Race On the Ballot
This fall, progressives need to make affirmative action a moral issue, the way King did.By Tyler Lewis
January 21, 2008
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 for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up.
-The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Why We Can’t Wait, 1963
Martin Luther King Jr., speaks at a Selma, Ala., church in this January 1965 photo. (AP Photo)
Today, as the nation celebrates the life and work of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a man who advocated equal opportunity for African Americans, women, and other minorities, the debate over affirmative action continues. King’s words above are often lost in the discussion about who benefits from affirmative action, who is hurt by affirmative action, and, most importantly, why we still need affirmative action. King’s own words about how one should be judged by the content of one’s character and not by color and gender have been turned on their head by opponents of affirmative action who argue that today everyone starts out equal in the race, though women and minorities continue to suffer the affects of historic discrimination. It is a public debate that progressives, so far, have been losing.
Almost immediately after affirmative action programs got on the books in the 1960s, opponents began to reframe the issue by calling the measures reverse discrimination, quotas, and preferential treatment. But these opponents rarely mention the more than two hundred years of systematic discrimination against women and minorities that is still occurring today.
The public face of the anti-affirmative action movement, Ward Connerly, is a black man—a former California regent who benefited from affirmative action in the form of contracting awards. He successfully led the ballot initiatives against affirmative action in Michigan and California, and he didn’t miss a beat, announcing last year that he would seek a ÒSuper TuesdayÓ against affirmative action this November. He will pursue ballot initiatives in Colorado, Missouri, Arizona, Nebraska, and Oklahoma.
Back in 2006, Connerly introduced a constitutional amendment, Proposal 2, in Michigan, which banned many affirmative action programs in public higher education, employment, and contracting awards. The initiative passed thanks to Connnerly’s misleading language: Some voters were duped into thinking they were voting in favor of affirmative action. As a result, Michigan’s state colleges and universities, in the middle of their admissions processes, were left to scramble for a way to mitigate the fallout. Sadly, even white women voted overwhelmingly for Proposal 2 in Michigan even though they know sexism remains a problem. Connerly is sure to employ the same language in the five state petitions this November that he used in Michigan.
Connerly’s move into Colorado, Missouri, Arizona, Nebraska, and Oklahoma is a campaign of fear, designed to play on Americans’ desire for a world where race is a non-issue. He’ll say that this is a debate about fairness, not equal opportunity for minorities and women. He’ll exploit the economic insecurities and scare white male high school seniors into thinking an ÒunqualifiedÓ black person or woman will get their slots in college. Interestingly, no one is scared by colleges’ policies around legacy or athletic admissions.
But the reality is that getting into college is hard for everyone, regardless of race. Applying to college is a stressful experience and is becoming more stressful as colleges and universities adopt more stringent requirements and raise tuition.
Knowing this reality, Connerly will try to make all students believe that an already tough process is stacked in favor of minorities and women and against everyone else. But no one talks seriously about how it has always been hard for minorities and women. No one talks about how, for instance, highly ranked schools still don’t recruit from high schools where the majority of students are Black and Latino. But Connerly will tell minority students in these five states that affirmative action undermines their progress. He’ll say that their skills will be good enough to get them into college. And he’ll tell everyone that we should live in a colorblind society and completely ignore the effect a ban on affirmative action has on women.
We’ve come very far in our national struggle to end racism, discrimination, and sexism, but we are not there yet. Ensuring that minorities and women are getting equal opportunity to have their qualifications judged is not unfair. Affirmative action has been spoken of in terms of results too often, but the programs are really designed to make sure a college sees all qualified applicants. To do that, colleges have to look in places they haven’t looked before, like inner city schools.
The beauty of King’s words is that they acknowledged that true equality between the races won’t happen quickly and it won’t happen without implementing policies to get us there. The same can be said for equality between the sexes. Gender inequality and racial discrimination predate America. It’s presumptuous of affirmative action opponents to think America has conquered these issues in just 40 years, and therefore modest programs that expand access to minorities and women are outmoded. Most minorities and women know this.
Connerly will target angry, restless people who are frustrated with the state of the economy. He’s going to stir up college campuses and create divisions. And he will tell them that affirmative action is the reason the economy is in the toilet. He will tell them that affirmative action is taking away what belongs to them.
We cannot afford to look back 10 years from now and realize we made a mistake in Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, and Oklahoma, much like we did in California and Michigan. We can’t fall for Connerly’s scare tactics. We should unite against Connerly’s blatant manipulation. But progressives must reframe the debate in their own terms. Progressives need to make affirmative a moral issue, the way King did.
Tyler Lewis is a Communications Associate and Editor at the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
Social Bookmarking
--------
Comments