National Center for Policy Analysis

MONTH IN REVIEW

Affirmative Action
September, 1996

IT'S NOT SURPRISING PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT

Supporters of group preferences and quotas -- sometimes called "affirmative action" -- claim that the fact that different groups have different incomes proves discrimination. Economist Thomas Sowell points out that in 15 years of research he has not found any country where different racial groups or men and women had the same incomes.

Various groups usually differ in many respects -- from education to alcohol consumption to fertility rates. It is not surprising that, for example:

Married men who are fathers work more and earn more than single men.
Women who are married and mothers make less than single women who aren't mothers.
A quarter-century ago, before affirmative action, single men and women who worked continuously and full-time had almost identical incomes -- except the women earned slightly more.

Opponents of the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI), which would outlaw group preferences, claim that the "fact" that men and women, blacks and whites, with the "same" education earn different incomes proves discrimination. Sowell points out that educations are no more equal than anything else.

Studies show there are great differences in academic performances among ethnic groups, and between men and women, in schools and colleges.
They also study different subjects -- women, for example, receive more than three times as many bachelor's and master's degrees in education as men, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education.
In engineering, men receive more than four times as many bachelor's and six times as many master's degrees as women.

Sowell concludes that redressing historical discrimination by discriminating against another set of individuals doesn't equalize anything. It just adds to the total sum of human injustices.

Source: Thomas Sowell, "Affirmative Action Can't Cure History's Wrongs," Conservative Chronicles, July 24, 1996.

PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT

With the whole concept of "affirmative action" increasingly under fire, critics have turned their attention to the Small Business Administration's racial set-aside program popularly known as 8(a).

Calling it an $6 billion "slush fund," critics say it was never intended to be a racial preference program -- although it has turned out that way.

Although 8(a) was intended to aid small "economically and socially disadvantaged" firms, an estimated 99 percent of its funds have gone to businesses owned by minorities.
Under the program, noncompetitive contracts are awarded to firms at amounts 20 percent to 25 percent above actual market values.
This means that in fiscal 1995 taxpayers likely spent $1 billion to $1.2 billion above market value for 8(a) contracts.
Most contract go to politically well-connected firms within the Washington Beltway.

Furthermore, only contracts over $3 million need to be open to competitive biding, and the Government Accounting Office reports only 9 percent of contracts awarded in 1994 were competitively bid. Representative Jan Meyers, chairman of the House Small Business Committee, has introduced a bill to overhaul the program, so that business owners of all races could benefit.

Source: Joel Mobray "8(a) Is Not Affirmative Action," Washington Times, September 12, 1996.

WOMEN'S PROGRESS NOT DUE TO QUOTAS

Opponents of the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI) -- which would prohibit state and local governments from granting preferences or discriminating based on race, ethnicity or sex -- are trying to define the November ballot measure as "anti-woman."

But researchers point out that women do not owe their progress to preferences in education or employment. Anita K. Blair of Independent Women's Forum says increased education is the most important factor:

In 1960, only 19 percent of bachelor's degrees went to women; but by 1995, women claimed 55 percent of BAs.
Over the same period, women increased their share of lucrative professional degrees -- MBAs, MDs, and JDs -- by more than 500 percent.

Also, the alleged wage gap between the sexes is due to statistical differences in age, education and continuous years in the work force.

Childless women between the ages of 27 and 33 earn 98 percent as much as men with similar characteristics, says June O'Neill, director of the Congressional Budget Office.
Today, half of all professionals are female, and women hold nearly half of all managerial and executive positions.
In 1980, women owned about 2 million businesses with $25 billion in sales; but by 1995, women owned almost 8 million businesses with more than $2.25 trillion in sales, reports the National Foundation for Women Business Owners.

The "glass ceiling" on the workplace advancement of women is the result of disparities in age, education and career goals between men and women. A recent study by Korn/Ferry International found that:

From 1982 to 1992 the proportion of female executive vice presidents more than doubled from 4 percent to 9 percent, and their share of senior vice president positions increased from 13 percent to 23 percent.
On average, women were younger than the men surveyed and the women reached the $100,000 salary level earlier than men.

Source: Sally C. Pipes and Michael Lynch (Pacific Research Institute), "Smart Women, Foolish Quotas," Policy Review, July-August 1996, Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20002, (202) 546-4400.