Amy Wood – Southern Changes

Going Nowhere Fast – Affirmative Action Opponents Stymied in the States

Amy Wood — Sun, 01 Mar 1998 05:00:01 +0000

Going Nowhere Fast – Affirmative Action Opponents Stymied in the States

By Amy Wood

Vol. 20, No. 1, 1998 pp. 3-11

Across the country, conservatives are realizing that affirmative action will not easily be eliminated through state legislative action. Despite sharp attacks in the courts and reports that state legislators from coast to coast are preparing to eliminate state affirmative action programs, during 1996 and 1997 only thirteen states actually introduced such legislation, and none of these bills was successful. And only one state, Washington, expects to have an initiative similar to California’s Proposition 209 on the ballot in 1998. Events in 1998 show that affirmative action is still very much a viable force in America. In fact, those working to repeal affirmative action on the state level see themselves engaged in a difficult and potentially unsuccessful struggle.

Hopefully, this news will end the widespread perception that the foes of affirmative action constitute, as The New York Times put it in November 1997: “The national movement that has often seemed to have the momentum of an unstoppable freight train.” It was a prominent report in the Times a year earlier, along with stories in The Atlanta Constitution, The Dallas Morning News, and other papers, that left the false impression that almost half the states were on the verge of eliminating their affirmative action programs.

In November of 1996, Sam Howe Verhovek of The New York Times, wrote that twenty-six states had introduced anti-affirmative action legislation that year. According to his assistant, Verhovek got the figures from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), a non-partisan organization that tracks state legislation. Yet, a closer look at the NCSL 1996 affirmative action report reveals that while twenty-six states introduced some form of legislation concerning discrimination and affirmative action, fewer than half that number of bills in 1996 actually sought comprehensive repeal. Indeed, some of the legislation was offered to support anti-discrimination laws. Though Verhovek correctly noted that “not a single bill passed,” his numbers took on a life of their own.

Similar figures were cited in an October 6, 1997 story by Scott Shepard of The Constitution’s Washington Bureau and one by David Jackson in the Dallas Morning News. Jackson reported that “Up to 30 states are preparing referendums similar to Proposition 209,” while Shepard stated that nineteen states had anti-affirmative initiatives or legislation in the works. Jackson’s figures came from the American Civil Liberties Union, and he admitted that he may have exaggerated a lithe. The ACLU’s publicity office in New York claimed their number of twenty-five to thirty states came from, again, The New York Times.

These inflated estimates have had the effect of making the opponents of affirmative action appear stronger and more successful than they actually are. Here are the facts: in the 1997 state legislative sessions, bills amending state constitutions or statutes to repeal affirmative action were introduced in: Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio, and South Carolina. The intent and wording of all of these are similar to Proposition 209, as they seek to “prohibit discrimination and preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public employment, public education or public contracting.”

In every case in 1997, the bill or referendum was either “postponed indefinitely,” or held in committee, the “graveyard” of legislation, as one bill sponsor commented. While the situation is more precarious in Washington State and Ohio, the sponsors in the remaining states lack confidence that their legislation will succeed any time soon.

Affirmative action opponents find themselves in the curious position of claiming that public opinion is on their side, and that the majority of Americans no longer want affirmative action, while their legislative and initiative efforts are thwarted due to lack of support or concern from voters, business and community leaders, and even fellow conservatives. Efforts in Houston, Colorado, Florida, and Georgia demonstrate that defenders of affirmative

Page 3

action can be successful. “Not only public opinion, but momentum, is on our side” concludes Brian Komar of the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights.

In at least three states, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Michigan, the battle to eliminate affirmative action has been laid to rest for now. The sponsors of anti-affirmative action bills in these states are not planning to re-introduce the legislation that they pushed weakly last year. Missouri state Senator Peter Kinder (R-Cape Giradeau) says that he did not even press for a hearing of his bill (SJR 3) because he “knew it wasn’t going to go anywhere.” He does not see similar legislation being enacted in the “foreseeable future.”

Likewise, Oklahoma state Representative Bill Graves (R-Oklahoma City) and sponsor of FUR 1010, asserted that affirmative action is “probably pretty safe in Oklahoma.” In Michigan, Representatives Michelle McManus (R-Lake Leelanau) and David Jaye (R-Washington Town ship) collectively introduced three pieces of legislation in 1997, all of which were held in committee. An aide to Representative McManus explained that they were encouraged to move last year because the Republicans controlled the House, but this year, with Democrats in control, they feel it “would be fruitless” to press further. Affirmative action is probably secure in the northeast.

While representatives in New York and New Jersey are planning to re-introduce legislation in the next session, they are not expecting the bills to go forward. When controversy heated up in New Jersey in 1997, sponsors of Assembly Bill 2533 lost some support when fellow Republican Kevin O’Toole of Cedar Grove, backed into a “mend it, don’t end it” position. O’Toole then pro posed his own compromise bill Assembly Bill 2748, which would give preference to the “economically disadvantaged.” Even this more liberal bill was held in committee.

Battleground States

More difficult battles await affirmative action proponents in Ohio, Washington State, and the Carolinas, but recent events in Arizona and Georgia indicate defeat is by no means inevitable. In North Carolina, representative Edwin Hardy (R-Beaufort) is ready to re-introduce his anti-affirmative action referendum, HE 981, in 1999, if he gets re-elected in 1998. As a referendum, Hardy hopes that the legislature will let it through so “the people can decide.” If the fate of affirmative action were left to public

Page 5

vote, Hardy feels certain that it would be repealed. Despite his optimism, representative Howard Hunter, a Democrat from Conway and former chair of the state Legislative Black Caucus, called Hardy’s bill “a dead deal,” adding that affirmative action is “a battle we are going to have to fight, but it won’t be that bill.”

In South Carolina, the situation is more complex but no more hopeful for opponents of affirmative action. Alter a racially divisive debate, the South Carolina House voted 74-37 on February 19, 1998 in favor of a bill that would force state government agencies to drop affirmative action programs, including admissions and scholar ship programs at public colleges.

The bill is currently in the Senate Judiciary Committee, but few believe it will ever pass the majority-Democratic Senate. Representative James McGee III (R-Florence), who replaced the bill author Representative Hunter Limbaugh last November, says, “I can tell you right now it’s going to be killed in the Senate.”

With this knowledge, House Republicans have continued to push the issue, attempting unsuccessfully to attach an anti-affirmative action measure to the state budget on March 4, 1998. “This time was different because the Black Caucus had an opportunity to tie the bill up,” says Representative Joe E. Brown (D-Richland County). “We [the Black Caucus] don’t have enough power to pass something, but we do have enough to stop some things.”

After the March 4 defeat, the chances look slim for opponents of affirmative action this year. “The only chance that this measure would pass the Senate would be if it had been tacked onto the budget bill,” says Micheal Sponhour, who has been covering the issue for The State newspaper in Columbia.

