enhance the q u a lity o f
1969. they have p ro vid e d jo b s
ife ” in e c o n o m ic a lly depressed
and tra in in g fo r tens o f th o u
areas (fro m M o d e l C itie s to
sands; A m e rica and the w o rld
In the current debate over
whether the country still needs af
firm ative action programs, at least
two crucial points ate often over
looked: ( I ) affirm ative action isjust
beginning to work in a number o f
industries that have long been the
exclusive province o f white men,
and (2) affirm ative action does not
seek to exclude white men, but.
rather to include them as ar. im por
tant part o f a strengthened and d i
verse workforce.
These fact are especially evi
dent in the transportation industry,
one that touches everybody's life,
regardless o f age. race, or income.
It is only fittin g, then, that the Con
ference o f M in o rity Transportation
O fficia ls (C O M T O ) should enter
the debate to bring clarity to the
affirm ative action picture.
Formed more than 20 years ago
on Howard U nive rsity’ s campus,
C O M T O supports programs that
strengthen the transportation indus
try by identifying qualified women
and racial m in ority candidates for
jobs in what has long been consid
ered one o f the nation's most segre
gated
e m p lo y m e n t
sectors.
Nathan Jimenez: “I feel that
affirmative action is helpful on
the basis that it provides
economic opportunity to the
factions of society that may be
marginalized on the basis of
their racial, ethnic or racial
background. ”
Martha Lee: “I like this
program. It is the only hope for
some people."
Curtailing Affirmative Action
in
J ames L. P osi >
This action w ill surely add to the ef
No matter how you pronounce it,
forts to deny Blacks and other minor
the name “ Adarand” spells trouble for
ities the capacity to obtain competitive
America - all o f America. The recent
skills and experience both in educa
Supreme Court decision lim iting the
tional institutions and in the market
scope of preference programs for m i
place. Again, to some this is insane,
nority contractors is a prescription for
since in the Adarand case, opponents
confusion and frustration.
o f affirmative action say they want
Just as this decision split the Court
decisions made on merit and qualifi
along ideological lines and produceda
cations rather than race.
chaotic array ofopinions, it w ill do the
America has a history o f ignor
same for race relations throughout the
ing the obvious when it comes to
country. It w ill also create a sense o f
race. In spite o f mounds o f studies
extreme anxiety and anger among
and reports showing great dispari
African Americans and other m inori
ties, many whites refuse to accept
ties, many who refuse to be less than
unrefutable evidence that racism and
full stakeholders in America. It w ill
d iscrim ination continue to favor
also send a clear message o f encour
white America at theexpense o f near
agement to those who are against in
ly all other racial groups.
cluding minority groups in the eco
This is particularly true for a ffir
nomic mainstream. These are obvious
mative action programs in construc
points o f conflict and frustration for
tion which more often favor whites
those who have worked hard and long
over ethnic minorities.
to bring a sense o f racial harmony and
Nevertheless, when it comes to
justice to a country with a history o f
race-conscious remedies to correct
racist madness.
historical wrongs or current patterns
For some, insanity is the only
o f discrimination, logic is not a factor.
explanation to the issues and circum
Opponents simply ignore the data, re
stances raised by this decision. For
sist all reason, turn the tables and
example, to many, it is inconceivable
become artful in blaming the victims.
that the first woman and second A fri
The highest court in the land is no
can American ever to be appointed to
exception.
the Court would vote against affirma
Closer to home this pattern is
tive action in any form. What's even
clearly apparent. African Americans
more perplexing is the logic o f a group
in construction are barel> better o ff
who receives 95% o f all federal con
today, after nearly three decades o f
tracts successfully challenging the
set-a-side programs. Without any real
sharing o f the remaining 5% with spe
moral commitment, they were de
cific racial groups and white women.
signed to fail, providing calculated
And, doing so in the name o f jus,ice!
incentives to those best able to un
Adding to the confusion, the Su
dermine the intent o f the programs.
preme Court, in a separate case, decid
Now, insult is added to injury when
ed to lim it Blacks and other minori
profiteers and amoral politicians at
ties’ access to a quality education.
tempt to cas, the few remaining mi-
nority contractors as undeserving,
meaning unqualified, beneficiaries.
