The Showdown That Wasn’t
Last week’s settlement in a reverse-discrimination lawsuit ends a case that was frequently labeled a showdown over affirmative action. It was no such thing; it was actually a case of racial discrimination, plain and simple. Although the settlement takes this lawsuit off the U.S. Supreme Court’s calendar, it does not remove a national need for reasoned guidance on the value of affirmative action.
After lengthy negotiations, a New Jersey school board settled Friday with Sharon Taxman, a white teacher who was laid off in favor of a black teacher. The agreement, which includes back pay, awards $433,500 to Taxman and her lawyers. The case stemmed from the Piscataway Board of Education’s decision in 1989 to cut one position in the district’s high school business education department. Taxman and Debra Williams had the least seniority and had started work on the same day. Rather than flip a coin, school officials invoked their affirmative action plan. The board said that since the two teachers were equally qualified, “diversity” justified retaining Williams. However, the school district had no documented history of racial discrimination and its percentage of black teachers exceeded that of the local labor force.
Taxman sued under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race. “Discriminate” is the key word here. Taxman’s claim that race alone led to her dismissal had merit; the school board was wise to admit its error by settling. A commitment to affirmative action, properly applied, asks only that gender, race and ethnicity be considered as factors in decisions about employment and education, not that they be the only considerations.
Critics of affirmative action predictably hailed Friday’s settlement. They point to the fact that a coalition of civil rights groups will fund $308,500 of the settlement as confirmation that the Supreme Court would have probably used the case to outlaw many, if not most, voluntary efforts to boost the representation of women and minorities in the workplace.
Affirmative action merely opens opportunity to a broader range of qualified people. It’s still needed because, regrettably, opportunity still lags for many in this country. Affirmative action asks employers and university admissions officers to choose or reject individuals not according to skin color and gender but on the basis of all the skills and experience they bring. The Supreme Court still needs to render a meaningful decision on those values, and the nation awaits the proper test case.
