Archive for Quotas
Finally, a racial preferences proponent admits, publicly, exactly what the policy is. James P. Sterba, author of Affirmative Action for the Future, says (emphasis added):
“Affirmative action is a policy of favoring qualified women, minority, or economically disadvantaged candidates over qualified men, nonminority or economically advantaged candidates respectively with the immediate goals of outreach, remedying discrimination, or achieving diversity, and the ultimate goals of attaining a colorblind (racially just), a gender-free (sexually just) and equal opportunity (economically just) society.”
Interviewed by InsideHigherEd.com, Sterba says, in so many words, that it’s okay to discriminate against white men doing well for themselves. This is called “good” discrimination. Any other kind is bad, bad, bad.
Regarding the “outreach” goal, affirmative action, as conceived, was about reaching out to people previously left out of the process intentionally (No blacks need apply) or unintentionally (those “We’re hiring” flyers weren’t widely distributed). The definition of this non-discriminatory practice expanded to the point of absurdity, until its new and proper name was applied: preferences, or lowering standards for certain racial minorities most of the time and for women some of the time.
The “remedying discrimination” goal is fuzzy and faces limitations. For instance, the Supreme Court contended in Ricci v. DeStefano that when actions intended to remedy past discrimination are based on discrimination, there must be a “strong basis in evidence” that the remedial actions are necessary.
The “attaining a colorblind” society justification for racial discrimination is plainly ludicrous. The argument is, we discriminated in the past, so if we discriminate in the present, we’ll end up with a colorblind society in the future. On what level does that make sense?
As I’ve said many times, colorblindness among individuals may be a worthy goal. Either way, it makes little difference to me. What matters is whether government policy is colorblind. Such a policy treats people as individuals without regard to race. Individual, private citizens may hold prejudices and biases for whatever reason, but those prejudices and biases are held in check by a government whose duty is to protect everyone’s rights.
An individual is free to think whatever he wishes about me because I’m black, for example, but neither he nor my government may interfere with me because I’m black.
It’s not rocket surgery.
Roger Clegg comments on Sterba’s interview. An excerpt:
“But even if you think there are some benefits to affirmative discrimination, one must weigh them against the undeniable costs of such discrimination, and of course there is no mention of them here: It is personally unfair, passes over better qualified students, and sets a disturbing legal, political, and moral precedent in allowing racial discrimination; it creates resentment; it stigmatizes the so-called beneficiaries in the eyes of their classmates, teachers, and themselves…it papers over the real social problem of why so many [blacks] and Latinos are academically uncompetitive; and it gets states and schools involved in unsavory activities like deciding which racial and ethnic minorities will be favored and which ones not, and how much blood is needed to establish group membership.”
Filed under: Diversity, Quotas | |Comments off
…Ohio State University (OSU) intends to cast a “deeper and wider net” to admit more black students. Does this mean the school will lower standards to admit more black students? The former is commendable; the latter is known as racial preferences.
OSU is reaching out to black students in 15 inner-city high schools in select cities to bring diversity to the campus. (Source) Not a bad idea. How the idea is executed will determine whether it’s bad.
Admissions officers will facilitate the process by helping prospective students file applications, and OSU is waiving the application fee. According to the article, the school will work with students “with high academic abilities…” Excellent! “…and aspirations.” Hmmm…is aspirations code for racial preferences?
The percentage of black freshmen at OSU dropped after the Supreme Court restricted race-based admissions in 2003, and the school presumably is looking for ways to attract blacks without lowering standards or discriminating against non-blacks. (The presumption probably is unwarranted, but I’m giving OSU the benefit of the doubt.) But OSU offers race-based scholarships. Doesn’t that run afoul of the law?
The Supreme Court decided two racial preferences cases in 2003. In Gratz v. Bollinger, the court held that the University of Michigan’s racial quota admissions system wasn’t narrowly tailored to achieve the desired skin deep-only diversity, and this use of race (point system) violated the Equal Protection clause. In other words, schools may use race to admit students, as long as the process is narrowly tailored, whatever that means. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the court held that the University of Michigan’s law school racial preference policy was narrowly tailored to pass Equal Protection muster and furthered the “compelling interest” of the government to bestow racial diversity benefits upon students. To admit lesser qualified black students, the law school considers “soft variables” in addition to grades and scores.
Back to The Ohio State University. The school could attract more “underrepresented” minorities by offering scholarships based on socio-economic status rather than race. They’d achieve their racial diversity ends while helping all students, regardless of race. Right?
Naïve, I know. Idealistic, too.
