Scrap Affirmative Action As We Know It

In a few weeks, Californians will vote on Proposition 209, the California civil rights initiative. In a simple, straightforward manner, this amendment to the state Constitution will eliminate race- and gender-based preferences in state and local government contracting, employment and education programs.

As a liberal with sanity, I say it’s about time. Under the guise of “leveling the playing field,” government is using race- and gender-based affirmative action programs to discriminate against people, mostly white men.

Supporters of affirmative action claim that preferences are needed to right “past wrongs.” While most Americans would support providing remedies to identifiable victims of discrimination and punishing the perpetrators, the victims of today’s quotas, preferences and set-asides by and large had nothing to do with the wrongs of previous generations’ discrimination. It’s a dangerous game for government to violate the civil rights of an innocent person in the name of “equal opportunity.”

Is there racial, ethnic and gender- based discrimination in this country? Of course. Is affirmative action and its use of quotas the way to respond? Of course not.

The affirmative action programs that have existed for about 30 years on the national, state and local levels have been largely counterproductive for two basic reasons: Affirmative action has created the concept of group rights, a concept not accepted or recognized as legitimate by most Americans. And what most Americans believe is fair is the achievement of equality of opportunity. They do not believe in the concept of equal outcome; outcome, meaning result, should be determined by individual ability.

The fundamental, inescapable problem with affirmative action is that it is unfair. It treats people differently on the basis of group identity without regard to their individual circumstances.

It is every bit as wrong to award a group “points” based on race, ethnicity or gender as it is to subtract points for those reasons. The unfairness is even more glaring where the beneficiary is a person of wealth or a recent immigrant who has not suffered--and whose ancestors did not suffer--in the United States from the state-sanctioned discrimination that affirmative action seeks to redress. It is also terribly patronizing to those in the “benefited” group who would have succeeded on merit alone.

Supporters of race- and gender-based preferences typically are unwilling to admit that their programs are discriminatory. An editorial in Newsday in New York, a newspaper that believes in race- and gender-based affirmative action, articulated one of the most candid and honest views I have ever seen linking quotas with affirmative action. The editorial, which ran on July 20, 1995, coincidentally, the day the University of California regents voted to end race-based preferences in admissions, said: “Unless one is willing to be utterly disingenuous, it’s impossible to make affirmative action work without de facto quotas (usually they are called goals) and de facto reverse discrimination (however unintended). It would be better to admit that they are unavoidable in some instances to ensure full participation by excluded minorities and take the political lumps.” Refreshing honesty.

I am in favor of affirmative action, but of a different kind. I believe in equal treatment for those who are equally economically disadvantaged. Many of today’s affirmative action programs assume economic disadvantage--or advantage--simply because of the color of one’s skin or one’s surname. Our current programs would give Bill Cosby’s child extra points and deny those extra points to the child of a poor, white Appalachian family simply based on skin color. This is ludicrous.

The affirmative action that I support would allow set-asides and quotas without regard to race, ethnicity or gender for those in poverty, and would apply to government employment, university admissions, contracts and housing. In selecting such applicants, additional criteria could be considered. Those would include demonstrating extraordinary community leadership or overcoming adversity. If there are more applicants than slots available, use a lottery. What could be fairer?

To sum up, I’m for individual rights, not group rights. I’m for laws requiring equal opportunity, not equal outcome. I hope, for the benefit of our nation, that the good people of California overwhelmingly approve Proposition 209 on Nov. 5. Our current policies divide us; Proposition 209 will bring us together.