CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
July 1, 2009 – 12:01 a.m.
Not-So-New Rallying Cry: Reverse Discrimination
By Tracie Powell, CQ Guest Columnist
Looks like the Supreme Court has delivered conservatives a not-so-new wedge issue.
With abortion and gay rights not as hot-button as they used to be, affirmative action is back in vogue. Painting programs and policies designed to redress past discrimination in education and employment as harmful to white males was all the rage a couple of decades ago, but yet all but disappeared during America’s economic good times.
Now it’s back with a vengeance.
Combining June 29th’s 5-4 Supreme Court ruling with the current sour economy makes the timing ripe for weakening affirmative action.
Take, for example, Patrick J. Buchanan’s exhortation to the Republican Party to present it as race-based bigotry against white males — for political gain.
“Having lost the Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008, Republicans are looking to redefine themselves for a nation that still leans conservative but is less Republican that it has been in decades,” said Buchanan, a former adviser to three presidents and a two-time candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. “The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court presents just such an opportunity. For, even if the party loses the battle and Sotomayor sits on the court, it can win the war.”
Calling Sotomayor an “affirmative action baby” and labeling white males “victims,” Buchanan advised Republicans to “use this Sotomayor nomination to put affirmative action in the dock for what it is — race-based bigotry against white males so that persons of color can receive the rewards of society that they could not win in free and fair competition.”
Finally, some semblance of a GOP survival strategy emerges.
Granted, Buchanan is simply reheating old ingredients to divide and conquer, but it is a recipe that can resonate with many independent voters and unemployed workers.
Forget for the moment the facts that blacks and Latinos are being hit hardest by the current recession, or that blacks and Hispanics lag behind whites for higher-paying jobs at the largest rates in about a decade. People like Buchanan want us all to believe that it is whites who are now disadvantaged.
There is scant evidence that such a scheme can work.
Half of the respondents in a recent CBS/New York Times poll said they favored special efforts to help minorities get ahead; approval numbers rose among non-white respondents and women. However, support sharply divided along partisan lines, with 67 percent of Democratic respondents saying they approve of affirmative action programs for minorities, while 60 percent of Republican respondents saying they oppose such initiatives.
But if you ask some African Americans, who were initially thought to benefit from such initiatives, they too will complain about affirmative action in its current form benefiting more white women than people of color.
Even President Obama says affirmative action needs tweaking so that it will benefit more people who are economically disadvantaged, rather than upper-middle-class blacks — such as himself and his daughters.
Does affirmative action really need to be updated, as the Supreme Court seemed to suggest with its Ricci v. DeStefano decision, the case involving promotions in the New Haven, Conn., fire department. Or does the concept simply have a bad rap?
“Ricci is an important affirmative action case for many reasons, not least of which because it’s become something of a rallying point for white men who can finally release some of the pent-up tension after the election of the first black president...” wrote Sherrilyn Ifill, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Law and a civil rights lawyer. “But it’s also got the kind of facts that make well-meaning white folks, and even some blacks, uncomfortable about the parameters of affirmative action.”
Using a quota system to redress past wrongs was outlawed in this country in 1979; in recent years colleges and universities have begun opening up minority scholarships, fellowships, and other programs to all students in response to pressure from affirmative action opponents. But this doesn’t stop some critics from parroting the opposite misinformation as evidence of reverse-discrimination.
Some prefer not to acknowledge how they likely still benefit from past — and present-day — discrimination.
These are complex elements of a much-needed discussion about race and racism in this country that we are just now beginning to have, thanks to a more conservative Supreme Court — but it is still a discussion many Americans seek to avoid. They’d rather point to the first black president, proclaim that racism is dead, and whine that it is time for — most often blacks — to stop playing the victim and move on. End of story.
Meanwhile, Republican operatives are busy making plans to further politicize an already divisive issue, further polarizing red and blue states, black and white neighbors, and firing up those who are already on the fringes as well as its base.
You already know the drill.
Ensuring equal opportunity was the purpose of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Opponents argue that affirmative action actually subverted the original purpose of the historic law.
“The 1964 Civil Rights Act has been illegally enforced for 37 years. The result is a massive system of race and gender discrimination against white males in order to achieve proportional representation of racial minorities and women,” writes Paul Craig Roberts in an essay, “Abolishing America: Do Whites Have Rights?” Roberts was assistant secretary of the Treasury during President Ronald Reagan’s first term and an associate editor of The Wall Street Journal.