Meanwhile the actual beneficiaries,
many white and several m inority
contractors, operate fallaciously and
without impunity, while escaping all
but the slightest scrutiny.
Few people are actually w illing
to accept the fact that white women,
the primary beneficiaries o f affirm a
tive action programs, almost always
operate as surrogates fo r their hus
bands or sons, and have bastardized
the intent o f these programs. It is
painfully true that as they currently
operate, many affirmative action pro
grams serve as nothing more than
quota shams or fronts for w hite males.
It is also true that to a large extent
more than a few African-Americans,
Hispanics and others persistently op
erate as fronts for white males. Addi
tionally, no one has begun to discuss
how a large a share o f affirmative
action money is distributed to all-white
suppliers, manufacturers and insur
ance, rental and other industry-related
companies.
So, in fact, many current a ffir
mative action programs, rather than
being reverse discrimination, are re
ally a perverse, clandestine version
ofhistorical discrimination which has
always benefltted white males.
A few weeks prior to the Su
preme Court decision, I wrote the fol
lowing in a local trade association
newsletter:
“ Oregon Department o f Trans
portation (ODOT) DBE Program in
Shambles”
The recently-released “ Annual
Update and progress Report on Dis
advantage Business E nterprise
(DBE) Program” for the period Oc
tober I, 1993 through September
30, 1994 paints a dismal picture for
African American. For example, o f
$219 m illion committed to prime
contractors in the reporting period,
only $49,000 was committed to A f
rican American contractors. O f the
$30 m illion plus contracts awarded
to D BE’s nearly half, $14 m illion,
went to white females. The rest went
to Hispanics, Asian/Pacifics andNa-
tive Americans, which in no way
proportionately reflects their repre
sentation in Oregon’s population. It
is embarrassing that Black males
are listed at so low numbers, and
African Americans women are not
listed at all.
What is even more troublesome
is that even prior to this current
wave o f attacks on affirm ative ac
tion programs, opponents working
in and outside o f ODOT have been
successful in dismantling all sem
blance ofcompliance safeguards. In
the report cited above, contract pro
visions have been relaxed to allow
prime contractors to further abuse
the program's intent. For example,
prime contractors are no longer re
quired to submit a work plan on how
they use D BE’s. Also primes are no
longer required to replace eligible
D B E ’ s w ith s im ila rly qualified
D B E ’s. In trucking, an area o fh is
torical “ frontingabuse,” the require
ments for leasing and equipment use
have been relaxed, making it easier
to pass on work to non-D BE’s. Fi
nally, and making matters worse,
provisions to lessen o fficial access
to prime contractors’ records and
documents has been approved.
Along The Color Line
Affirmative Action
And The Workplace
m D eborah P rice
Randel M cO uown: “A lot of
my friends are minorities. They
cannot find a job. It’s really
difficult for Blacks to get
ahead. I think the program is
necessary. ”
David K iser: “I am for any
program that helps minority
groups because no one else
wants to help. But it should not
discriminate against white
people like me. I don’t accept it
if it takes away my rights. ”
What Affirmative Action Really
Means
C O M T O ’s outreach programs en
courage fair competition for con
tracts and jobs in transit, air, rail,
passenger motor carrier and truck
ing occupations.
C P M T O ’s has contributed to
measurable increases for women
and m inorities in the field. Bureau
o f Labor Statistics show that in trans
portation occupations excluding
motor vehicles, women increased
from 2.4 percent to 4 .1 percent be
tween 1983 and 1993, A frican
Americans rose form 6.7 percent to
10.2 percent Hispanics registered
a smaller increase, from 3.0 to 3 .1.
yettheoverall industry remains
largely white and male; and w ithout
federal programs to push for inclu
sion o f racial minorities and wom
en, it would likely stay that way A
look at the airlines industry , partic
ularly, reveals the imbalance Data
for pilots between 1983 and 1993
show women increased from 2.1
percent to 3.9 percent. During this
10-year stretch, Hispanics grew less
than a full percent, from I 6 percent
to 2.4 percent African Americans,
who did not even register in 1983,
came in at 5.5 percent 10 years
later.