Filed under: Diversity, Quotas, Socioeconomic AA | |Comments off
California legislators ought to carry a copy of the state constitution in their pockets and refer to it when writing laws. It’s a useful guide, laying out what the people have a right to do and what the government shall not do. For example, Article I, Section 31 reads in part:
“The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”
Thirteen years ago, 54 percent of voters passed Proposition 209, which added this language to the state’s constitution. But legislators either are unaware or they just don’t care. The latest attempt to circumvent the law is requiring race- and sex-based quotas in contracting. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who swore to uphold the constitution, signed into law a bill that directs state departments to award government contracts to the lowest responsible bidder subcontracting 15 percent of the work to minority-owned businesses and five percent to female-owned businesses. The contractor who fails to do so will be rejected, even if he’s the lowest bidder.
Read the rest at Townhall.
Filed under: Column, Judiciary, Quotas, Ward Connerly | |Comments off
Lani Guinier, who said African immigrants should not receive racial preferences because they are not descendants of black American slaves, co-wrote an article in the New York Times with Susan Sturm, a fellow liberal law professor. Guinier was Bill Clinton’s nominee for Assistant Attorney General until her pro-quota views became known.
I echo what the Center for Equal Opportunity’s Roger Clegg says about the op-ed (via National Review Online):
“In a New York Times op-ed today, Profs. Lani Guinier and Susan Sturm discuss why they dislike standardized tests. They have no empathy, as it were, for Frank Ricci in the New Haven firefighters case, who earned his promotion by doing well on one. But the issue in that case was not whether this or that test was perfect; the issue was whether, having administered a particular test, it was illegal racial discrimination for the city to throw out the results because it didn’t like the skin color of the people who did well in it. And it’s hard to imagine that Guinier and Sturm would have written this op-ed if Frank Ricci and the other successful firefighters had been the right color or, more broadly, that they would work so hard to find objections to standardized tests if such tests didn’t so often have a politically incorrect disparate impact. Myself, I’m perfectly happy for cities to adopt whatever selection device they think is best, so long as they ignore race in making that decision.”
I believe objective tests are an excellent way to avoid being the victim of racial discrimination, even if minorities perform relatively poorly on those tests. There is always room for improvement, and factoring in race, even when it benefits minorities, has unintended consequences.
Minorities would do well to remove the government’s hand from the deck and rely on a “standardized” shuffle of the cards.
Filed under: Quotas, Roger Clegg | |Comments off
The city of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, will spend $350,000 figuring out how to award government contracts based on race and sex.
According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, there’s a disparity in government contract awards between minority-owned businesses and the rest. And as we’ve been told thousands of times, disparities equal racism.
The city had utilized racial-neutral contracting, but a 2007 study found that it “underuses” minority-owned businesses in government contracting. “The city-sponsored study could provide a legal basis to fend off challenges if it confirms disparities and the city returns to a race-conscious program.”
The city assumes black-owned businesses should represent a certain percentage of government contracts. Former mayor Marvin Pratt said, “Hopefully, we can show statistically that we can have a race-based ordinance.”
But Mr. Pratt, why must the city color-code contracts? Perhaps streamlining the process would benefit black-owned businesses and help them compete without resorting to race-based decisions.
Is there a race-neutral way to help black-owned businesses? Streamlining and simplifying the contracting process probably would help such businesses. But the changes also would benefit the other businesses…unless they’re limited only to so-called minority-owned businesses, and that’s discriminatory. Whether you’re for or against “affirmative action,” doesn’t this reek of unfairness?
Filed under: Quotas | |Comments off
Quota advocates are hoping the economic downturn stimulates more than just federal funding. They’re hoping to increase set-aside contracts.
The Federal Highway Administration recently approved the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) racial quota plan. The reason? What else…money. The state’s so-called Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program saw a drop in minority business participation related to the economy. Caltrans convinced the feds it needed to set racial quotas to reverse the decline in light of new stimulus funding headed to the state.
Apparently the idea sounds good enough to Minneapolis. Set to receive about $4 million in federal stimulus money, Minneapolis is ready to divvy up the racial spoils. Director of economic policy and development Cathy Polasky said, “I think we always go above and beyond what the federal mandate is, so we will be looking to encourage both local hiring and using the workforce agreements we’ve used in the past to encourage hiring of women and minorities,” she said. (Source)
For the uninitiated, “workforce agreements” is a euphemism for racial quotas.
James Frisco, president of the National Association of Minority Contractors’ local chapter, hopes the government sets aside a quarter of the energy-related contracts for minority-owned businesses.
Awarding contracts to the lowest bidder would seem to eliminate the risk of racial or sex discrimination, but some minority contractors insist on blaming racism for losing out. Unfortunately, this way of thinking is generationally entrenched. With the federal government tacitly agreeing with such attitudes, it will continue for generations more.
Filed under: Quotas | |Comments off
In the comment section of an LAT blog article on racial quotas in Los Angeles County contracting, Roger Clegg asks, “Why do race, ethnicity, and sex need to be considered at all in deciding who gets awarded a contract?”