In Arizona, three anti-affirmative action bills were introduced in the 1997 session, two conventional bills and one referendum, like his North Carolina counterpart, the sponsor of the referendum, Tom Home (R-Phoenix) is certain that had his bill passed the legislature, the people of Arizona would have voted to repeal affirmative action. In 1997 as a freshman representative, he backed off from the bill because he did not have support from either Republican Governor Fife Symington, or other Republicans in the legislature. With Republican Governor Jane Hull now in office following the indictment and mid-term resignation of Governor Symington, Home reintroduced his bill in 1998. Home’s measure was defeated 11 to l9in the Arizona Senate on February25, 1998 with seven Republicans joining all twelve Democrats.

Anti-affirmative action bills were more successful in Colorado, with one passing the House before being postponed indefinitely. The first, HB 1299, sponsored by

Page 6

representative Vicki Agler (R-Littleton), was held by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Representative Mark Paschall (R-Jefferson County) subsequently withdrew his bill, HB 1336, from Senate consideration because he knew he could not battle it through, and if he did, Governor Romer would veto it. In the 1999 session, however, Paschall plans to introduce a referendum, which would both bypass a Governor’s veto and not require a two-thirds majority. Agler, however, believes this statute will fail as well be cause of the lack of support in the senate.

Most recently in Ohio, Representative Mike Wise (R-Broadview Heights) and state Senator Gene Wafts (R Galloway) introduced two resolutions modeled after Proposition 209 which would place a Constitutional amendment repealing affirmative action on the November1998 ballot. These resolutions are unlikely to pass. Mark Potts, a legislative aide in Watt’s office, is “not overly optimistic.” Wafts’ bill would need a two-thirds majority, and while there are sixty-six Republicans in a House of ninety-nine representatives, at least two or three Republicans have already come out against the bill. House Speaker, Jo Ann Davidson (R-Reynoldsberg), is quoted as saying, “I would be very surprised to see that resolution come out of committee.”

Republicans Lack Consensus

The situation in Ohio and Arizona is representative: bills are stalling because there is not a Republican consensus. In every instance in 1997, anti-affirmative action legislation never made it out of committees, not only because Democratic members voted these bills down, but certain Republicans have as well. In North Carolina, for instance, Hardy’s bill was held up in the Judiciary Committee by a tie vote cast by a Republican. Even if brought to a floor vote, these bills would need unanimous Republican sup port to pass, which they do not have, as evidenced by 1998 votes in the Arizona and Georgia legislatures. Eleven Republicans voted for a Democratic-sponsored substitute to defeat a Republican-led repeal of affirmative action programs in Georgia (See Georgia article, page 20).

Those working to eradicate affirmative action in the states explain Republican legislators reluctance to come out strongly behind such legislation as a matter of political expediency rather than a disavowal in principle. According to Ann Kramer of the American CMI Rights Institute (ACRI), a curiously-named national anti-affirmative action organization based in Sacramento, California, “legislators do not have the courage to stand up for this issue.”

Indeed, on the federal level, several bills have effectively been killed by leading Republicans, including Newt Gingrich (see “Legislation Blocked,” page 5). Affirmative action is not an issue that congressional Republicans want to take head-on in an election year. As stated by John Miller, vice-president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative Washington, D.C., think-tank, “the anti-preference movement is at a standstill.”

When not ignoring or avoiding the issue, Republican responses to these federal and state roadblocks have been twofold. In some cases, Republicans have proposed bills that would force revision of affirmative action programs without ending them all together-the “mend it, don’t end it” approach. One example is Kevin O’Toole class- based, affirmative action bill in New Jersey. In Michigan, representative Michelle McManus’s two bills (RB 4457 and HB 4459) would only require that public affirmative action policies be reviewed by the state Civil Rights Com mission in order to ensure that they conform to recent Supreme Court decisions, as opposed to the Joint Resolution put forward by her more conservative colleague, David Jaye, which would eliminate affirmative action all together. Although a spokesperson for McManus stated that McManus and Jaye worked together to push these bills, he added that “we are not really confident that we need to eliminate affirmative action everywhere.”

Legislators have proposed these “compromise bills” in order to stimulate anti-affirmative action activity, but they have had the unintended effect of stalling action by dividing Republican support As Vicki Agler said of affirmative action in Colorado, “It’s not a winnable battle in the legislature it’s just not.” One alternative is to appeal directly to the public through grassroots initiative drives. Indeed, California ended affirmative action not through its state government, but through such an initiative campaign. The American Civil Rights Institute and its grass roots network the American Civil Rights Coalition were founded by Ward Connerly, the businessman who spear headed California’s Proposition 209 campaign, in order to provide support and guidance to groups seeking to organize such efforts. Other states have been slow to go along.

Focus on Washington State

As it stands, only Washington State appears to be poised to overturn affirmative action through the ballot in 1998. Initiative 200 received 280,000 signatures, over 100,000 more than are required for it to appear on the ballot. In the past two years, initiative drives begun in Colorado, Illinois, and Florida have failed due to lack of support-they simply could not obtain enough signatures to make it onto the ballot. An initiative drive in Ohio is still in its earliest stages — but organizers in that state need 335,000 signatures to qualify for the November ballot. Only twenty-four states even allow initiatives, and the ACRI admits that in many of these affirmative action is not a burning topic. “We can’t take this issue to Wyoming,”

Page 8

says the ACRI’s Ann Kramer, “It’s not going to be sold nationwide.”

Much can be learned from states that have fried initiative campaigns. Anti-affirmative action campaigners in Washington for Initiative 200 have been successful (indeed, they obtained more signatures than any other initiative in the state’s history) due to a shrewdly devised campaign, a supportive Republican-controlled legislature, and the lack of a strong opposition. National figures like Steve Forbes and Bill Bennett offered free publicity in the form of speeches and commercials. (John Carlson, a Tacoma talk-radio host and newspaper columnist, used his show and columns to advertise for the initiative. He has since been fired.) And while Washington’s Democratic governor, Gary Locke, has come out against the initiative, Republicans control both the state house and senate. The initiative will first be put before the legislature, which may vote whether or not to enact it immediately into law. Because the legislation is an initiative, it would have no veto power. And even if the legislature votes it down or takes no action, the initiative will go directly onto the November1998 ballot. Activists on both sides of the issue are currently lobbying legislators for their vote. Washington State affirmative action proponents know they have a big battle ahead. The NAACP has formed a coalition with a cross-section of minority and women’s groups across the state, which is trying to educate the voters in Washington about the intent of the so-called “Civil Rights Initiative.” They had a small victory when they were able to expose that the initiative campaign had duped some African American volunteers into thinking they were working for a civil rights cause.

Language Is Key

Carlson and his compatriots have been very calculating with their use of language, focusing the issue on “preferences,” “quotas,” and “discrimination” rather than “affirmative action.” “I don’t mind affirmative action at all,” says Carlson, “as long as it is done through expansion and outreach programs.” In this way, the initiative campaign appears much more liberal than it actually is. But, the Washington initiative uses the same misleading language that is credited with Proposition 209’s success in California.

