Affirmative Action Struggles On : Challenge to Pocketbook May Be Only Way to Fulfill Its Role

Two U.S. Supreme Court rulings recently gave affirmative action a stay of execution. But, as with any inmate on Death Row, there is cause for only temporary rejoicing. Neither ruling is the basis for long-term optimism.

The attacks from Reagan Administration Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III, and from other quarters pleading unfairness to whites, undoubtedly will continue and be intensified. Indeed, immediately after the rulings, Meese pledged that the Administration would “continue to hold the moral position of a colorblind society, and that there should be no racial preferences.” These are Reagan euphemisms for a laissez-faire attitude toward minorities beleaguered by a color-conscious society and racial prejudice.

In the aftermath of the high court’s rulings, however short-lived their effect may be, what must women, blacks, Latinos and other beneficiaries of affirmative action do to protect their right to equal opportunity?

First, they must assess the effectiveness of the affirmative-action doctrine as an instrument for social and economic justice. Second, through litigation and political action, minorities and women must press the courts and Congress to reassume their activist role of the 1960s and ‘70s, whichled to the broadening of affirmative action and the creation of government-sponsored training programs--without which the underclass cannot prepare itself to take advantage of affirmative action. Third and most urgent, they must become much more sophisticated about how and where they spend their dollars. They must demand economic reciprocity from U.S. corporations and businesses that they support in return for a more equitable share of jobs, business and professional opportunities.

Clearly, in its 20-year history affirmative action has not accomplished all, or even most, of what it was intended to accomplish. In some respects it has failed miserably. The job classifications and industries in which it has been applied are too limited and narrow. While no employer legally can discriminate on the basis of race, sex or ethnic or national origin, the fact is that a large number of businesses have remained outside the scope of affirmative action for the simple reason that they have been dilatory or devious, or that no one has taken legal action against them. Cases of court-ordered redress also are far too few.

The failures of affirmative action are most apparent when one looks at the bottom and top of the employment scale. At the bottom, affirmative action is an empty specter, and the lot of millions of minority people, Appalachians, disadvantaged white women, the poor and homeless--all facets of the underclass--has been almost totally unaffected by its existence. The demise of training programs intended to prepare these people for the job market has left them stranded in poverty, unable to take advantage of affirmative action.

Affirmative action has had almost as little effect at the top level, in management and the executive ranks, and in certain kinds of industries where a “closed shop” mentality prevails, such as the entertainment industry.

In the recording, TV and motion-picture industries, multimillion-dollar deals are cut without any of the competition or advertising that is commonplace in other industries, and almost invariably they go to those already in the closed circle. Decisions are made on the golf course or tennis courts. It is not surprising then that the top executives in these industries, almost without exception, are white males.

In instances where these industries are non-compliant, minorities should remember that their dollars account for billions in revenues, and they should use that leverage to gain access through protests, litigation and boycotts. We should work for a major change in the mind-set of minorities, women and the underclass--all of whom generally tend to look to government as a cure-all for the discrimination that they suffer.

Blacks, especially, for they traditionally have led the way in the fight against discrimination, must return to the self-reliant spirit that they harnessed to fuel the civil rights movement. All of the groups that are being denied access must work to change the tone and cold-shoulder policy of this Administration. The disfranchised and their allies are losing valuable ground trying to wait out President Reagan.

From a pragmatic standpoint, the prognosis for affirmative action is not good. In just five years the Reagan Administration has managed to charm and confuse the nation into repudiating most of the social, moral and legal gains of the previous 20 years. By using buzzwords such as family , country and traditional values , Reagan has moved the country into reverse and rescinded the promise of equal opportunity for all.

What these buzzwords really mask is oppressiveness, racism, sexism and opposition to individual liberty, and they have permitted the religious right to infect the country with its prejudices. We are living in an era of high-gloss, jingoistic Americanism that apparently fills some desperate national need.

Yet there is a light, although still dim, at the end of the tunnel. This Administration, as with most conservative waves, by its very nature will be compelled to make the mistake of being excessive. The American people are not comfortable with extremes, either from the far left or the far right, and another social revolution will occur in the next decade to bring the country back to the center again.