Protect Fairness and Equality in November, Voters Will Decide the Future of Affirmative Action
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Protect Fairness and Equality In November, voters will decide the future of affirmative action. In the United States, access to the American Dream is often framed as a race in which the swiftest runners win. Critics of affirmative action say that such policies give some runners an unfair head start in an otherwise fair race. At the same time, many supporters of affirmative action say we need these policies to assist “disabled” runners. In their focus on the runners rather than the track, both of these perspectives miss the point. Affirmative action isn’t about advancing “disabled” runners, but about repairing damaged lanes and removing the barriers that block the pathways to opportunity that only some runners face. Policies that promote inclu- sion, such as affirmative action, are designed to equalize the conditions of an otherwise unfair race and give everyone a fair chance to compete. As long as such inequalities exist, treating everyone fairly does not mean that we should treat everyone the same. Instead, we must support and defend policies that remove the numerous barriers that obstruct the lanes of women, Latinos, Native Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans and others disadvantaged by their racial, gender and class backgrounds. DON’T BELIEVE THE HYPE! COMMON MYTHS ABOUT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION MYTH 1: Affirmative Action is preferen- tial treatment. FACT: Affirmative action creates a fair competition by removing the barriers that obstruct the lanes of women and minorities in the race toward the American Dream. For example, because female business owners remain outside traditional old boy networks, they often receive only a fraction of the public contracting dol- Give everyone a fair chance to compete. Support affirmative action! lars that men do. Similarly, women In an ideal world, the lanes on the track would be the same, and we would all have equal and minority job seekers are frequent- access to opportunities. In reality, the paths of women and minorities continue to be blocked ly shut out of good jobs in trades where by many obstacles, including racial and gender discrimination, residential isolation, poverty, opportunities go only to those who are glass ceilings, lack of access to good schools, and more. Some runners can realize their in the loop. Efforts to ensure that out- potential more easily because these barriers do not block their paths, while still others ben- siders have equal access to opportuni- efit from privileges like wealth and family connections that give them a head start. ties are only fair and do not amount to “preferential treatment.” ate opportunities that are truly equal, The world is full of people whose tal- we need to address the barriers to ents are not always recognized by tra- MYTH 2: Affirmative action is no longer opportunity. Promoting equality and ditional measures of intelligence. For needed in America. supporting affirmative action go hand example, although he went on to be FACT: Since exclusion and unfair in hand! one of the most gifted orators of the treatment persist in America, we 20th century, Dr. Martin Luther King, need remedies to deal with them. MYTH 3: Affirmative action rewards the Jr. scored very poorly on a standard- unqualified. ized verbal test in his youth. Research Affirmative action opponents turn a FACT: The real myth is that we have has shown that such tests and similar blind eye to the effects of race and an equal playing field and that the criteria are often biased and underesti- gender on access to opportunity. But most qualified people are the ones mate the capabilities of working class common sense tells us that any who get ahead. In fact, affirmative individuals, women, and people of color, attempt to solve a problem by ignor- action helps to offset barriers that and that they do not accurately predict ing it makes no sense at all. Imagine unfairly block the pathways of quali- professional or educational success. In trying to eliminate the deadly conse- fied Americans who are fully able to countering built-in discrimination, affir- quences of lead poisoning by being succeed. In so doing, it promotes mative action policies offset limited blind to lead paint! If we want to cre- equal opportunity. measures of merit and identify individu- (continued on reverse) als whose talents and potential might Stop the Civil Rights Rollback! otherwise be overlooked. In 2008, Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma will be affirmative MYTH 4: Opposing affirmative action is action battlegrounds. Ward Connerly and the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) consistent with Dr. King’s dream of a col- are attempting to dismantle an array of equal opportunity programs by introduc- orblind America. ing anti-affirmative action ballot initiatives—so-called “civil rights” initiatives—in FACT: Dr. King and other civil rights these states. Don’t be fooled: join the fight to keep fairness and equality alive by leaders never believed that racial defending affirmative action. inequality could be fixed