Does Affirmative Action Achieve or Pervert the American Dream? : Equality of Opportunity Is Just, Not ‘Special’ : The appeal to white male fears is political and groundless. Women and minorities still don’t have a level playing field.

If politicians acknowledged an outbreak of malaria and then banned the remedy of quinine, we would conclude that they intended malaria to become epidemic. So should we view the assault on affirmative action and other civil rights enforcement laws. With analysis worthy of Kafka, the dismantlers of affirmative action agree that women and minorities still face widespread discrimination. Their conclusion? Eliminate the only tools available to fight it.

The assaults of Gov. Pete Wilson and others on affirmative action imperil equal opportunity. In the 1960s, civil rights leaders demanded equal opportunity for everyone. Although civil rights laws changed the legal landscape, the real costs of immediately leveling the playing field were too high. Instead, we were offered affirmative action, which promised the inclusion of qualified women and minorities in the pipeline. In short, affirmative action is the conservative approach to realizing equal opportunity. It was authored, endorsed and enforced by nine presidents, every Congress since 1960 and the Supreme Court, none of which could be considered dominated by women or minority groups.

At first, this gradual, phased-in remedy even avoided “bumping” from their jobs clearly unqualified whites who had leaped over more qualified African Americans. Eventually, affirmative action evolved into the voluntary system that prevents discrimination and promotes inclusion of women, minorities, the disabled and others who have been systematically excluded.

The assault on voluntary affirmative action is based on calculated misinformation. The propaganda about widespread discrimination against white men is not supported by fact. White males make up at most 3% of discrimination complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Of 3,000 cases alleging discrimination between 1990 and 1994, white males filed six--or .2%--that were found to be valid. Moreover, it is against the law to apply affirmative action to candidates who are not “substantially equally qualified.”

Similarly, the battle cry of meritocracy is belied by the Glass Ceiling Commission report and several other studies documenting current systemic discrimination against women and minorities. The fact is that, far from the mythical “meritocracy,” we have an “old-boyocracy.” When more than 60% of promotion decisions are based on subjective, non-performance-related criteria, and 86% of jobs are filled by word of mouth and never advertised, how much of a meritocracy could exist? Does anyone believe that with real competition, 97% of Fortune 500 CEOs would be white male or any other group?

We are hearing a lot, too, about “quotas.” In fact, quotas are illegal and have been for years. Unjustified set-asides and unfair preferences are also illegal.

So what is this fabricated attack on equal opportunity really about?

In the true spirit of division and obfuscation, we find politicians pitting Americans against each other for cynical short term political gain. Americans face transforming economic change. Wages are declining. Secure, well-paying jobs seem to be disappearing. Technology creates alien workplaces where fewer people are needed. In a time of economic upheaval, when we need a plan that will include every American at the table, we get instead the myopia and mean-spiritedness of scapegoating. The “vision” is to fan the fears of the insecure by lashing out at women, immigrants, the poor and minorities.

Scapegoating has always led this country down dangerous roads. Retrenchments from equal justice precipitated our journeys down the roads to Gettysburg and the civil rights revolution of the 1960s. California’s governor and other politicians should cease studying the campaign strategies of David Duke. Instead, they should heed the call of Abraham Lincoln to appeal to the “better angels of our nature.”

The problems of the future demand the vision of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who in the 1960s urged that women and men of all races reject the cowardice of divisive politics. “Together,” he said, “they could exert massive pressure on the government to get jobs for all. Together, they could form a grand alliance. Together, they could merge all people for the good of all.”

We need the politics of Dr. King’s grand alliance. We need to work together, not inflame the issues that split us apart.