Affirmative Action: The Unforgivable Assault on White Supremacy
by
Joseph Waters
Affirmative action, although much maligned by the reactionary right-wing, is a good faith effort to redress legitimate grievances and correct a history of discrimination. It seeks to provide equal opportunity for historically disenfranchised groups. The evidence of past (and present) discrimination is irrefutable. It is copiously documented even well after chattel slavery was officially abolished. Segregation and Jim Crow laws persisted until 1965. Of course, the pervasive racism that had become firmly rooted and institutionalized by this time did not instantly disappear; nor has it yet. The stereotypes of blacks and the evidence of their second-class status have remained to the present day. There has, of course, been improvement over time: we do have a bi-racial president. But I can remember, growing up in a small southern town in the 70’s and 80’s, glaring instances of widespread, open racism. The "N" word was thrown around very casually and openly in my school and among my peers. I can’t put all the blame on southerners, though. When I watch some of my favorite movies from my formative years, especially from the 70’s, I cringe at some of the blatant stereotypical representations of black people and the racist dialogue. These things have not been forgotten or forgiven, since they still exist.
Beyond mere platitudes, it is important to understand exactly what affirmative action is and what it is not. According to my research, the basis of affirmative action rests on various legislative acts including Executive Order 11246 as well as a Supreme Court decision regarding the University of Michigan’s admissions policies. The laws on affirmative action "ban discrimination and require Federal contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative action to ensure that all individuals have an equal opportunity for employment, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability or status as a Vietnam era or special disabled veteran."i
The U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has been given the task of enforcing affirmative action policies in the workplace, but only for the approximately 22% of the civilian workforce whose companies are awarded federal contracts. In addition, it appears that smaller companies (less than 50 employees) and construction contractors are subject to less regulation and less stringent oversight. The larger companies are required to put in place an affirmative action program (AAP). This program should outline the "good faith" efforts used to achieve a goal "of reducing or overcoming under-utilization".
Under-utilization is defined as: "having fewer minorities or women in a particular job group than would reasonably be expected by their availability…when determining availability of women and minorities, contractors consider, among other factors, presence of minorities and women having requisite skills in an area in which the contractor can reasonably recruit." The Department of Labor document goes on to explain that "the executive order and its supporting regulations [the affirmative action laws] do not authorize OFCCP to penalize contractors for not meeting goals. The regulations at 41 CFR 60-2.12(e), 60-2.30 and 60-2.15, specifically prohibit quota and preferential hiring and promotions [emphasis mine] under the guise of affirmative action numerical goals. In other words, discrimination in the selection decision is prohibited".ii
Another aspect of affirmative action, aside from its implications for the pure white workforce, is its impact on admissions for prospective students. This precedent was set by a Supreme Court decision which, in a close decision of 5-4, upheld the right of the University of Michigan to consider race along with other factors. The University of North Carolina, my alma mater, adheres to a similar standard in its admissions process. The UNC admissions website states that in addition to the standard criteria of grades, standardized test scores, class rank, etc.; it also considers "personal background, where we look at a variety of diversity factors…underrepresented racial backgrounds, first-generation college students, students who come from economic or educational disadvantage, or students who represent unusual circumstances, among others. Our staff does not [emphasis mine] have a formula. They have the responsibility and the authority to choose who they think will best contribute to the university and best benefit from it."iii
Although I am a white male, according to UNC’s diversity selection criteria I very likely benefited from a form of affirmative action myself.
President Clinton, back in 1995, gave a speech defending affirmative action. In that speech he clarified that affirmative action has nothing to do with quotas or favoring less qualified workers or students over those more qualified. This idiotic myth has been propagated purposefully by reactionary groups to discredit affirmative action. Clinton called these right-wingers out when he noted that:
"…some of those who call for an end to affirmative action also advocate policies which will make the real economic problems of the anxious middle class even worse. They talk about opportunity and being for equal opportunity for everyone, and then they reduce investment in equal opportunity on an evenhanded basis…why in the world would the people who advocate that [empowering the poor and middle class] turn around and raise taxes on our poorest working families, or reduce the money available for education and training when they lose their jobs or they’re living on poverty wages, or increase the cost of housing for lower-income, working people with children?"iv
I will answer Bill’s question. Because these disingenuous bastards will say or do anything to destroy any policy that attempts to break down racial discrimination and white male supremacy. All the rhetoric and feigned concern for the less privileged aside, that is the bottom line…period. The fact remains that, despite some improvement directly attributable to affirmative action, women still make significantly less than men (76 cents on the dollar) and the unemployment rate for blacks is twice that of whites.v And finally, to quash once and for all the stupid notion that less qualified minorities are stealing white peoples’ jobs, I quote from a study entitled Ten Myths About Affirmative Action:
"According to the U.S. Commerce Department, there are 1.3 million unemployed Black civilians and 112 million employed White civilians (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). Thus, even if every unemployed Black worker in the United States were to displace a White worker, only 1% of Whites would be affected. Furthermore, affirmative action pertains only to job qualified applicants, so the actual percentage of affected Whites would be a fraction of 1%. The main sources of job loss among White workers have to do with factory relocations and labor contracting outside the United States, computerization and automation, and corporate downsizing…"vi
The only flaw of affirmative action that I can see stems from the fact that, unfortunately, you can’t legislate morality. The idea of "reverse discrimination" is a sick fantasy conjured up largely in the minds of intolerant, racist white males to explain away their loss of status from that of the "good ol’ days" when certain folks knew their place. Although, it is important to point out that it is not just racist white males who harbor false notions about affirmative action; there are racist white females out there as well. This is almost amusing since according to the Black Congressional Congress, and by relying on a little imagination and common sense, it is clear that white females have actually benefited from affirmative action the most. Maybe, as a white male, I should really feel hatred and resentment toward my wife, sisters and female friends. This notion is just as ridiculous as feeling animosity toward black people for possibly benefiting from affirmative action as well.
It is hard to imagine a person who is not racist getting upset about affirmative action, especially once the myths are shattered and the truth is revealed. Allegations of "reverse discrimination" are a prime example of scapegoating, plain and simple. A lot of effort and resources are expended by the propaganda machine to misdirect attention away from everyone’s real enemy – the fat cats who own and micro-manage the political economy of the U.S. To counter this, popular movements must educate people and engender feelings of solidarity amongst the populace. Those of us on the Left must fight against the divide-and-rule tactics of the ruling class. As a socialist, I understand very well how racism has been used to divide the working class and convince them to work against their best interests – economic, political and social. It is a very old story. Let’s put an end to it!
iFacts on Executive Order 11246 – Affirmative Action , Revised January 4, 2002. From the U.S. Department of Labor website: www.dol.gov/esa/ofccp/regs/compliance/aa.htm , accessed February 2009.
iiIbid.
iiiUNC Admissions website: http://admissions.unc.edu/diversity/affirm.htm
iv"The Job of Ending Discrimination in This Country Is Not Over", Full text of President Clinton’s July 19, 1995 speech on affirmative action.
vPlous, S. (2003), "Ten Myths About Affirmative Action", In S. Plous (Ed.), Understanding Prejudice and Discrimination (pp. 206-212), New York: McGraw-Hill.
viIbid.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate