Affirmative action has been under assault in the past few years, both in the courts and in government. Supporters concede that it has sometimes been abused, but say "mend it, don't end it." Opponents have passed ballot measures in two states, California and Washington, ending it's use in State hiring, contracting and universities, and a recent court decision prevents Texas A&M from using it in admissions to its law school. Florida Governor Jeb Bush has issued an Executive Order banning its use in Florida state hiring, contracting and universities. Meanwhile, the President's choice for Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Bill Lann Lee, can't get confirmed by the Senate due to Republican opposition to his support for affirmative action.
Opponents of affirmative action say that it's outlived its purpose, that it is no longer necessary in this day and age. Other opponents characterize affirmative action as "reverse discrimination." They present it as a program which requires companies to pass over qualified white male candidates in order to hire or promote unqualifed women or minority candidates to fill some "quota." Such a program should be opposed by all reasonable people, they say. And they are right.
The problem is, that's not what affirmative action is. Affirmative action simply asks businesses to make a special effort to include qualifed women and minorities in their workforce. It asks them not to automatically reject candidates because of their color or gender. Rather than asking for preferential treatment for women and minorities, it asks them to end the preferential treatment of white males in hiring and promotion decisions. The sincerity of that effort is measured against goals which usually reflect the overall diversity of the population. While it is true that "goals" have sometimes been misused, goals are not quotas; they are the objective measure of sincere effort.
While most people think of affirmative action in terms of minorities, it has definitely resulted in some gains for women over the past few decades, especially in the workforce. According to a report by the Feminist Majority Fund, between 1970 and 1990 the proportion of women in professional careers doubled, even tripled in many professions. But, as that same report shows, affirmative action is far from achieving its goals. Women account for 52 % of the population, and 70 % of them work, but only three to five percent of them occupy executive suites. In private industry, 65 % of managerial jobs are held by white men, 24 % by white women, 6.5 % by minority men, and only 3.8 % of managerial jobs are held by minority women. According to the Women's Business Council, woman-owned businesses are awarded only two percent of the $200 billion in federal contracts awarded each year. Women still earn an average of 74 cents for every dollar a man earns, and the wage gap applies even when they are doing the same job in the same industry. The statistics clearly show that there is much more to be done.
These statistics make a compelling argument for continuing affirmative action. But the real story of affirmative action is not in the statistics. The real story is inside those statistics, in the lives of real people who experience the discrimination the statistics represent. Inside those statistics lives Nancy Ezold, a single mother who put herself through law school and excelled at her job in the Litigation Department of Wolf Block Schorr & Solis-Cohen. After years of glowing performance reviews, she was recommended for senior partnership. But the managing partners of the firm refused to consider her. However, a man who had allegedly committed malpractice. and another man who had often disappeared without notice and missed critical deadlines both were made parteners that year.
Or consider Jessica Weigmann, a young woman persuing a career in the arts who needed to supplement her income while she became established. She took a part-time job with Glorious Foods, one of New York City's premiere catering companies. Glorious Foods is no small operation. It employs over 500 part-time people, and generates an annual gross income of $10 million. Their clients include Fortune 500 companies, top designers, and the city's elite, and their serving staff makes excellent money for part time work, primarily from tips. But Glorious Foods placed a limit on how many females are allowed to serve at parties, and generally excluded them altogether from working the private parties that generate the most tips.
Inside the statistics lives Lorraine Woodward, news anchor at Sacramento, California television station KTXL. Despite equal or betting ratings than her co-anchor, Ms. Woodward was paid about half as much as her male colleague for the same work.
Inside the statistics lives R. Jeneen Jones, About.com Guide to African American culture. A professional, experienced, African American woman on the verge of completing her MBA, she was a "perfect candidate" for a position with a major insurance company - on paper and over the phone. She mysteriously became "unsuitable" on sight.
I have no doubt that there are a thousand other such stories out there, and I hope that those of you with such stories will email them to me for inclusion in a later article. Together, perhaps we can get the message to those who fight to end affirmative action - and to those who see no reason to continue it - that affirmative action has not yet completed its work. The statistics are important, and we should not ignore the compelling argument they make for continuing affirmative action. But ultimately, it is not to statistics that those who would end affirmative action must answer. They must answer to the Nancy's and the Jessica's, the Lorraine's and Jeneen's. Try telling them that affirmative action is no longer needed.
Karen
ACLU Briefing Paper
American Civil Liberties Union
Affirmative Action and Diversity Page
Carl Gutiérrez-Jones, Department of English, University of California Santa Barbara, CA
Affirmative Action Special Report
The Washington Post
Origins of Affirmative Action
The Feminist Majority Fund