Experiences in Colorado and Florida, however, demonstrate that initiatives can be defeated. Affirmative action there is, for now, relatively secure, largely due to coalition efforts to sway public opinion against anti-affirmative action campaigns. An initiative drive stalled in the planning stages when it became clear there would not be enough signatures to make it on the November 1998 ballot According to Kramer, the anti-affirmative action forces will re-group next year, and try for the year 2000.

Supporters of affirmative action in Colorado continue to prepare for battle to ensure that Representative Paschail’s upcoming statute in l999will be defeated and to lay the groundwork to counter any future initiative action. Members of the Colorado Progressive Coalition, based in Denver, credit the defeat of last year’s bills to their efforts.

According to activist Soyun Park, “We were able to kill those bills because we didn’t just hold a press conference, but we held press conferences thong with rallies, and other grassroots efforts — phone calls and letters.”

Page 9

Bill Vandenberg of the Colorado Coalition adds that members deferred legislative action by rallying outside the capitol and filling committee rooms; with these rooms filled, legislators were forced to find other times and places to convene. The Coalition also gathered support from local businesses, labor organizers, community organizations, and students.

For 1998, the Colorado Progressive Coalition has already mobilized a larger network, called Colorado Unity, made up of minority, women’s, and other progressive organizations across the state. They will continue the tactics they used last year, but, in order to be more proactive, they are seeking to broaden their base with a statewide education effort. On Martin Luther King Day, they launched a series of teach-ins and community forums on college campuses and within local communities.

Colorado Unity has modeled its efforts on the successful recent campaign organized in Houston to over come an anti-affirmative action initiative. The Houston initiative, which sought to eliminate affirmative action in public hiring and contracting, and which won enough signatures to be on the November 5 ballot, was defeated by a 54 percent to 44 percent margin. Pro-action coalition efforts rallied businesses, labor groups, women’s groups, students, and individuals. The Houston coalition also had the public support of Mayor Bob Lanier, and the financial support of local and national businesses.

Corporate Role Critical

As things stand right now, affirmative action’s immediate salvation might just come from corporate support. Initiatives cost as much money as any other kind of political campaign. Initiative planners must raise at least one dollar for every signature they need. According to organizers of Florida’s “Civil Rights Initiative” anti-affirmative action drive, their campaign is failing precisely because they have not been able to find adequate financial support. To qualify for the November 1998 ballot, the initiative needed 435,000 signatures by January 1, a goal they did not reach. The problem according to Initiative chairman Pat Bainter, was money. They needed five-hundred thousand dollars, an amount they did not come close to raising through individual donations. Former chairman of the Initiative, Orlando businessman John

Page 10

Barry explained that although he received some donations from wealthy individuals, he needed financial support from either the Republican Party or big businesses. California’s Proposition 209, for instance, really took off when the GOP came on board, providing one-quarter of the campaign’s total finds. Free advertising and publicity has complemented the individual donations that have fueled Washington State’s initiative.

According to Florida and Washington organizers, businesses have not backed their campaigns because they fear losing customers. “They don’t want people picketing them,” says Bainter. Likewise, Carlson explained that Washington businesses have not gotten involved with his initiative because “big business is reluctant to take risks, to get into the fray.” But, as experience in Houston shows, businesses are not necessarily neutral on the issue. They are not only reluctant to back anti-affirmative action campaigns for fear of customer boycotting, but they also realize that affirmative action, or at least its primary effect — diversity — is good for business. The 1995 Federal Glass Ceiling Report found that affirmative action not only widens the “pool of talent” businesses can draw from in hiring, but also that businesses recognize that they need to reflect the diversity of the marketplace and its customers. Affirmative action defenders can enhance their power to defeat these initiatives by gaining corporate support and dollars.

In Ohio, anti-affirmative action organizer B.J. Kresnye is hoping to circumvent the money problem by seeking support from state Republicans. Indeed, Ohio is the only state with both an initiative in the works and pending legislation in the state legislature. Kresnye says that he does not have the time, energy, or money to see this initiative all the way through to the ballot, adding that “no one has the ability to do what Ward Connerly did, devote heart and soul to the initiative.” Kresnye’s goal is to goad Ohio legislators into passing the bills put forward by Representative Wise and senator Watts. But, according to Wise’s aide, Mark Potts, state Republicans have not paid much attention to Kresnye’s actions: “the Republican Party is interested in supporting Republicans, not specific issues.”

Honda’s FREE Coalition Seizing Initiative

Anti-affirmative action organizers in Florida face the same problem, receiving only lukewarm support from Florida Republican party. Although some Republican legislators and candidates, including Jeb Bush who is running for governor this year, are sympathetic to the goals of the initiative, they are reluctant to take a public stand. A spokesperson from the Senate majority leader’s office stated outright that “affirmative action is just not an issue for Senate Republicans,” adding that an anti-affirmative action initiative would not be as successful in Florida as in California because “Floridians just don’t have the animosity they have in California.” Florida anti-affirmative action organizers are planning to regroup and try again in the year 2000. The NAACP in Florida has already begun proactive efforts to ensure affirmative action survival in the state. In order to galvanize public support, the NAACP has formed a coalition with other minority groups and business leaders entitled FREE, or Floridians Representing Equity and Equality.

The purpose of the FREE coalition is not to defeat the initiative, which they do not see as a looming threat. As Larry Colleton, legal redress for the Florida NAACP says, “deep down we don’t think this initiative is going anywhere . . . but we are not going to throw caution to the wind either.” Director of the Florida NAACP, Leon Russell agrees: “We are not going to attack John Barry [original initiative organizer]….We’re not going to give that initiative any publicity; instead we are going to present positive action.”

The goal of FREE is to implement a pro-active, pro-affirmative action campaign-to beat affirmative action foes at their own game. Their strategy is two-pronged. First, they have presented a proposal to the commission appointed to review the Florida Constitution (a revision that occurs every twenty years and is underway this year) which asks for an amendment allowing state agencies and Florida’s political subdivisions to undertake affirmative action where there is evidence of the current effects of past discrimination. Secondly, FREE is organizing a signature campaign to get this Constitutional amendment on the November 1998 ballot Russell estimates that such a campaign will cost one-and-a-half million dollars, an amount he says can be raised with corporate backing. FREE is proposing a pro-affirmative action initiative. As affirmative action is already in place in Florida “state agencies and its political subdivisions,” such an amendment would only bolster its position, and demonstrate the state’s commitment.

Page 11

California Not the Norm

Ultimately, California may turn out not to have been the norm, nor the standard-bearer, but rather an anomaly. Vicki Agler of Colorado believes that state groups that would otherwise support anti-affirmative action initiatives are laying low because only a few states have similar plans. “The reason [Colorado initiative planners] are backing off,” says Agler, “is because they don’t want to be the only state.” If only one state works toward an initiative, they fear pro-affirmative action groups like the NAACP or the ACLU will pour all their resources into defeating that initiative. By waiting until several states can pool together and put forward initiatives, anti-affirmative action groups can “diversify the resources” of affirmative action supporters.

