McCain-Palin And The Death Of Affirmative Action

We have come a long way as a nation but have we come far enough and are we destined to go backward if the U.S. elects candidate McCain and Governor Palin?

I'm talking about race relations and the demonized term "Affirmative Action," which has now come to mean "quotas" and "set asides," but from the beginning was about making policy and programs that would seek to redress past discrimination by ensuring present-day equal opportunity.

Increasingly over the years, and compounded in the Bush Administration, the term affirmative action has been demonized. Instead of rectifying a past wrong, it has somehow come to mean giving an unfair advantage or "privilege" to one group, namely African Americans, over white people, especially in the area of jobs and education. Affirmative action has become synonymous with the term "quota," specifically, setting aside a number of educational of employment spots for minorities.

It did not start off that way. Affirmative Action finds its roots in the 1960's Burger Court, in cases such as Green v. County Board, 391 US 430 (1968). This and related cases placed upon schools an "affirmative duty" to desegregate. This "affirmative duty," was solidified by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the so called "sweeping Johnson legislation," a part of the Johnson "Great Society."

The Beginning of the End

However, since the early 1980s when Republicans have been in control of the White House with President Reagan, and in control of Congress, and more acutely in the Bush Administration, the hue and cry has come to derail this legislation.

It began with the ground breaking anti-affirmative action case, Baake. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, a 1978 Supreme Court case, where Mr. Baake objected to his denial of admission to medical school. Baake claimed the denial was a result of "affirmative action," which set aside spots for minorities, thereby denying whites admission to the University of California at Davis medical school. By a slim margin, the Supreme Court determined the set asides were improper and that Mr. Baake should be admitted to the medical school.

Though the Baake decision did not kill "affirmative action," it was the first major nail in the coffin. Those who wanted to end affirmative action, such as Mr. Baake, focused on the so called "set asides," provisions of the policy, or what are now termed "quotas." They ignored the fact that quotas were implemented merely as a tool to enforce affirmative action, and as a preventative measure. Prior to the set asides, the only remedy for anti-discrimination was a court battle after the discrimination occurred. Such court action is extremely expensive and can take years to complete. For example, Brown v. the Board of Education, though a momentous decision, took years to come to fruition, and more resources than could be gathered by the ordinary citizen. Moreover Brown v. Board was a spectacular case, in the midst of the Civil Rights movement.

The second problem with Brown and with other anti discrimination legislation, enacted prior to affirmative action, is that just because the courts and congress mandate racial equality, does guarantee an individual employer, town, or educational organization will implement racially equal programs. And in fact, they did not.

To remedy the problem of enforcement the Courts permitted and sometimes ordered so called "set asides." That is an employer or educational institution could be or was ordered to set- aside a certain number of slots for minorities. And millions of Americans benefited from these set asides. For instance, from 1960 to 1975, the number of black students in higher education rose from 150,000 students to approximately 1 million.

Destroying the Goose to Get to the Gander

Set Asides

The election of President Reagan and the rise of George W. Bush and the NeoCons, have legitimized the Baake attack on affirmative action. In 2003, President Bush said this about a University of Michigan case taken to the Supreme Court on the issue of affirmative action. "At their core, the Michigan policies amount to a quota system that unfairly rewards or penalizes perspective students, based solely on their race." Bush stated before the Supreme Court hearing, "...tomorrow my administration will file a brief with the court arguing that the University of Michigan's admissions policies, which award students a significant number of extra points based solely on their race, and establishes numerical targets for incoming minority students, are unconstitutional." White House Press release January 15, 2003

The election Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin will likely be the final proverbial nail in the coffin to affirmative action. First, there is no indication that Governor Palin will have the critical analysis needed to see that the goal of racial justice has not been achieved in America. Secondly, Senator John McCain was reported to have said the following with regard to affirmative action in July. "Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Sunday that he favors a proposed referendum in Arizona that would ban affirmative action, reversing a position he took a decade ago."

So how will Senator Obama be different? In an interview with the ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Senator Obama stated: " I still believe in affirmative action as a means of overcoming both historic and potentially current discrimination, but I think that it can't be a quota system and it can't be something that is simply applied without looking at the whole person, whether that person is black, or white, or Hispanic, male or female. What we want to do is make sure that people who've been locked out of opportunity are going to be able to walk through those doors of opportunity in the future."

While Obama has not embraced quotas or set asides, it is pretty certain that Senator Obama will not be hostile to other remedies for discrimination, and that the nature and the tenure of the courts will return to fairness and not ideologically based decisions.

We cannot afford to un-ring the bell of affirmative action. We need leadership that will recognize that utopia has not been reached in discrimination. The risk is just too great.