Apparently, the county is not reaching its minority contract set-aside goal of 25 percent. Since discriminating against or preferring individuals or groups based on factors like skin color and sex in government hiring, contracting, and admissions is illegal in California, the county is an a quandary.
The article mentions several race-neutral ways to possibly increase minority-owned business representation among contracting ranks: make the bidding process more accessible and easier to understand; hold workshops to instruct business owners how to apply for contracts; and notify business owners of new projects via e-mail.
Will these approaches satisfy quota proponents? Probably not, but they don’t have much choice. Why is awarding contracts to the lowest bidders regardless of the business owner’s race wrong? Isn’t it the best way to ensure that no one, regardless of race, is subjected to racial discrimination?
Oops. My naivety is showing again.
Filed under: Quotas, Roger Clegg | |Comments off
Thomas Perez, President Barack Obama’s nominee for assistant attorney general for civil rights, the same man who believes medical schools should drop standards for black applicants because they’re more likely to work in “underserved” communities than white doctors, also believes in watering down firefighters recruitment tests.
The Center for Equal Opportunity’s Roger Clegg posted on The Corner blog a press release from 2004 when then Montgomery County, Maryland, Councilmember Thomas Perez called for an investigation into the fire department’s written firefighter aptitude test. The problem? Too few blacks were being recruited. From the release:
“These statistics are unacceptable…But I have confidence that we can get back up to the original number of minorities in the Department, and develop a comprehensive plan to recruit diversely…I have worked closely with Fire and Rescue Chief Carr and several other leaders on this issue…We have formed a partnership and the commitment from the department is clearly there.”
I remember covering this story on my personal blog in 2004. According to the Washington Post, 89 percent of class recruits in that fire department were white. Because the county’s population was 60 percent white, elected officials like Perez criticized the department. There was a drop in minority recruits, which likely was caused by the county implementing a race-blind hiring process. For the sake of skin deep-only diversity, people like Perez favor lowering standards to recruit minorities, but call the practice something else: affirmative action.
I also blogged about the New York City Fire Department (FDNY) lowering standards in a “pro-diversity” campaign to attract blacks. FDNY reduced the college credit requirement and considered changing the way the employment test was scored.
In the same post, I mentioned the Denver Fire Department’s new watered down test. I spoke with Chief Larry Trujillo, who said a Denver newspaper article left the impression that he favored the dumbed-down test, but he told me he did not. He said as a minority, he was proud to have gone through the same process as other recruits, but believed “something” needed to be done to bring in more blacks. The fire department hired a consulting firm to create a new test, and I spoke with three people (conference call) at the firm to try to find out what made the new test easier. All they would say is the test would evaluate a broader range of abilities than traditional written tests. The answers were vague on purpose. I suspected the firm watered down portions of the test on which blacks performed poorly.
Finally, years ago I read about one fire department that dropped its swimming test because too few black applicants knew how to swim!
The absurdity is too astounding for words.
I guess the Civil Rights Act and other civil rights legislation – and the entire movement – were pointless. The American people strived to eliminate racial considerations in government hiring and admissions. Almost two generations later, the government still considers race in hiring and admissions.
Filed under: Judiciary, Quotas, Roger Clegg | |Comments off
***Scroll down for update***
The American Prospect’s Adam Serwer thinks the Ricci v. DeStefano case is all about white men complaining that they “can’t get a break.” Apparently, studying for and passing a test for a promotion in one’s career and having the results thrown out because too many people in your racial group also qualified for promotions is much ado about nothing.
In his post, Serwer mixes apples and oranges. He says that based on critics’ comments about Judge Sonia Sotomayor being unqualified for the U.S. Supreme Court, America must keep discriminatory practices in place to balance such beliefs. An excerpt:
This is exactly what affirmative action is meant to correct: People coming to the arbitrary conclusion that someone is “an idiot” despite all evidence to the contrary, except if you consider not being a white man evidence. Sotomayor’s detractors see themselves as Frank Riccis, white men whose greatness isn’t recognized because we’re too busy giving brown people who can’t tie their shoes certificates of achievement. But the truth is that in life and in employment, discrimination rarely manifests itself the way it did against Ricci, as something as easy to quantify as an unfair test. It’s far more insidious — a rumor, a feeling, a notion that the person standing in front of you who doesn’t look like you is just “dumb and obnoxious.” So you throw their resume in the “no” pile because you don’t like their name, you seat them in the back of the class, you promote another person. You just can’t really explain why. It’s… just a feeling.
Notwithstanding Serwer’s over-the-top reaction to race preferences opponents’ reasonable concerns about individuals like Frank Ricci being penalized because of skin color, Serwer seems to be saying that racial discrimination against whites is justified to guard against racial discrimination against blacks. Does that make sense? Racial discrimination is okay because racial discrimination exists.