Whatever state-based movements may attempt, the baffle over affirmative action also will continue to be fought in the courts. Most recently, the Center for Individual Rights, which fought and won the Hopwood case in Texas in 1995 (which banned affirmative action in University of Texas admissions), has brought suit on behalf of two white students against the University of Michigan’s affirmative action admissions policies. And in 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld California’s Proposition 209 and earlier refused to hear the Hopwood appeal. The justices had decided to hear Piscataway vs. Thiman, which involved the decision to fire a white teacher over a black teacher in the Piseataway, New Jersey, school system, but a settlement by the parties and major civil rights organizations removed the case from theft docket.

The current state-by-state situation demonstrates that affirmative action opponents do not constitute a great tide sweeping the nation, precisely because they are not reflecting public opinion. (See survey article, page 22.) Law makers and pressure groups who are pushing to end affirmative action are facing stumbling blocks, not only from Democrats but from many Republicans as well as from businesses who do not want to alienate their public, and from voters who want to retain affirmative action or at least its effects of diversity and equity. As Brian Komar of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights explains, “It is clear there is broad enough support among the American public to block or defeat extreme efforts seeking to eliminate affirmative action programs for women and people of color. It is unfair that current coverage does not reflect this reality.”

Amy Wood is a graduate student in the institute of Liberal Arts at Emory University.

Sidebar: Compelling Words from Dr. King

Staff

Vol. 20, No. 1, 1998 p. 8

California opponents of affirmative action appropriated the concepts of the civil rights movement, even distorting the words of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., to undermine the movement’s achievements. King’s support for “compensatory” programs is evident in this passage from Why We Can’t Wait (New York: Penguin Books, 1964, p. 134).

“Among the many vital jobs to be done, the nation must not only radically readjust its attitude toward the Negro in the compelling present, but must incorporate in its planning some compensatory consideration for the handicaps he has inherited from the past. It is impossible to create a formula for the future which does not take into account that our society has been doing something special against the Negro for hundreds of years. How then can he be absorbed into the mainstream of American life if we do not do something special for him now, in order to balance the equation and equip him to compete on a just and equal basis? Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man is entered at the starting line in a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform an impossible feat in order to catch up to his fellow runner.” -Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Sidebar: National Anti-Affirmative Action Legislation Blocked

Staff

Vol. 20, No. 1, 1998 p. 5

U.S. Senate Defeats DBE Challenge

Supporters of fairness programs won another victory when an amendment to eliminate the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program for women and minority contractors in the federal highway transportation bill was defeated 58-37 in the U.S. Senate March 6. Every Democratic Senator but one and fifteen Republicans voted to table an amendment by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) to the Intermodal Transportation Act. Senator Pete Domenici (R-New Mexico) spoke against the McConnell amendment, “The DBE program works to ensure a level playing field for qualified DBEs which have for years confronted discrimination and been blocked out of contracting opportunities.” “The DBE program is constitutional,” said Sen. Max Baucus (D-Montana) in floor debate on the bill. “It’s fair. It works. And it builds more inclusive communities and a stronger economy.”

Canady Bill Halted for Now

In a room packed with civil rights supporters, congressional action to end affirmative action was temporarily blocked November 6, 1997 when House Judiciary Committee members tabled HR 1909. But sponsor Rep. Charles Canady (R-Florida) is circulating a “compromise” incorporating very minor substantive changes in language that could be re-introduced.

The vote to kill HR 1909 came immediately after a surge in election turnout November 5 by minority voters in Houston, Texas, against a referendum ending affirmative action. Concerns about election year repercussions prompted four Republicans to help in tabling the measure. “Whether or not the GOP leadership will push the new language in an election year is unclear at this point,” says Brian Komar of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

More Battles To Come

Other national legislative challenges are pending. A bill re-authorizing the 1965 higher education act could face limiting amendments. And, the confirmation fight for Bill Lann Lee, President Clinton’s appointment as assistant attorney general for civil rights, also hinges on the affirmative action debate. “Despite the victory in November, there will be many more battles to come,” says Komar, “so we are redoubling our efforts.”

Affirmative Action: Overcoming Disparities Yields Economic Benefits

Amy Wood — Sun, 01 Mar 1998 05:00:02 +0000

Affirmative Action: Overcoming Disparities Yields Economic Benefits

By Amy Wood

Vol. 20, No. 1, 1998 pp. 12-15

Opponents like to argue that affirmative action divides; the reality is that the failure to overcome persistent inequality divides Americans. Affirmative action is necessary to ensure equal opportunity and racial, gender, and ethnic diversity in our country’s workplaces and schools, not only to compensate for past discrimination, but to remedy the economic inequalities that persist today, largely because of past injustices. Racial and gender disparities in income levels, material wealth, and professional and educational opportunities continue despite progress. Evidence shows that where affirmative action has been applied, it has been beneficial.

Before looking at the benefits of affirmative action, it is useful to see the income and educational disparities between white males and the groups targeted by affirmative action.

Income Levels

Recent figures on income levels illustrate persistent inequalities between employed white Americans and employed people of color.

1995 Per Capita Income Levels

White:	$18,304
Black:	$10,982	60%
Hispanic:	$9,300	50%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, June, 1997

College-educated black men make 73 percent of what college-educated white men make.
College-educated black women make 98 percent of what college-educated white women make.
The median year round income for full time male workers in 1995 was $31,496. Female workers average $22,497

1996 Household Income Levels

White Families:	$44,756
Black Families:	$26,522	59%
White families w/2 married wage-earners	$58,995
Balck families w/2 married wage-earners	$50,806	86%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, June, 1997

In her 1997 book, In Defense of Affirmative Action, Barbara Bergmann has calculated the wage gaps between minorities and whites so as to take account of income disparities that may exist because of differences in education levels, experience, and geography. She uses figures from the U.S Census Bureau, as well as National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (for workers between 26-33; this survey also measures cognitive ability) to come up with a “residual gap” of the amount of wages lost due to discriminatory factors.

	Income Gap Based on Census Data (ages 18-65)	Income Gap Based on NLSY Data (ages 26-33)
Black Men	$4,145	$1,522
Black Women	$7,294	$3,393
White Women	$6,903	$3,539

Source: Bergmann, In Defense of Affirmative Action

Professional Disparities

Women and people of color comprise 57 percent of workers; this figure will rise to 62 percent by the year 2005. Yet, women and minorities are under-represented in managerial, professional, and administrative jobs. White

Page 13

men are over-represented in these higher-paying and higher-status jobs.

97 percent of senior managers of Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 companies are white; 95 percent to 97 percent are men.

The Department of Labor’s 1995 Glass Ceiling Report also found that “equal educational attainment does not level the playing field for Black men and women . . . . White men are over-represented in top positions regardless of educational level . . . . White men have 68 percent more of the executive, administrative, and managerial positions than should be expected at this educational level – all things being equal.”

Percentage of Women and Minorities in Professions

	Women	African American	Latino
Doctors	26.4%	4.5%	5.1%
Lawyers	29.5%	3.5%	2.8%
Professors	43.5%	6.5%	4.1%
Architects	16.7%	2.7%	4.3%
Scientists	29.3%	3.3%	1.9%
Engineers	8.5%	4.2%	3.8%
% of pop.	51.3%	12.1%	9.0%

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, 1996

Educational Disparities

In proportion to their representation in the population, people of color are underrepresented in higher education as well. As the decline in enrollment in Texas and University of California law schools post-Hopwood, and post-Proposition 209, respectively, demonstrate, affirmative action is responsible for the levels even being what they are.

