National Center for Policy Analysis

MONTH IN REVIEW

Affirmative Action

March, 1996

BLACK CULTURAL VALUES AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Differences among racial and ethnic groups in academic achievement, economic performance and social stability can be accounted for by differences in cultural values, rather than inherited genetic abilities or the effects of racial oppression, according to author Dinesh D'Souza.

Affirmative action assumes that racism is the cause of differences in academic performance between blacks and other groups and abandons merit in favor of affirmative action in order to achieve social justice. If college admissions were based only on merit, it would not lead to equality of results:

• Studies show that if admissions to the University of California at Berkeley were by grades and test scores only, a majority of students would be Asian and only 1 to 2 percent black.
• Data from the College Board, which administers the Scholastic Attainment Test (SAT), show that the racial gaps on the verbal section of the test are equaled or exceeded on the math section.
• Independent studies show that the SAT predicts college performance equally well for all groups, and is even slightly "biased" in favor of blacks.
• College Board data shows that academic differences aren't due to poverty, since on average, whites and Asians from families earning less than $20,000 a year score higher on the SAT than blacks from families earning more than $60,000.

But due to affirmative action, blacks from middle-class and affluent families are granted preference at the expense of poor whites with stronger academic credentials. And Hispanics, who have historically been classified as white, get preferential treatment at the expense of Asians -- a minority who have also suffered discrimination.

Source: Dinesh D'Souza, The End of Racism: Principles for a Multiracial Society (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1995).

COLORBLIND IN CALIFORNIA

Critics of affirmative action programs in California have succeeded in gaining enough signatures to have a constitutional amendment placed on the ballot this fall.

Entitled The California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI), it provides that the state "shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin, in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting." It would not prohibit the state's use of nondiscriminatory affirmative action programs -- such as those used in job recruitment and training that are open to all.

Advocates of the measure contend that:

• For more than two decades, large majorities have consistently opposed affirmative action and preferential treatment which -- by giving special advantages to some -- disadvantage others.
• Most racial preferences have been installed by courts or executive action.
• Whatever sense affirmative action may have made 20 or 30 years ago, it makes less sense now as California becomes even more racially and ethnically diverse.

Surveys show that two-thirds of Californians favor CCRI, with only a slight difference between men and women. Forty percent to 50 percent of blacks and Latinos also back the measure.

Source: Terry Eastland (Forbes Media Critic), "End Affirmative Action -- Starting in California," USA Today, March 21, 1996.

PREPARE FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION DEBATE

With an initiative on the California ballot this fall to prohibit preferential affirmative action and Senator Bob Dole co-sponsoring a bill to outlaw preferential treatment in federal programs, expect this issue to figure large in political debate this election year.

By and large, Americans have never warmed to the notion that preferential treatment should be given to one group over another in employment, contracting or other opportunities because of race or gender. Studies show that the reasons for this go back to American's sense of fairness.

• Preferences are discriminatory in that they necessarily favor one race or sex at the expense of another.
• Those who have been hurt financially or otherwise because they were not among preferred groups are increasingly challenging such laws in courts.
• Preference laws mask true instances of bias and discrimination.
• Substantial numbers of those typically eligible for preferential treatment see it as patronizing and now oppose it.

Critics of affirmative action statutes also note that they make little sense in a society in which the population of those eligible for affirmative action is growing several times faster than the "nonpreferred" population.

Source: Terry Eastland (Forbes MediaCritic), "Endgame for Affirmative Action," Wall Street Journal, March 28, 1996.

ENGLISH NOT POPULAR AT FEDERAL AGENCY

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) considers it discriminatory to require that English be spoken on the job. Even though two federal appeals courts have already rejected the agency's position, it pushes on and companies regularly give in because -- as they see it -- it just doesn't pay to fight.

• In 1994, the EEOC reported it had 120 active charges pending against 67 employers based on English language rules -- with even more cases added last year.
• With the threat of costly litigation hanging over companies, the EEOC has obtained settlements in such cases from employers ranging from Sears to the Salvation Army.
• Many employees bringing complaints are already bilingual, but out of pride or convenience they prefer not to speak English on the job.

EEOC critics say its obsession with English language suits is not the only area where the agency refuses to acknowledge reality. They cite a recent sex discrimination lawsuit brought by the agency against a clothing store that refused to hire men to assist women customers in the dressing room.

Source: David Andrew Price (Washington Legal Foundation), "English-Only Rules: EEOC Has Gone Too Far," USA Today, March 28, 1996.