If I’m reading him wrong, I’m sure he’ll let me know.
Incidentally, Sotomayer is connected to the Ricci case. She was on the panel of judges that ruled against the New Haven firefighters, a decision that resulted in the Supreme Court’s review of the case.
Proponents of lowered standards for blacks, whether they think it’s necessary to make up for past discrimination or to increase minority representation, have nowhere to go but in a circle. To justify preferences is to ignore the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the entire Civil Rights movement. The purpose was to put the government out of the skin color business, and for almost two generations, the government has remained in business.
Serwer (disparagingly) links to an excellent article by Richard Cohen, Washington Post columnist. A liberal, Cohen not so much sides with Ricci as he does with fair treatment. He makes the point that Ricci was in no way personally responsible for racial disparities in the fire department and shouldn’t be penalized for them. He writes:
We should never confuse unfair with illegal. Still it would be nice if every once in a while they coincided. That is especially the case in matters such as this because the justification for affirmative action gets weaker and weaker. Maybe once it was possible to argue that some innocent people had to suffer in the name of progress, but a glance at the White House strongly suggests that things have changed. For most Americans, race has become supremely irrelevant. Everyone knows this. Every poll shows this. Maybe the Supreme Court will recognize this.
Liberalism, a movement in which I hold a conditional membership, would be wise to get wise to what has happened. Blatant affirmative action always entailed a disturbing and ex post facto changing of the rules — oops, you’re white. Sorry, not what we wanted. As a consequence, it was not racists who were punished but all whites. There is no need to cling to such a remedy anymore. There is, though, every need to retain and strengthen anti-discrimination laws, especially in areas such as fire departments, where racial discrimination was once endemic. Sufficient progress has been made to revert to treating individuals as individuals. After all, it is not some amorphous entity called “whites” who will suffer: It is un-lieutenant Ricci.
I doubt people on either side of the preferences debate will ever see eye-to-eye. One side believes individuals should be equal before the law regardless of race, and the other side believes racial discrimination in the other direction is justified based on an arbitrary notion of diversity. Speaking only for myself, the issue is black and white, with no shades of gray. A government with the power to discriminate in favor of blacks can use that same power to discriminate against blacks. The issue is not whether pockets of bigotry still exist. The issue is whether racial discrimination is emanating from the government. Everything else is negotiable.
Let’s hope the Supreme Court makes the right decision in Ricci.
Update: When the liberal Los Angeles Times sees the unfairness of throwing out test results because too many whites passed, you know the times are a-changing (pun not intended).
Filed under: Diversity, Judiciary, Quotas | |1 Comment
Whoever thought that 40-some years after the civil rights movement, whites would be suing the government for racial discrimination?
Ricci v. DeStefano, the New Haven firefighters case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, is the latest in a line of so-called reverse discrimination cases. Although mainstream media use the term “reverse discrimination,” racial discrimination is wrong no matter which group is the target. We can’t make amends for racial discrimination against blacks by permitting racial discrimination against whites. The government must get out of the skin color business if this country has any hope of moving forward in race relations.
Perhaps it was President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s commencement speech at Howard University in 1965 that convinced institutions that discriminating in favor of black Americans was in order. An excerpt:
But freedom is not enough. You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: Now you are free to go where you want, and do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.
You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, “you are free to compete with all the others,” and still justly believe that you have been completely fair.
Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates.
This is the next and the more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.
For the task is to give 20 million Negroes the same chance as every other American to learn and grow, to work and share in society, to develop their abilities–physical, mental and spiritual, and to pursue their individual happiness.
To this end equal opportunity is essential, but not enough, not enough.
In these words lay the foundation of racial preferences, race norming, and other practices that lower standards for blacks in order to satisfy an arbitrary skin deep-only diversity requirement, alleviate the burden of historical guilt, and penalize non-blacks who had nothing to do with past discrimination. Inevitably, doling out race-based perks to minorities harms members of non-preferred races, a practice obviously unconstitutional. The government’s quest to narrow educational and employment gaps between the races and increase minority representation may be noble in theory. In practice, it’s repugnant. As long as it continues, strained race relations and cases like Ricci v. DeStefano will exist.
This Associated Press article highlights the “reverse discrimination” issue and quotes Roger Clegg, of the Center for Equal Opportunity:
“The laws that Congress wrote are clear — everyone is protected from racial discrimination. Not just blacks, but whites. Not just Latinos, but whites…Quotas do not end discrimination. They are discrimination. The law makes clear that race, ethnicity and sex are not to be part of who gets a government contract or who gets into a university or where someone goes to school.”
Filed under: Judiciary, Quotas, Roger Clegg | |Comments off
« Previous Entries||
