February 23, 1995
The anti-affirmative action movement promises to be one of the most hotly debated topics of 1995.
Like last year's Proposition 187, which polarized public opinion on illegal immigration, the recent introduction of a bill that would repeal affirmative action mandates, and the development of a state initiative designed to meet the same end, has the potential to degenerate into a round of name calling and a shouting match between ideological camps.
Already, politicians have been labeled as "racists", affirmative action policies have been termed "reverse discrimination", supporters of the repeal have been dubbed "angry white men," and proponents of affirmative action have been called "wannabe social engineers."
But many questions often remain unanswered.
Is it really possible to achieve a color-blind America? What is behind the political movement? Is affirmative action really costing America's businesses too much?
Three SF State professors have offered their insight into what's behind the debate from a cultural, business and political viewpoint.
The following opinions were expressed in interviews, and their comments have been condensed to fit this format.
-------
It's naive to think that we can live in a color-blind society.
The level of neurosis around skin color is so deep in this country that it is only surpassed by that of South Africa. Even when one crosses class or cultural boundaries, people will still try to judge you on skin color.
A man can be on the board of directors at IBM, and if he's black, he'll still have a hard time hailing a cab on Market Street.
Even when someone claims he is color blind or race blind, the American culture has been so polarized on this issue that he can't escape automatically reacting to skin color.
This neurosis is based in America's history of using race to justify its expansion and economic development.
Black slavery, the genocide of the native American population, the conquest of Mexican-owned territory, Chinese labor, and social Darwinism all contributed to the success of the United States. And racial lines were drawn between people to rationalize, on a deep emotional level, the means needed to reach the ends.
The tragedy is that people actually believed they were civilizing while they were killing -- doing the world a favor in destroying inferior races.
It's precisely this neurosis around race relations -- bordering on pathology -- that makes affirmative action important. For all the problems associated with affirmative action, it is still better than leaving hiring up to a so-called race-blind system that would allow historically ingrained biases free reign.
I think the current wave of hysteria sweeping the country will be marked as an unproductive, uncreative moment in our history. And the debate on affirmative action, against the backdrop of shrinking resources and the government's retreat from the idea of social equity, will become less and less productive.
-------
Progressive companies have already gone beyond affirmative action mandates.
Today's companies want a diverse work force for purely economic reasons, and have progressed to what we call "diversity management."
Human resource managers need to acquire, utilize and retain the talent that can help their company compete and win in the world market. And that means seeking out talent wherever it may be.
Like it or not, today's work force is increasingly diverse. If a company cannot or will not fully utilize the talent available to them, it could prove to be a costly decision.
Companies also realize that a diverse work force can help them market their products more effectively to a diverse base of consumers. In today's global economy, many companies operate internationally and they have customers all over the world. The United States has a very diverse market that needs to be understood as well.
Competitive companies need to tap into new ideas. They know that having a mix of people with different backgrounds and different ideas can stimulate creativity. A work force that is too similar can remain in a static state of 'group think.'
The premise of diversity management is that talent exists regardless of race, regardless of gender and regardless of age. And companies want to get that talent.
Affirmative action programs, however, can be good or bad depending on how they are implemented.
If a company, because of social or political reasons, creates a program because it has to, not because it wants to, then that can be bad for everyone.
However, if the company goes deeper than mere 'compliance'; if it changes its business culture; if it really believes that a diverse work force is crucial to business success; then affirmative action would be a success as well.
----------
The anti-affirmative action movement is only part of a well- orchestrated right-wing agenda to do away with governmental social programs.
Many believe it is not the government's business to ensure social equality, and others are worried about an increase in taxes.
People opposed to the welfare state and other social mandates for purely ideological or economic reasons now find it useful to use race as a basis to build popular support to reduce the government's role in society as a whole.
They could not raise support for attacks on welfare and higher education if they stated their intent in purely objective terms, because most Americans support it. So the right is playing to a segment of the population willing to look at the debate through a racial lens.
We saw the result of this tactic with last year's Proposition 187, and we can trace this movement back to Proposition 13, which drastically limited the funds available for social programs.
When funds are not available, the argument wouldn't be whether or not we should have a particular social program, but whether or not we can afford it.
I think those who support this legislation are playing with fire, for short-term political gain. People will take extreme positions on both sides, polarizing the issue.
If one wanted to strengthen black nationalism and the power of black radicals, and in turn, the extreme-right and fascist element, passing this bill would be the perfect thing to do.
My hope is that after four or five years of this movement, there will be a counter-cyclical reaction. But certainly this won't go on more than a generation. They could not govern the country, as the liberals have, for more than 40 years with this agenda.