1
by
D r . M anning M arable
Everyone these days seem to be
debating “ affirmative action,” but few
really know what the term means
I hat has happened in recent years is
a profound distortion o f what “ a ffir
mative action" really is, and how it
evolved as a set o f public policies.
H istorically, the political m oti
vation behind both “ equal opportu
n ity " and “ affirm ative action” came
from the struggle to abolish slavery
and its aftermath during the period o f
Reconstruction. The thirteenth, four
teenth and fifteenth amendments to
the US Constitution attempted to
destroy the second-class legal and
political statusof African-Americans
This p o litica l sentiment was ex
pressed in the C iv il Rights Act o f
1866 which stated that "a ll persons
w ithin the jurisdiction o f the United
States shall have the same right in
every State and Territory, to make
and enforce contracts, to sue, be par
ties, give evidence, and to the full
and equal benefit o f all laws and
proceedings for the security o f per
sons and property as is enjoyed by
white citizens...”
During the Great Depression,
the role o f the Federal government in
protecting the equal rights o f black
Am ericans was expanded again
through the direct militancy and ag
itation o f black people. In 1941, so
cialist and trade union leader A. Philip
Randolph mobilized thousands o f
black workers to participate in the
"Negro march on Washington Move
ment,’ calling upon the administra
tion o f Franklin D. Roosevelt to car
ry out a series o f reforms favorable to
c iv il rights. To halt this mobilization,
Roosevelt agreed to sign Executive
Order 8802, which outlawed segre
gationist hiring policies by defense-
related industries that held Federal
contracts. This Executive Order not
only greatly increased the number o f
African-Am erican who were em
ployed in wartime industries, but
expanded the political idea that gov
ernment could not take a passive role
in the dismantling o f institutional
racism
This position was reaffirmed in
1953, by president Harry S. Truman s
Committee on Government Contract
Compliance, which urged the Bu
reau o f Employment Security “ to act
positively and affirm atively to im
plement the policy o f nondiscrimina
tion in its functions o f placement
counseling, occupational analysis and
industrial services, labor market in
formation. and community partici
pation in employment services."
Thus, despite the fact that the actual
phrase, “ affirm ative action” was not
used by aChiefExecutive until Pres
ident John F. Kennedy’s Executive
Order 11246 in 1961, the basic idea
o f taking proactive steps to uproot
structural patterns o f discrimination
had been around for a long time.
The essential difficulty in every
discussion about affirmative action
goes back to its history and evalua
tion. “ Affirm ative action” per se was
never a law, or even a coherently
developed governmental strategy to
address discrimination. It was a set
o f Executive Orders and governmen
tal policies regarding Federal con
tracts, employment and licenses.
Some Federal laws and initiatives
implied that the social policy goal o f
uprooting discrimination ought to be
the achievement o f a “ color blind”
society, in which racial categories
would become irrelevant. The 1964
C iv il Rights Act, for example, de
clares that workplace discrimination
on the basis o f “ race, color, religion,
sex or national origin” should be
outlawed. The 1964 act also states
that it should not be interpreted to
require any employer “ to grant pref
erential treatment to any individual
or to any group.”
Five years later, however, under
the Republican administration o f
Richard M. Nixon, the Federal gov
ernment authorized what became
known as the “ Philadelphia Plan.”
I his initiative required federal con
tractors to set specific goals for m i
nority hiring. As a result, the number
o f racial minorities in the construc
tion industry increased from 1 to 12
percent. N ixon's basic strategy was
to utilize a liberal reform for a con
servative objective: the expansion o f
the African-American middle class
would potentially benefit the Repub
lican Party. Nixon authorized plac
ing Federal Reserve funds in black-
owned banks; he publicly defended
the slogan “ Black Power,’ but care
fully interpreted it as “ black capital
ism.”
In the 1978 Bakke decision, the
Supreme Court overturned the poli
cy o f setting aside 16 out o f 100
medical school openings for racial
minorities in the selection o f appli
cants for the University ofC alifom ia
at Davis. But despite Bakke and oth
er subsequent legal rulings which
restricted the scope o f affirm ative
action, m illion o f whites increasing
ly came to the opinion that any pos
itive steps which addressed racial or
gender inequality in employment or
educational opportunities, no matter
how modest, somehow were at their
expense