Affirmative Action - Mend It, But Don't End It

On July 20, 1995, President Clinton firmly rejected calls for dismantling affirmative action programs. Arguing that race and gender preferences are fair and do not discriminate against White men, he asserted, "Affirmative action has been good for America."

Most Americans agree, save the angry white males (AWMs) I suppose. I must admit that the first time I wrote about affirmative action I dismissed it as being of little relevance to Hispanics.

The President's unequivocal declaration put him at war with the Republicans and seemed at odds with his past expressions for AWMs who feel that preferences in hiring, promotions, contracts and college admissions work against them.

Whereas Clinton once had seemed ready to roll back preferential programs, he gave an unflinching defense of affirmative action as a tool to open the doors of education, employment and business opportunity to victims of persistent discrimination. Most fair-minded Americans are saying, "Hurrah, Mr. President, keep on trucking."

"We should have a simple slogan: Mend it, but don't end it," Clinton said.

Affirmative action has become a hot issue. As hot as The Bell Curve release in October 1994 which some saw as a prelude to the fight over affirmative action then on the horizon. GOP presidential candidates immediately pounced on Clinton's remarks. Senator Dole the GOP leading candidate said he would offer legislation, "to get the federal government out of the group-preference business." Senator Phil Gramm, said Clinton "is committed to solving the problems of discrimination in America by extending unfair advantage to even more people."

Rather than scrapping preferences, Clinton issued a directive to departments and a 100-page report advocating reforms to ensure that programs benefit those who need help the most.

He ordered the elimination or overhaul of any program that “creates a quota, creates preferences for unqualified individuals, creates reverse discrimination or continues even after its equal opportunity purposes have been achieved."

With this, the fight was on; as the 1996 presidential election got underway it became one of the dominating and determining issues. It is salutary to have the president take an unequivocal position on the side of the oppressed minorities and women. At least the citizenry had something to base their vote on.

Just three days before, on July 15, 1995 the President pledged "No Retreat On Affirmative Action" as he briefed leaders of Black and Women's groups on his five-month review of affirmative action programs. The Rev. Joseph Lowery, of SCLC was there and so was Myrlie Evers-Williams, chair of the NAACP. No mention was made of any Hispanic leader. The dialogue continued, without us, as usual.

It is however, ironic that the event that seems to have triggered all of this was the United States Supreme Court decision on Adarand Constructors vs. Peña. It inspired conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer to observe, "The best thing about the long anticipated affirmative action decision is its relative insignificance." He said that the case will go down in the annals of major affirmative action decisions, but the truly major decisions on affirmative action will no longer be made by the courts. Krauthammer credits Justice Sandra Day O'Connor the author of the 5-4 majority on the case with having done the polity a favor by neatly framing the coming national debate. "By narrowing significantly the scope of affirmative action, she has given President Clinton the plank he desperately seeks; a pro-affirmative action position that he can claim is both politically moderate and constitutionally necessary." The beauty of the decision, according to Krauthammer, "is that we can now have full-fledged national debate on affirmative action without the constitutional questions getting in the way. The result will be not just a catharsis but perhaps even, after 30 years, a democratic resolution of the issue."

Where does all this leave concerned Hispanics? There is, as always, no national consensus. LULAC is in disarray perhaps even more so than the NAACP. The American GI Forum has since the death of its Founder, Dr. Hector Garcia, ceased to function in a meaningful basis.

There is scattered response, however; Jose Armas, freelance writer, comments as follows: "No one has enjoyed preferential treatment more than Anglos. White men, in particular. In 1776, the right to vote was reserved exclusively for White males; in 1820, property rights were set aside for White men only; in the 1860s lands were taken from Indians and given to Whites to homestead; after the Mexican-American War, Whites were legally allowed to take Hispanic land grants. Jobs wise, from the beginning until the first part of this century university faculty positions were the sole domain of White males. The children of alumni have always had set-aside slots in prestigious institutions which have always been dominated by Whites. Today, White men and women have a strangle-hold on 93 percent of top management positions. Preferential treatment for Whites, their kids, relatives, country club buddies, cronies, cronies' relatives, otherwise known as the good ol'boy network, has steamrolled right along for more than 200 years now."

"Who is challenging this system of ongoing preferential treatment? Certainly not Congress, 84 percent of which is White.”

Read On! Enjoy!