Comments

[KipFromCalif]

Affirmative Action is a losing argument for us progressives that conservatives use constantly in an effort to get the votes of white men. It's easy for the conservatives to demonize the policy by making it seem like reverse discrimination and against constitutional protection of equal rights. It would be best if we progressives could change the policy so it isn't so objectionable to white men. We should change the policy to be based on socioeconomic background instead of a racial/min­ority/gend­er one. Besides, by 2050, the U.S. will be a country where everyone will be a minority and the argument will be harder to defend. Also, if Obama does win, conservatives will say that Affirmative Action is no longer needed.

Obama has said that his daughters shouldn't get preferential treatment since they came from a more privileged background. If we made Affirmative Action based on class/background rather than race/gender, white males would feel less threatened by the policy and it could be taken away as a wedge issue. The beauty of changing it, though, is that it would still benefit the target group (minorities and women) since they're more likely to come from a disadvantaged background. Obama would be the ideal person to recommend the change as President since he is the perfect representative of a meritocracy (hid his race from the Harvard application). Remember, it took a Republican (Nixon) to open up China....I­t may take an African-American to change Affirmative Action.

[KipFromCalif]

Affirmative Action is a losing argument for us progressives that conservatives use constantly in an effort to get the votes of white men. It's easy for the conservatives to demonize the policy by making it seem like reverse discrimination and against constitutional protection of equal rights. It would be best if we progressives could change the policy so it isn't so objectionable to white men. We should change the policy to be based on socioeconomic background instead of a racial/min­ority/gend­er one. Besides, by 2050, the U.S. will be a country where everyone will be a minority and the argument will be harder to defend. Also, if Obama does win, conservatives will say that Affirmative Action is no longer needed.

Obama has said that his daughters should get preferential treatment since they came from a more privileged background. If we made Affirmative Action based on class/background rather than race/gender, white males would feel less threatened by the policy and it could be taken away as a wedge issue. The beauty of changing it, though, is that it would still benefit the target group (minorities and women) since they're more likely to come from a disadvantaged background. Obama would be the ideal person to recommend the change as President since he is the perfect representative of a meritocracy (hid his race from the Harvard application). Remember, it took a Republican (Nixon) to open up China....I­t may take an African-American to change Affirmative Action.

[Memo10023]

Excuse me Lauren how is Affirmative Action continuing racial injustice? While I agree that Affirmative Action as a system and a goal needs to be modernized to also combat the inequalities faced by poor white people , you cannot just get rid of affirmative action because 40 years was not that long ago and those same folks who chose not to hire women or people of color back than are still the same folks running most companies right now, and if it is not them its probably their kin...
What people seem to ignore is that Affirmative Action has mostly benefited white woman not black people. The black middle class was actually larger in the 1960's than it is now...
Another point: Quotas are illegal under Affirmative Action so if there are handouts taking place than they need to be investigated and condemed! Affirmative Action is a tie-breake­r... if a person has grown up in an economic disadvantaged position and they have equal credentials to someone else who has has grown up with a silver spoon, than the economically disadvantaged person should get the job.

[paulita]

Excellent points!

[laurenfiddles]

Don't you think by continuing affirmative action, you're just continuing 'racial injustice'? Times have changed, my dear, in my generation, no one cares at the admissions office what color you are as long as you can pay the bills. It is utter crap that just because someone is a white male, they don't get into the school of their choosing because the people have to look at skin color and leave spots open. Notice how Green vs County Board and Brown vs Board of Education were all like 40 years ago? Just because you're being prejudiced against white people doesn't mean it's any less prejudiced.

If anything, Obama is agreeing with me. Stop focusing on the color, focus on the person who needs it. My roommate is a white girl who grew up as the minority her town. While she needed the money just as much as the rest of her class, when it came time for scholarships, even with a 4.0, she didn't receive any because she wasn't "a minority". Fight me with your generalized color argument now. Affirmative action is an archaic, racist hindrance on our economy and society. Don't punish white people for the next 200 years because of historical problems that probably didn't even affect your grandparents.

[paulita]

Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

That´s my point exactly, people are confusing Affirmative Action with Quotas. You are right maybe quotas are not the proper enforcement mechanism in this day and time and only lead to resentment, but the fact is, justice has not been acheived and African Americans are still subject to disparate treatment, even if your friend was poorly treated. The ratio on poor treatment is 100 to 1.

The issue then is it´s not affirmative action that´s bad, it´s how its implemented that´s the issue. At least Obama might try to be more fair and look for modern 20th century ways to achieve racial equality so this country can be the great nation it professes to be.

[kmp2008]

The thing that's ironic about McCain's choice of Palin, is that it was "Affirmative Action" of the worst kind. Palin was not the best choice, nor was she the best choice among Republican women. McCain's choice of Palin was merely for political gain, to elect McCain, it was not the best choice to help McCain govern the country. So what happened to Country First? This sounds more like McCain First!

However, I wouldn't expect too much from Obama on Affirmative Action. Obama is known as a "bargainer" and will not take positions that seemingly pit one race against another. He's sympathetic to African Americans and has his wife's experience as a back drop, but many will see the election of Obama as evidence that there is no need for Affirmative Action.