Education attainment levels in U.S.

	4 years of high school or more	4 years of college or more
White	83%	24%
Black	73.8%	13.2%
Hispanic	53.4%	9.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, June 1997

African Americans make up 9.9% of enrollment in all two-year or four-year undergraduate institutions – out of a total of 12 million students.
39,754 Doctoral Degrees were awarded in 1993: African Americans received 1,106 (2.8%); Latinos received 834 (2.1%).
6,496 Doctoral Degrees in the physical sciences were awarded in 1993. Forty-one went to African Americans (0.6%) and 89 to Latinos (2.1%)

Persistent Racism

Because so much dialogue concerning affirmative action focuses on the need to rectify past discrimination, we often forget that discrimination is not entirely a thing of the past. Opponents of affirmative action argue that affirmative action has done its work, or that the present generation should not have to pay for the sins of the past. We need to remind folks that racism persists – and several academic studies exist that demonstrate the advantages white men still enjoy when applying for jobs or college admittance.

For example, a report entitled Affirmative Action Review: A Report to the President found that when pairs of equally qualified black and white testers applied for the same job, the white tester was either hired or advanced further in the hiring process while the black tester was turned away.

An audit by the General Accounting Office (GAO) found discrimination against Hispanic job seekers as well. Hispanic testers received 25 percent fewer job interviews and 34 percent fewer job offers than other testers.

Hiring Increases in Monitored Workplaces

It is clear from the anecdotal and empirical evidence that gross gender, racial, and ethnic inequities still persist. In order to more effectively argue for affirmative action, its proponents need to show that affirmative action has indeed worked to ameliorate these injustices.

In Not All Black and White, Christopher Edley notes that in compiling the Affirmative Action Report to the President, he and his colleagues were surprised to find that little work had been done to prove statistically the effectiveness of affirmative action. Most studies that exist compare private sector firms who are not obligated by federally-mandated affirmative action programs, and public-contracting firms that are under Executive Order 11246. These reports show that affirmative action has made a difference in minority employment levels.

Since affirmative action has been in place, federal contractors and agencies now hire many more minorities and women. Federal Contractors that underwent a Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program (OFCCP) review in the 1970’s subsequently hired more women and minorities at a quicker rate than contractors that did not undergo review, suggesting that government enforcement or checks on affirmative action does play a signi-

Page 14

ficant role in minority and female advancement . In other words, if the government did not intervene, we can assume that these minorities and women would not have been hired.

Opponents of affirmative action argue that contracting firms suffer lower productivity and efficiency due to OFCCP regulations. However, one study actually reveals that affirmative action has had no such effect on contracting firms.

Because OFCCP enforcement of affirmative action was significantly reduced in the 1980s, it is suggested that the OFCCP did not have as great an impact on minority-hiring in contracting firms.

The Los Angeles Times, reporting the results of their 1995 study of affirmative action, similarly asserted that “blacks . . . . have made disproportionate gains in public and private-sector jobs subject to affirmative action monitoring by the federal government.” Latino and Asian employment rates, on the other hand, are the same in both the overall work force and in government regulated jobs.

Detractors argue that the increases in minority and female employment are due to changes in social attitudes and conditions prompted by the Civil Rights Movement and the Women’s Movement rather than the “artificial” controls exerted by the government. They use this argument to claim that the anti-discrimination laws enacted in the wake of these movements makes affirmative action unnecessary.

Edley concedes that it is increasingly difficult to distinguish between progress due to anti-discrimination laws which apply to all employers and affirmative action programs that apply to federal contractors. The line between anti-discrimination policies and affirmative action policies, he recognizes, is slippery. But, he believes, as do most Civil Rights liberals, that the two policies are deeply wedded together. We can not truly enforce and achieve non-discrimination without some form of affirmative action.

Who Has Benefited?

Studies also show that since the implementation of affirmative action, the number of minorities and women represented in higher education and in skilled or administrative jobs has increased significantly. Subsequently, income gaps between minorities and whites, and between men and women have been reduced. These studies are used as verification that affirmative action has indeed worked.

These figures on income levels are provided by Bergmann:

In 1967, black men’s wages were 69 percent of white men’s. In 1976, they had risen to 79 percent of white men. Since then they have fallen, due in part to economic recession.

Page 15

Income levels for white women did not start to rise until the 1980s. In 1967, white women’s wages were 61 percent of white men’s. In 1995, they had reached 73 percent of white men’s.

According to the 1995 Los Angeles Times study, white women and black women have made the most gains. Affirmative action programs seemed to have the most impact on white women, whose representation in professional and administrative jobs nearly tripled between 1960 and 1990. Black women have also progressed at higher rates than black men.

The Glass Ceiling Report supports these findings, especially in the success rates of white women compared to minority men and women. White women made most of their gains in the 1980s.

Economic Costs and Benefits

Opponents of affirmative action, including John Barry of the Florida Civil Rights Initiative, have stressed the economic costs of affirmative action, since, they contend, instituting these programs costs millions of dollars.

But, according to the presidential Affirmative Action Review, “only 40 cents of every $1,000 in Federal educational assistance funding is devoted to” minority-targeted affirmative action programming. On the other side, proponents of affirmative action argue that affirmative action has economic benefits. It reduces poverty by eliminating racial discrimination in employment and education, thereby allowing African-American victims of poverty to advance. In other words, it contributes to the development of a black middle class. Minority set-asides in federal contracting, it is argued, promote minority entrepreneurship and contribute to the economic development of minority communities. Moreover, ensuring fair representation of minorities and women in the workplace will enhance business by widening the labor pool, and by making companies and firms more representative of their communities and, therefore, more effective.

The Glass Ceiling Report, although it looks mostly at private corporations and does not directly address affirmative action, does provide some harder evidence to substantiate these arguments. The Commission stressed that increasing diversity in the workplace was “good for business,” because it not only widens the “pool of talent” businesses could draw from, but also because businesses realize they need to reflect the diversity of the marketplace and their customers. It reports that “a 1993 study of Standard and Poor 500 companies shows that firms that succeed in shattering their own glass ceilings racked up stock market records that were nearly two-and- a-half times better than otherwise comparable companies.”

The Report also points out that minorities in the U.S., that is, Asians, Hispanics, and African Americans, represent more than $500 billion a year in consumer spending.

Another aspect to the effect of minority and female advancement in the workplace is turnover rates. Because of the “Glass Ceiling” effect, between 1980 and 1987, turnover rates for women in professional jobs doubled that of men. For African Americans in the same period, the turnover rate was two-and-a-half times that of whites. The major reasons cited for the high turnover rate for women were a lack of career growth, progress, or opportunity. Lower turnover rates can mean big savings for companies – one study stated that lower turnover saved a pharmaceutical company $500,000 in one year.