by ignoring the Q: Who is Ward Connerly and what is the ects to document efforts to include problem of racism. In fact, Dr. King sup- American Civil Rights Institute? minority and women subcontractors in ported affirmative action and advocated A: The ACRI is a right wing institute support- their bids, and to challenge data col- the use of race-conscious measures to ed by wealthy conservatives working to end lection requirements that would help provide opportunities for minorities. affirmative action throughout the nation. the government identify racial and gender discrimination. Even battered MYTH 5: Affirmative Action only targets As a member of the Board of Regents of women’s shelters and domestic vio- African Americans. the University of California (UC) system lence programs have been challenged FACT: Affirmative action targets many in the early 1990’s, Ward Connerly, a con- in California as promoting gender- people who continue to face opportu- servative African American business- based “preferences.” nity barriers, including women, Native man, led the charge to eliminate affirma- Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, tive action in the UC system. Connerly Q: I believe in equality, and am against South Asians, African Americans, Arab and the ACRI have also waged successful discrimination and preferential treat- Americans, and others. By opening fair campaigns in California, Washington and ment. Will the ACRI’s initiatives promote access to more Americans, affirmative Michigan to end affirmative action in civil rights? action benefits families, businesses, state contracting, public education, and A: No. The ACRI tells voters that its ini- coworkers, communities, and our employment. The ACRI is supported by tiatives will end “discrimination” and entire society. wealthy conservatives who hide behind “preferential treatment,” when in fact Connerly and other people of color pro- they will end a broad range of programs MYTH 6: Affirmative Action should be moting discriminatory political initia- that promote fairness and equality. about class, not race. tives. Connerly supporters include FACT: Race and gender discrimination Rupert Murdoch, Joseph Coors, William The ACRI is attempting to mislead vot- continue to be significant problems in Hume, the Bradley Foundation, the ers by mischaracterizing the initiatives’ our country, and race- and gender- American Enterprise Institute, the purpose and hiding the fact that they conscious policies are needed to cor- Center for Individual Rights, the Heritage will end affirmative action. It’s no acci- rect them. For example, a recent Foundation, the Jacqueline Hume dent that the ACRI calls its initiatives study showed that job applicants with Foundation, and others. “civil rights” initiatives, despite the fact “white-sounding names” were twice as that they actually work against civil likely to be called back for interviews Q: What do these ballot initiatives propose rights. The ACRI deliberately co-opts as applicants with “black-sounding to do? this and other language of the Civil names” who had the same qualifica- A: End affirmative action and other pro- Rights Movement to confuse voters. tions. Another study found that a white grams designed to address race- and In addition, ACRI petitioners have job applicant with a criminal record gender-based barriers to equal opportu- deliberately and systematically worked was more likely to receive a second nity in public education, public employ- to convince voters that their initiatives interview than a similarly qualified ment and public contracting. African American applicant with no actually support affirmative action criminal record. Policies that address A successful anti-affirmative action bal- rather than seek to abolish it. A feder- only class issues cannot address such lot initiative in your state will have far- al court found evidence of systematic injustices, and are not sufficient to reaching consequences, dramatically and widespread voter fraud by the combat the barriers limiting opportu- reducing the participation of women and ACRI and has denounced the organiza- nities for racial minorities. minorities in public education, state con- tion’s tactics as fraudulent, but Fortunately, many affirmative action tracting and employment. In states Connerly has continued to use the programs do take economic status into where ACRI initiatives have passed, they same dirty tricks in other states, account, so race, gender and class have been used to challenge a whole determined to confuse and divide need not be pitted against one another host of affirmative action programs, American voters. in the pursuit of equality. Local deci- including targeted outreach, mentoring, Affirmative action is about fairness and sion-makers should remain free to admissions, hiring, and data collection. equality, not preferential treatment. determine the scope of affirmative For example, in California, the ACRI- It’s a matter of simple justice. action in their communities, and sponsored Proposition 209 was used as national campaigns should not impose the basis for dismantling programs that DEFEND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND a one-size-fits-all version of equality.