On Nov. 4, amid all of the excitement surrounding Barack Obama’s election, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit struck down a Pentagon Program that included five-percent set-aside contracting for companies run by racial minorities.
The impact of the decision is unclear.
On that same day, Nebraska voters supported the anti-affirmative action initiative on their state ballot by a margin of 58 to 42 percent. By doing so, they joined voters in California, Washington and Michigan, who voted to ban affirmative action programs in previous years.
After four decades of affirmative action, Obama’s historic candidacy itself has been seen by some as proof that such programs are no longer needed.
“It would be a big mistake for people to look into the White House and see a beautiful family there and say that the struggle is over,” said George Curry, a journalist and affirmative action expert. “The proof that we don’t need affirmative action is when major corporations and higher institutions represent our composition in society.”
Curry, author of The Affirmative Action Debate, said one problem with affirmative action is that most people fail to accurately define the issue.
“Affirmative action has never been just for black people,” Curry said. “One could argue that white women have benefited more from affirmative action than any minority group.”
By definition, affirmative action (a term coined in the 1960s) was developed to ensure that applicants were treated equally without regard to race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
It proved controversial, as many white males hollered reverse discrimination by claiming that they were losing government jobs to less-qualified women and racial minorities.
The Supreme Court ruled 30 years ago that universities could use race as one factor in choosing applicants but could not set quotas. Subsequent court rulings and state referendums placed more restrictions on affirmative action.
In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 209, which barred government institutions from using preferential treatment based on race or gender in employment, education and contracting.
The law had significant effects on higher education, with UC Berkeley seeing a 61 percent drop in admissions of African Americans, Latinos and Native American students. UCLA had a 36 percent decline.
Opponents of affirmative action argue that Obama’s election puts to rest the need for special programs for blacks, while states like Missouri struggle to keep their affirmative action programs afloat.
Obama: absolutely necessary
President-elect Obama has called traditional affirmative action “absolutely necessary.”
During a Democratic debate in April, Obama told George Stephanpoulus his primary priority would be “providing ladders of opportunity” and making sure “every child in America has a decent shot in pursuing their dreams.”
In his speech on race in Philadelphia back in March, he made clear that America needs some form of affirmative action to address the legacy of discrimination in this country.
He noted that legalized discrimination in FHA loans, for example, prevented blacks from borrowing to purchase homes, leaving older blacks with little accumulated wealth to pass down to later generations.
He also pointed out that many African Americans continue to attend inferior segregated schools, to live in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty and to grow up in single-parent households, all of which are connected to some degree to discrimination.
“We’re over-represented on the football field and basketball court but not where it counts,” said Curry, who himself benefited from affirmative action as a first-generation college graduate.
In order to win skeptics, Curry said, Obama must address the way the government deals with affirmative action by lending out more federal contracts to minorities and educating the public on the issue.
The tone for racial inclusion
Affirmative action proponents say Obama’s campaign, which attempted to transcend race, is proof that the system is working and should not be dismantled.
“For the first time in the country’s history we had two serious minority candidates run for president,” Brandon Davis said of Obama and Hillary Clinton. Davis is political director of the Missouri/Kansas State Council of the Service Employees International Union and spokesman for the WeCAN Coalition that successfully devoted a ballot amendment in Missouri this year that would have banned affirmative action programs in Missouri institutions.
“Their accession proves that when given the access and a leveled playing field, great things can happen,” Davis said.
Generally, affirmative action has been used in government contracting, higher education institutions and corporations to “even the playing the field” for minorities.
Like Obama, Davis suggested that affirmative action programs should be expanded to include class.
Curry disagreed.
In his syndicated column “The Continuing Relevance of Affirmative Action,” Curry wrote that while that move may help some people because of the intersection of race and class, it does not directly address the problem of discrimination.
He asserted that the needs of poor whites should be addressed, but through antipoverty measures.
As the country moves toward multiculturalism, Curry said it would be in the best interest for corporations to hire non-whites.
According to projections from the U.S. Census Bureau, ethnic and racial minorities will comprise a majority of the nation’s population by 2042.
“He’s not running corporations he can only influence them,” Curry said of Obama. “We all have a responsibility.”
Missouri’s fight continues
The fight to save affirmative action programs in The Show Me State will continue well into 2010.
Secretary of State Robin Carnahan’s office announced last week that it had approved a proposed initiative to ban affirmative action programs in education, public contracting and employment for circulation again throughout the state.
The so-called Missouri Civil Rights Initiative n sponsored locally by Tim Asher, but with the national support of Ward Connerly n could have as late as May 2010 to gather signatures for the November ballot.
Connerly, a wealthy California political operative who is black, has spent millions in out-of-state spending in an attempt to amend Missouri’s constitution. He and Asher failed to turn in signatures on time to qualify their initiative for this year’s ballot.
They employed the help of an out-of-state firm to gather signatures but Connerly and the firm have been plagued by charges of fraud and deception.
Connerly also targeted four other states: Colorado, Nebraska, Arizona and Oklahoma. As in Missouri, he failed to gain enough qualified signatures to make the ballot for Arizona and Oklahoma. His initiative was barely defeated in Colorado, but passed in Nebraska.
If successful, Connerly’s ballot measure would cut off government funding for programs offering preferential treatment based on gender or race.
Davis, spokesman for the WeCAN Coalition that aggressively opposed the ballot initiative this year, said, “Missourians have rejected these deceptive policies and signature gathering practices before and there’s no reason why they won’t again.”