Affirmative action is a necessary and effective strategy to end racial and gender inequalities in this country. While moral and historical defenses of affirmative action are important, economic reasoning might be the most potent argument to win this battle. Opponents of affirmative action cannot ignore the economic disparities that exist in this country between races-racism and inequality are not specters from our past, but persist in the present day. Affirmative action not only compensates for historical injustice, but also aims to effect racial equity and justice in the present and future.

Affirmative action is a social good for moral, psychological, and economic reasons.

Amy Wood is a graduate student in the institute of Liberal Arts at Emory University.

Affirmative Action Foes: Chasing the Initiative

Amy Wood — Tue, 01 Jun 1999 04:00:01 +0000

Affirmative Action Foes: Chasing the Initiative

By Amy Wood

Vol. 21, No. 2, 1999, pp. 3-9

Ward Connerly and his deceptively-named American Civil Rights Coalition are on a mission to overturn affirmative action one state at a time. After successful initiative campaigns against affirmative action in California (1996) and Washington (1998), Connerly and the American Civil Rights Coalition (ACRC) are gearing up to do the same in at least two states in the year 2000.

Connerly, a California businessmen-cum-conservative activist, established the ACRC, and its educational affiliate, the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI), in 1997 in order to provide instructional, political, and financial support to legislators and grassroots organizers seeking to overturn affirmative action. But as legislation to end affirmative action continually fails to pass in state after state the ACRC has turned its primary focus to ballot initiative campaigns. By taking the issue directly to the people, it hopes to circumvent the slippery logistics of state politics, including what it calls “fearful and fickle” politicians.

What these campaigns allow the ACRI to do, however, is distort the issue. Connerly’s Coalition pretends to be championing progressive values of diversity and racial equality, while in actuality it favors tearing away programs that make such diversity and equality possible. If affirmative action supporters are to stop these wolves in sheep’s clothing, voters need not only the truth about affirmative action, but the truth about Ward Connerly and the American Civil Rights Coalition.

Last year Southern Changes (see “Going Nowhere Fast,” Spring 1998) reported that despite the popular perception that many states were ready to overturn affirmative action in the wake of California’s successful Proposition 209, only fifteen states showed any action at all. In 1998, only one of those fifteen, Washington state, actually eliminated affirmative action through its “Civil Rights Initiative,” a campaign abetted by Connerly and the ACRC.

As we discovered last year, legislation to abolish affirmative action is going nowhere. Eight states saw new anti-affirmative action bills introduced in 1998, none of which passed. Legislators are clearly giving up: in 1999, the number so far is down to seven new pieces of legislation, all of which are at a standstill. (See chart on page 8.) Nor have congressional challenges succeeded; four federal legislative moves against affirmative action during 1998 and 1999 were defeated.(See summary on page 13.)

The ACRI attributes this failure not to any public disregard for anti-affirmative action, but rather to “cowardly” politicians who cave-in to “powerful minority lobbies,” blatantly ignoring the will of the people, whom it claims are ready to eliminate the “unfair preferences and discrimination” that affirmative action programs supposedly promote. As the initiative campaigns in Washington and California show, Connerly and his people have mobilized votes for their efforts. For the year 2000, ACRI has such a campaign underway in Florida, with Michigan also within their scope. The organization also acknowledges interest in Nebraska, Oregon, Ohio, and Colorado for anti-affirmative action initiatives, but no one in any of these states has grabbed the reins-yet.

Why Florida and Michigan? According to Kevin Nguyen, director of state affairs, the ACRC does not target particular states for initiatives, and it never comes into a state as an uninvited outsider. Rather, grassroots organizers in Washington, Florida, and Michigan came to ACRC asking for help. But Allen Douglas, executive director of the Associated General Contractors (the building contractors’ union which asked Connerly to help them run a campaign in Florida), says that Connerly came to Florida first-making speeches and meeting with Republican party officials-before Douglas contacted him. Connerly clearly makes himself most visible and accessible in states that might be conducive to an initiative campaign (like Florida, where an initiative campaign failed in 1997; like Michigan, where there is currently an anti-affirmative action lawsuit again the University of Michigan; like Oregon, lodged between the anti-affirmative successes in California and Washington.)

Once the ACRC is invited in, however, the kind of

Page 4

support it offers differs from state to state. “It is not a cookie-cutter process” explains Nguyen, “we adapt strategies to the unique circumstances of each state.” In Washington, ACRC largely acted as a clearinghouse for various organizers who were working on the campaign, and, of course, as a fundraiser. In Michigan, its involvement so far has been minimal. Connerly visited the state in 1998 and is talking to Republican State Senator Bill Bullard on beginning a campaign. Bullard says the initiative has already passed an informal review by the Secretary of State and is now under a formal review by the state board of canvassers (appointed by the governor and consisting of two Democrats and two Republicans). This board will approve the language of the bill and write the one-hundred-word summary that will go on the petition. When, or if, the initiative passes this process, Bullard will begin gathering the 304,000 signatures needed for it to be on the election ballot in 2000. Although Bullard is confident of passage, he is working largely alone; there is no organizational structure in place to run a campaign, he has not raised any money, nor has the ACRC provided more than advisory help.

Florida is clearly the state to watch in the year ahead. Connerly and the ACRC are taking on a more direct and involved role than in Washington. The Associated General Contractors (AGC), the nation’s oldest and largest contractor’s union, was supportive of Connerly’s California and Washington campaigns, and, according to Douglas, has been behind many court cases to “outlaw minority preferences.” Florida’s branch of the AGC, with between 1,700 – 2,000 members, mostly building contractors, has pledged financial and political support for the initiative, but they have asked the ACRC to manage the initiative campaign.

The ACRC has hired a savvy, experienced political consultant, Herb Harmon, to do just that. While the 1997 campaign, Harmon says, “never really got off the ground at all, this campaign is more serious; it is being handled by professionals.” The ACRC clearly hopes that Harmon, who is the ex-director of the Republican party in Florida and handled the Bush and Reagan campaigns in the South, will not only bring the campaign to fruition, but that he can help smooth relations with the reluctant Republican party.

Indeed, Republican Governor Jeb Bush has said that although he opposes “rigid quotas and set-asides,” he believes ACRC’s campaign would be divisive and untimely. For that reason, he has ostensibly asked Connerly to leave Florida alone. In a letter to Connerly, written in February, 1999, Bush writes, “Ward, we live in a state where our education system denies our children the basic right to learn; where child abuse and neglect are an expectation, not the exception; where taxes and mandates stifle economic competitiveness; where our urban core residents are in need of an improved quality of living; and where our developmentally disabled and seniors are not receiving the services they should. As I explained, my concern is that a bitter political campaign that divides Florida by race or ethnicity would keep our state from focusing on these pressing issues-issues on which I must build a consensus.”

The ACRC is not persuaded however. “There is never a good time to solve a problem,” says Harmon. They are also confident that Bush’s lack of support will not be an issue for them. “If we could win in Washington with strong opposition from a popular, politically-established Democratic governor [Gary Locke], we don’t fear opposition from a new Republican governor,” explains Nguyen. The reason for this lack of republican support, according to Karen Narasaki, executive director of the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, is the negative repurcussions that followed the party’s strong support of the initiatives in California and Washington. “Republicans looked at what happened in California and Washington and realized that it hurt them. The measures passed, but their candidates lost votes. They lost control of the legislature in California and Washington. It would be foolish for them to take up the cause again,” says Narasaki.