“Today in the United States white people have no political representation,” Roberts wrote. “Whites have to struggle in the courts against government opposition to claim any resemblance to equal rights.”
Good luck with selling that one.
Tracie Powell is a former American Political Science Association congressional fellow and writes regularly on politics and policy.
Comments
What are you really trying to say here? Of course racism still exists and will always exist as long as a section of society can't see beyond their differences. I think it is perfectly reasonable to assume that reverse racism occurs, as the court ruled in this case. No minority, however persecuted, is saintly enough to not persecute when the opportunity arises and the inclination is there. Do I think that white males are suffering country wide, no. The real problem in our society is that we all focus on our differences and by doing so we only help certain groups in society. The focus should be on helping humanity obtain education and marketable job skills. For example you only mentioned Blacks and Hispanics in your article, may I remind you of a few more "minorities" in our society that are perhaps suffering just as much as the major minorities, namely Asians, Native Americans (who have it worse off than anyone) Arabs and Indians to name a few.
This is NOT a case of Conservatives winning one, it is a case of those who were discriminated against (White Firefighters) winning a discrimination suit against that discrimination and being allowed to receive the promotions that they should have received had the municipality not been so frightened that the Black community would sue, with no justification because it was decided that study and hard work was more important than the color of one's skin. It is a shame that the writer of this article, clearly a "person of color" is so bigoted that she finds fault with anyone not Black being given a promotion because they tried harder. When the position is one of saving others lives, the hell with color, just get the job done. This is a very poorly written article, bias and racism abounds. Shame on Tracie Powell.
Hypothetheticals - DeStefano prevailed,the test re-issued.Should the test be graded on a curve to not have a disparate impact on minority firefighters?Would that be justice to the residents of New Haven?Should the residents of New Haven have an expectation of the best and brightest responding to an emergency? The question of AA- Do non-white male citizens require legal protection from discrimination in the workplace,education etc? The key word is [require] The solution lies in the differences between economic power [voluntary choices and agreements]and political power[coercion and compulsion].The choices made will decide the course this nation will take in the foreseeable future.
There is one sentence in this article mentioning Hispanics. The elephant in the room Tracie ignores is that two Hispanic firefighters studied and won promotions. Hispanics were denied promotions for what reason, because they're not black? Tracie Powell is now and never has been about all minority rights. Her articles consistently cry out about black rights in unconvincing and intellectually insulting arguments. It surprises me that a highly-regarded organization like Congressional Quarterly provides Ms. Powell this forum for her agenda. Leah saw what others can see when she notes the complete disregard for other minorities by Ms. Powell. Two Hispanic firefighters who "studied" and earned promotions were denied promotions because they weren't black. Apparently Tracie Powell wants blacks to given jobs at the expense of even other deserving minorities. What other conclusion can you draw?
Sal, this column is about how conservatives are discussing how to use affirmative action as a campaign issue, not the merits of affirmative action. If you were capable of looking past your own bias, then you might have a better understanding of what the writer is discussing here. She even says the country is starting to have a much-needed debate about this issue, thanks to the supreme court. As to your comment about the writer clearly being "a person of color," how observant of you, especially since her photo is at the top of the page! Sheer genius I tell ya, GENIUS!.
Hi, I am a caucasian Jewish person who is currently unemployed. However, I agree with what Ms. Powell has wrote. I believe minorites are NOT on an equal playing field in many areas yet although it is better than what it used to be. I feel, for the most part, that affirmative action programs are still necessary.
I can't claim to be any sort of expert on Affirmative Action/Title 9 - maybe someone can give us some dispassionate statistics devoid of emotion to really explain why it's needed now more than ever. However - my gut tells me that Buchanan is a moron, if only for this one statement. While that's no surprise, what does surprise me is that he continues with this line well after most people have rejected it. The whole country is disadvantaged now, to one degree or another. With the economy circling the drain and hyperinflation around the corner, it's past time to pull together - not apart - for the sake of all of us....
This has worked well for conservatives before and I am sure given the unpredictable times a head, it will manifest yet again as a platform issue. This is what bothers me the most, they "neo Conservatives" consistently target manufactured. issues which polarize. It's no different than their family value platform, filled with hypocrisy!
I see Badger is another one who doesn't know how to read.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: