Death of Affirmative Action? | Jackson Free Press | Jackson, MS

Death of Affirmative Action?

In an unexpected move, the U.S. Supreme Court this week strayed from precedence to rule against a race-based hiring practice. Overturning an affirmative-action decision by an appellate panel, the Court ruled in favor of a group of white firefighters who were passed over for a promotion because of their race.

In 2003, the fire department in New Haven, Conn., administered qualifying exams to 118 firefighters for promotion to the ranks of captain and lieutenant. When no black firefighters passed the exam to qualify for a promotion, the city opted to discard the test results and not give any promotions at all. It reasoned that if they awarded promotions to the white firefighters who scored high enough to qualify, the city would open itself up to litigation from black participants. They cited the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits the "discriminatory use of test scores." The slighted group of white firefighters later filed a lawsuit against the New Haven mayor, John DeStefano, and other city officials for discrimination on the basis of race.

While mainstream media is harping on how the Supreme Court's reversal affects nominee Sonia Sotomayor—who was on the appellate panel that upheld the city's decision to discard the exams—many Americans are asking, "Is it time to do away with affirmative action?"

To adequately answer this question, Americans need to understand the definition and origin of the practice. The practice first entered American labor practices in the 1940s during World War II and applied to the awarding of federal contracts.

However, it wasn't until 1961 that the term "affirmative action" was introduced in an executive order by President John Kennedy, in which he urged contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color or national origin." Later in 1964, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, which affirmed Kennedy's call, and prohibited discrimination on the basis of race.

Using Kennedy's order, it would seem that affirmative action was nothing more than a call for employers—both public and private—to rigorously pursue and uphold practices of inclusion. This meant practices that prohibit organizations and businesses from discriminating against merited employees or potential employees on the basis of their sex, gender, race or ethnicity. However, the affirmative action we have come to know didn't come from Kennedy.

Many people blame the courts and the concept of "white guilt" on the shift in affirmative action from non-discriminatory practices to those based on quotas. Instead of instituting a policy that says, "We won't discriminate against people based on race," some people argue for a policy that establishes a requirement—even if it goes against other qualified applicants—that we fill x number of positions with blacks, y number of positions with women and z number of positions with Latinos. I've got to hire a new accountant, and I've interviewed two candidates. The more qualified one is white, but I have an all-white staff. I'll hire the less-qualified minority.

Affirmative action is not usually attempted with such stark quotas, but, sadly, this is how many people view the practice. We've got to move away from the notion that this is how it always is or how it always has to be. The U.S. government put affirmative action in place to protect people from discrimination, not pit races against each other.

Perhaps the most unlikely of advocates for moving away from affirmative action practices are members of Project 21, a nonpartisan conservative black organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research. "True equality allows people to rise and fall on their merits. That's what this decision protects. How can one oppose such fairness?" asked Project 21 chairman Mychal Massie in a release Monday.

This is a legitimate argument, but America is not ready to be race, gender and sex neutral. Offices need to see color; schools need to see color; people need to see color. Celebrating diversity, especially in a professional setting, is important. At the Jackson Free Press, we strive to promote diversity in our office, in our publication and out in Jackson. Encouraging other businesses and institutions to take "affirmative action" to prioritize inclusively, just as Kennedy did, is not "reverse discrimination." It's the key to success in an ever-evolving social climate.

I don't think we're ready to get rid of affirmative action. But when I go into an interview, I don't want to rest on my race and gender to get the job. I want to make damn sure that when I achieve success, that it's because of my merits, and not my ancestry. This doesn't sit well with many people, especially those who have lived in a different time when it was much more difficult to get a fair shake in life because of bigoted people in power. But the face of affirmative action needs a facelift. It's gotten out of hand when a mayor tells the fire department that it can't promote hard-working men and women because some people of another race didn't qualify.

In a Wall Street Journal article on the decision, the writer quoted Justice Roberts' majority opinion in a 2007 case disputing the use of race in zoning children for schools. In that opinion, he wrote, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."

But is it really that simple? You decide for yourself.

Previous Commentsshow

What's this?

Support our reporting -- Follow the MFP.

Comments

Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.