It is still too soon to tell how this lack of support will affect the campaign in Florida. The initiative campaign is only in the beginning stages: getting legally filed as a political action committee, and deciding on the language of the ballot. The approval process for an initiative is much more difficult in Florida than in either California or Washington. It must be approved by the local supervisor of elections, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and finally the state Supreme Court before campaigners can begin to gather the 435,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot.

Proponents of affirmative action who are working to counter this effort in Florida are hoping that the initiative never makes it out of the approval process. If it does, Harmon is certain that Florida’s voters will approve it: “the popular support is there, it just a matter of mobilizing that support.”

Mobilizing support through adept political strategy is what the ACRC excels in. While the tactics in each state differ, the particular political strategy it employs to publicize these initiatives and lure voters remains the same. It is this aspect of Connerly’s strategy that most threatens fairness.

Money

One of the ACRC’s strongest means to assist these campaigns is with money. It costs about as much to run an initiative campaign as it does to run any political campaign. According to Allen Douglas, the Florida campaign hopes to raise up to 10 million dollars for their initiative, which Harmon will begin doing as soon as the petition is approved. Much of this money will come through the ACRC’s

Page 5

fundraising efforts. According to a forthcoming report by the Institute for Democracy Studies (IDS), Connerly matched every dollar that the Washington Initiative 200 campaigners raised within the state with out-of-state money. As stated in its 1997 tax returns, the ACRC itself put up $177,650 out of its own budget.

Crucial to these fundraising efforts is the financial support of the Republican Party. In the campaign for Proposition 209 in California, for instance, the Republican Party donated 2.5 million dollars, over a third of the total amount raised. The GOP was similarly involved in the Washington campaign. Governor Bush’s very publicized snub of Connerly in Florida could have real political effects on the ACRC’s campaign there.

In addition to official Republican support, the ACRC/ACRI also receives money from wealthy businessmen and investors, and from leading national conservative thinktanks and institutes. The ACRC/ACRI itself refuses to divulge the names of its donors, stating that it wants to protect the anonymity of these benefactors. But according to the IDS research, Connerly’s organizations have received large donations from ultra-right wing groups, most significantly from the Bradley Foundation and the Scaife Foundation, both of which openly proclaim a conservative, “traditional values” agenda. Connerly’s anti-affirmative action initiatives are to be sure one of their causes that will restore conservative values.

Money alone is not necessarily the key to success. After all, with ample financial support from the Democratic Party, and corporations like Boeing and Microsoft, proponents of affirmative action in Washington were not able to win the day. Connerly and the ACRC have been particularly shrewd in devising a political strategy to seduce voters with progressive-sounding and benign rhetoric, while at the same, inflaming fears of racial competition and “preferential treatment.”

Ballot Language

The initiative language in both Washington and Florida follows that of California’s proposition 209: “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 contraction.” Buzz words like “discriminate” and “preferential treatment” conceal the true intent of the initiative. Because discrimination

Page 6

and preferential treatment have historically been used against women and minorities, the language sounds as if the initiative is championing the progressive goals of the Civil Rights Movement. As state Senator Darryl Jones, chair of Florida’s Black Leadership Conference says, the language is so “massively misleading, it’s so benign that most of us would vote for it if we didn’t know what it really meant.”

Indeed, the NAACP discovered that during the Washington campaign, the ACRC had duped some of their African-American volunteers into thinking they were working for a progressive civil rights cause. Proponents of affirmative action in Florida will exert much of their effort in educating voters to the meaning and design of these innocuous, benevolent-sounding initiatives.

But Jones is also hoping that the vagueness of the language trips up the campaign before it reaches voters. Indeed, the drawn-out approval process in Florida is a large source of hope. Florida law states that ballot initiatives must deal with a single issue written in language that must be “forthcoming,” that is, it must do what it says it will do. The fact that the initiative as it is written deals with public education, employment, and contracting at once was not a problem in Washington or California, but it may be in Florida. For this reason, Harmon has put together four initiative petitions. One is all-inclusive and is modeled directly after California’s Proposition 209. The other three deal specifically with education, employment, and contracting, respectively.

It is on the “forthcoming language” clause, that Jones and his affirmative action colleagues proponents will focus, arguing that the initiative will in no way end discrimination and that Florida laws to counter the effects of discrimination and to act as a preventative already exist.

None of the (affirmative action) programs that these initiative programs target use the terms “preferences” or “preferential treatment.” “Preference,” notes Narasaki, “that’s a loaded term. It conjures up visions of unqualified people getting ahead solely based on race or gender.”

In fact, a recent poll conducted by the ACRI shows that 83 percent of Floridians (including 79 percent of African Americans polled) support eliminating “discrimination” and “preferences,” while another poll conducted by the Orlando Sentinel found that only 45 percent of Floridians support ending “affirmative action” (including only 18 percent of African-American respondents).

If the ballot language stated clearly that the intiative would eliminate affirmative action, then the measure would have a much smaller chance of passage.

This is exactly what happened in a failed initiative in Houston, Texas, to end affirmative action in public hiring and contracting in November of 1997. (The state of Texas does not have an initiative process, so the ACRC instead has been working there at the local level.) When supporters of affirmative action brought the language of the initiative to the courts, the initiative was changed to read that it would “eliminate affirmative action that benefits women and minorities.” The initiative was subsequently defeated by a 54 percent to 44 percent margin. The ACRC, of course, argues that the move to change the language was a “politically-calculated action” on behalf of the mayor and the liberal political establishment. “It is an inappropriate statement,” says Nguyen, “if it were true, we would support it.”

Public Rhetoric

ACRC and its supporters and allies across the nation repeatedly assert that they are not against affirmative action, “as long as it is broad-based and not discriminatory.” “We are not against helping the disadvantaged,” explains Nyugen, “but through aggressive outreach programs and recruitment efforts.” In this manner, supporters of these initiatives position themselves as not only benign, but as progressive, and even liberal. They don’t want to end affirmative action, they say, they only want to do away with unfair “discrimination” and “preferences.”

Besides language tactics, the ACRC and its supporters have other ways of affecting strategy. For one, they publicly distance themselves from extreme conservative or racially inflammatory positions. For example, Bullard and the ACRC had been very careful to disassociate themselves from another Michigan state senator, David Jaye, who for some years has been introducing legislation to eliminate “discrimination” and “preferences” in the Michigan legislature. Jaye, however, according to Bullard, is a “lightning rod”-a confrontational and controversial politician who has in the past said some very “racially inflammatory” things. “Jaye doesn’t represent mainstream Republicans nor the people of Michigan,” Ngyuen adds.

