U.S. struggles with equality

Are Americans willing to do away with nearly a quarter of a century's worth of creating racial diversity in the classroom and the workplace?

Affirmative action has led to frustration for some minorities, who have yet to see the opportunities blossom, and for some whites, who feel victimized merely because of the color of their skin.

While institutions like the University of California system are scrapping their affirmative action policies for less controversial ways to create a diverse community, affirmative action faces even tougher scrutiny from many Americans who would rather do away with diversity programs altogether.

In a recent poll conducted by the research firm Clark, Matire and Bartolemeo for Fortune Magazine, only 52 percent of nearly 200 respondents described affirmative action programs as "good" or "very good," down from 68 percent who felt the same way in a 1989 poll. In the same recent poll, more than 78 percent of top executives would back a ban on "racial and gender preferences" throughout the country.

Everret Carl Ladd, director of the Center for Public Opinion at the University of Connecticut, is not surprised by these results and sees a bleak future for affirmative action.

"The public has never liked the idea of affirmative action, in the sense that you should treat individuals on the basis of merit, not race. We take this seriously enough that it has become a national dilemma," said Ladd, who recently conducted a survey on public opinion of affirmative action to be released next month.

In the '60s, Ladd said most white Americans felt good about the progress made during the crusade for civil rights, like the admonishment of the Jim Crow laws, and were willing to accept affirmative action on a short-term basis. The same cannot be said about the 1990s, when there are less jobs and more competition.

"The public feels less guilty about its thinking (on race) today than 30 years ago," Ladd said. "But," he is quick to add, "the perception is different for blacks and other minorities, who say the victories are few. The United States still has a long way to go in recognizing this truth."

While Ladd does not profess to be an ardent supporter of affirmative action, he admits that any gains made by minorities through race-based preference programs have been narrowly confined, and he doesn't see much of a change in the future.

Professor Jose Cuellar, chair of La Raza studies at SF State, thinks that affirmative action may have been misunderstood from its conception, which could make it harder for some white Americans to accept in the future.

"Affirmative action," Cuellar said, "was intended to prevent a kind of racism and elitism that has characterized every aspect of our society. It was intended to alter circumstances (in hiring) so that the U.S. would be characterized by fair employment practices -- breaking the strangle hold of whites-only practices in society."

Said Cuellar, "When we look at results (of discriminatory hiring), we see that subversion of process. (There is) still racism and sexism in hiring, not because the laws are inadequate, but because people who are in positions of hiring -- the CEOs -- are still hiring on the basis of preference for whites."

According to Cuellar, affirmative action must continue to exist with respect to the job market.

"If not, the alternative is a very bleak future, and that's my fear for the Americas. (It means) a violent future for the U.S. because there are people who are no longer going to be denied education or adequate paying jobs. The alternative, underpaying or non-employed, is not an acceptable alternative," Cuellar adds.

But are current equal opportunity laws enough to protect minorities from a wave of backlash against race-based preference?

In recent years, Congress has acted to ensure anti-discrimination in the workplace and the classroom, but with a Republican-controlled House and Senate, those programs are in danger. The GOP has long since viewed such preference programs as a hindrance to a truly free market-driven society.

Take a recent bill introduced by Rep. Charles Canady (R-Fla) and Sen. Bob Dole (R-Kan) aimed at doing away with race and gender-based preferences for federal hiring and contracting. According to the authors, the bill, which is now being considered in Congress, would have a negative effect on minorities, who consistently fight for a share of federal dollars when it comes to work projects. Canady, who is chair of the House Judiciary Subcommittee, has some definite ideas as to why affirmative action is not working, according to staffer Michelle Morgan.

"Congressman Canady," Morgan said, "feels like the government should not be in the business of discriminating on race or gender. We need to be looking at people as individuals and not members of particular groups." Morgan said the bill would protect the federal government's ability to contract as widely as possible -- although she was unclear as to how this would happen.

It seems as though the future of affirmative action has been taken out of the hands of politicians and businessmen and thrown into the lap of education. Still, the decisions being made, like UC's resolution to end affirmative action last July, remain highly political in nature.

Jack Bunzel, a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University, has looked closely at affirmative action both as a university president at San Jose State in the 1970s and as a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights from 1983 to 1986.

"There are no simple answers to the question of affirmative action's overall success," Bunzel said, "but there have been major accomplishments -- larger numbers of students have access to jobs and universities."

Bunzel thinks that one negative consequence of affirmative action is that "race-based preferences have widened the gulf between Americans -- not just blacks and whites, but blacks and Asians as well." Bunzel, like many other critics, can sense an underground reservoir of discontent between these three particular groups.

Bunzel believes that affirmative action was probably intended to bring Americans together. Instead, it has given way to groups squaring off against each other.

"The problems are more severe today, and there is clear disgruntlement across the board."

In speaking about the regents' decision to roll back its affirmative action programs, Bunzel said it was done not to make the student body any less diverse, but to achieve more diversity through economic and class factors rather than race.

"The challenge is not to concentrate on race -- the chancellor has already accepted that challenge." Bunzel added that "the conflict is between (the) means permissible and impermissible that are used to create diversity." Bunzel said that the means by which race-based preferences are achieved should be made by the people.

According to Bunzel, we live "by the code words, 'for or against,'" which might continue to make it harder for this society to overcome the question of affirmative action.

[ Golden Gater Online November 21, 1995 ]

[ back to top ]