A Negative Start for Wilson ’96 : Ending affirmative action is a divisive move

Does Gov. Pete Wilson really want to launch his campaign for President of the United States on the theme of divide and conquer? Wilson’s signing of an executive order Thursday that seeks to end affirmative-action policies in state government won’t actually end diversity in the workplace or in schools. But the powerful symbolism of his act is unmistakable. And it’s incongruous coming from an official who in a less-charged political atmosphere once touted the bottom-line importance of opening the doors to more women and minorities--the majority in the state of California.

Properly done, affirmative action is inclusive, not exclusive. A helpful and constructive discussion about affirmative action would talk about definitions of merit: Can it be defined solely by test scores, or must other factors be considered? What would California and the nation have to do to make affirmative action for minorities and women truly unnecessary? The fact is, even if every affirmative-action program were eliminated, that would do nothing to address America’s legitimate anxiety about today’s volatile and globally competitive job market.

But this is not an argument of facts, because the facts on women and minorities in the workplace are indisputable: A number of studies, including a finding by the bipartisan Glass Ceiling Commission that only 5% of top jobs are held by women and minorities combined , demonstrate there simply is no rampant reverse discrimination taking place across the land.

Wilson says that merit alone, not “gender or racial preferences,” should be the determinant of who gets hired, promoted or admitted to a university. Of course. And everyone should be kind. People shouldn’t hurt one another. Everyone should be fair. But now that we’ve all agreed on the ideals of life, let’s talk about the realities. Let’s talk about consistently applied principles:

* Will Wilson’s emphasis on “merit” alone mean that the governor will call for the end of “legacy” admissions at top universities, in which the children of alumni receive special consideration? Or is that particular form of discrimination tolerable?

* Will Wilson call for ending scholarships designated only for Italian or Armenian or Jewish students? Such awards can now be used at public universities, and are typically administered by taxpayer-funded employees. Should all that be thrown out, too?

* Will Wilson, in his quest to “end preferential treatment for protected groups,” demand to know what percentage of state contracts go to the ultimate in protected minority groups--political campaign contributors?

No, we’re sorry to say that we suspect Wilson won’t do any of the above. Because if he did, he’d also have to acknowledge the gap between reality and campaign rhetoric designed not to inform but to manipulate voters’ emotions.