Similarly, the ACRC/ACRI does not divulge its funding sources presumably because many of its donors are affiliated with more right-wing positions than the ACRC/ACRI would like to be publicly associated with. For instance, billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife-who according to the Sarah Scaife Foundation’s 1998 annual report, gave $275,000 to ACRI in 1998-is a controversial, ultra-right-wing figure, viewed as the financial engine behind the modern right-wing movement. According to the Washington Post, Scaife’s foundation has donated at least 340 million dollars to numerous conservative causes, media outlets, and institutions such as the Heritage Foundation, and The American Spectator. Last year, Scaife, heir to the Mellon banking fortune, was revealed as the chief financier behind various anti-Clinton activities (he was, for example, a primary backer of the Paula Jones case). While the ACRC/ACRI or Connerly himself may or may not be as politically conservative as these benefactors, they certainly do not want

Page 7

potential voters to think they are. Indeed, though their money comes from well-known Republican and conservative institutions, Connerly and his spokesmen are careful not to position themselves as right-wing or conservative in any way. Rather, they state emphatically that they are working for social progress and justice.

Such a position has the political effect of appealing to a large block of the public who is undecided, or who support a “mend it, don’t end it approach.” For example, a poll conducted on the eve of the Washington initiative by The Seattle Times revealed that “most voters expressed support for affirmative action programs for minorities and women but said those programs were in need of reform”

The ACRC’s rhetoric taps into this middle-of-the-road support. Indeed, it even argues that these initiatives have the effect of re-mobilizing and bringing new energy to affirmative action programs through “aggressive outreach and recruitment efforts.” Nyugen asserts for instance that in California, Prop 209 “forced people to get off their duffs and go out and aggressivly recruit and help the disadvantaged [initiate] active participation in disadvantaged areas.”

In this vein, the ACRI says that it approves of need-based affirmative action programs and supports the law the California legislature recently passed to accept the top 4 percent of every high school class into California’s university system. This law, enacted as a response to the dearth of minority enrollment in the university system in the wake of 209, aims to maintain diversity through the de facto segregation of California’s public school system. If the top 4 percent of every school are accepted, it will include the top 4 percent of minority-dominated high schools, thereby assuring minorities a place in the University system. But since each high school, to be sure, has a different standards for grades and test scores, the law will effectively re-instate the uneven standards of “merit” that ACRI supposedly disputes. Yet Nguyen says they support the law because “it will give hope to all individuals (the 4 percent law) wouldn’t devastate the applicant pool, it will strengthen it.” Washington, he adds, is looking “keenly” at California’s model.

In their support for “progressive” steps like the 4 percent rule, as well as their rhetoric which evokes the Civil Rights Movement, the ACRC/ACRI have not only disguised themselves as moderate and even progressive, they have framed proponents of affirmative action as reactionary, emotional conservatives who are afraid of reasonable and effective change. “For white people affirmative action is an issue,” asserted Ward Connerly last year at a Michigan public hearing, “for black people it is an emotion.”

“The insidious nature through which they camouflage themselves divides us,” responds René Redwood, executive director of Americans for a Fair Chance. “It does not bring us together.” She adds that supporters of affirmative action need to learn not only how to counter these political strategies, but they also need to work positively for progressive action that gets beyond the racial paradigm within which the debate surrounding affirmative action is stuck.

Indeed, at the same time that Connerly positions himself as non-discriminatory and broadminded, he continually speaks of affirmative action only in terms of race, tapping into white America’s racial fears and anxieties. Leslie Gross, staff attorney in the National Litigation Project of the Lawyers’ Committee on Civil Rights, explains, “Connerly packages his pleas for colorblindness in race-baiting terms. He paints the issues in terms of black and white, targeting hot-button issues like busing. That’s not what affirmative action is about.” Similarly, Redwood and others have pointed out that Connerly talks about racial progress and ending discrimination, but he has no real strategy to implement such progress in schools or communities. “He’s either knowingly misleading,” according to Darryl Jones, “or he’s incompetent.”

Positive Action

Those actually working for racial equity and progress must implement a two-pronged strategy to counter Connerly’s efforts. In Florida, a coalition of pro-affirmative organizations has formed and has begun to plan their defense. The coalition, named FREE (Floridians Representing Equity and Equality) is made up of groups representing minority, women’s, labor, and other progressive concerns. First, they intend to educate the public about the real goals and designs behind the initiative effort; they will not let Connerly get away with his seemingly benign and enlightened rhetoric.

According to Florida’s NAACP director, Leon Russell, FREE will “smoke out” the Associated General Contractors’ role in the initiative, highlighting the “anti-competition” anxiety that bolsters anti-affirmative action feeling. “They [the contractors] want to remove the competition of women and minorities” says Russell, “We want to warn Floridians what this initiative is about. Floridians will support us if the language and purposes are clear.”

In addition to what Darryl Jones calls an “ongoing education” of the people of Florida, FREE also is planning proactive tactics to ensure affirmative action’s survival in the state. In 1998, FREE presented a proposed constitutional amendment to the commission appointed to review Florida’s state constitution (a revision that occurs every twenty years) which would ensure the maintenance of affirmative action programs in the state in order to remedy past discrimination. Russell said FREE backed off this proposal when national NAACP leadership feared it might bring out opponents and unnecessarily re-mobilize an anti-affirmative action campaign (after the 1997 initiative plan had died). Russell says now FREE will re-present their plan

Page 9

for a constitutional amendment that supports and guarantees public affirmative action programs in the form of a separate initiative campaign to compete with Connerly’s. If the group is successful in its petition campaign, there could be two initiatives on Florida’s ballot in the year 2000: one seeking to end affirmative action, the other seeking to ensure its survival. FREE’s initiative campaign, when launched, not only aims to subvert the ACRC’s initiative, but also to help educate voters to the real benefits and purposes behind affirmative action.

It is precisely this form of education that Americans for a Fair Chance’s Redwood argues affirmative action proponents need to be engaging in. Most of all, she asserts, “we need to take affirmative action out of the race-gender paradigm. Too many Americans are blind to the progressive results of affirmative action,” that have not only benefited women and minorities, but all Americans. These benefits include many things that Americans take for granted today-the public postings of job announcements, law enforcement officials representing their own communities, women as officers of the court which has changed how the courts view and treat rape and domestic violence, to name a few.

To make this point, we could learn something from Connerly’s strategy, Redwood adds. “We need to use white men the way they use minorities-as spokespeople-to show that the consequences of affirmative action have been the benefits to the nation as a whole.” Simply put, proponents of affirmative action need to start appealing to that large block of white America wavering in the middle of the road.

However, while Connerly may use fear and dishonesty to run his campaigns, proponents of affirmative action, Redwood insists, must insist on straightforwardness. “We are not willing to lie to people. We trust that people will see through it, and we can help them see those tactics.”

If FREE can do that, they will, in Russell’s words, “do something no other state has done,” that is face Connerly and win.”

“Its not the end of affirmative action” concludes René Redwood. “The face of America is the face of affirmative action.”

Amy Wood is a doctoral candidate in American Studies in the Graduate Institute of the Liberal Arts at Emory University. She wrote “Going Nowhere Fast: Affirmative Action Opponents Stymied in the States,” in the Spring, 1998 Southern Changes.