ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Wednesday, December 4, 1996 TAG: 9612040022
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: RICHARD D. KAHLENBERG
COUNTERING President Clinton's electoral sweep nationally and in California was the passage in that state of an initiative to dismantle publicly sponsored race and gender preferences, otherwise known as affirmative action. Although a judge in San Francisco last week blocked enforcement of the initiative, saying he thought it was unconstitutional, the vote in California nevertheless sent two important signals - one to liberals and one to conservatives.
If both sides heed the messages, a dramatic breakthrough possibly could end decades of stalemate on affirmative action. If policy-makers on both sides ignore the lessons, we are likely to see a downward spiral of ever-greater division and recrimination.
For liberals, passage of the California Civil Fights Initiative (CCRI) should mean that they can no longer postpone the hard work of finding constructive alternatives to 30 years of race- and gender-based preferences.
Liberals have sued, as liberals are wont to do. But despite the judge's ruling, chances of overturning an initiative that eliminates preferences are small, particularly when the courts increasingly have grown hostile to such policies. And pursuing a legal strategy to negate popular initiatives is in the long term a self-defeating strategy and likely as ineffective as the electoral strategy of branding supporters of the initiative as friends of David Duke.
Likewise, liberals cannot dismiss the California vote as an aberrant loss in a single state. There is ample reason to think that passage of the CCRI is the beginning of the end of racial affirmative-action, not only because California often sets national trends, such as the tax revolt of the 1970s, but also because California represents America's increasingly diverse ethnic future. Non-Hispanic whites soon will be a minority in the state, and so it is natural that they would seek to stamp out what is seen as a racial spoils system while they still have the electoral power to do so.
Instead of denying the significance of CCRI, or seeking to overturn it in the courts, progressives should dedicate themselves to developing new politically and legally sustainable ways of achieving the crucial goals of racial and economic justice.
For conservatives, the relatively narrow margin of victory - 54 percent to 46 percent - suggests that large numbers of Americans are uneasy about dismantling affirmative action without placing a positive program in its stead.
Some conservatives may attribute the small margin to Bob Dole's embrace of CCRI - his reverse-Midas touch. But that would be a mistake. For while many Americans find race and gender preferences unpalatable, many also want to do something affirmative to provide a level playing field for those denied opportunity.
It is time for a new compromise on affirmative action, one that respects the best arguments of both sides of the debate. The liberals are right to say that we need to address our history of discrimination and provide greater opportunity to those left behind. The conservatives are right to say that basing preferences on immutable factors like race and gender is unfair and promotes racial division and hostility.
It is time to embrace a program of preferences - in education, entry-level employment and contracting - based on class or socioeconomic status rather than race or gender.
Instead of trying to justify preferences for the son or daughter of a black lawyer, why not provide a leg up to the child of a black cab-driver and the offspring of a white janitor? Providing special help for disadvantaged kids of all races would combine the moral authority of Martin Luther King's civil-rights movement with the political savvy of Robert F. Kennedy's class-based voting coalition.
Until now, class-based affirmative action has been acknowledged to be a sensible alternative by such diverse figures as Supreme Court Justices William O. Douglas and Antonin Scalia. But it has nevertheless been relegated to the sidelines of political debate in recognition of interest-group politics. While women and various minority groups have effective lobbies, the disadvantaged of all races have no equivalent voice in Washington.
With the passage of the California Civil Rights Initiative, the dynamic has changed. If anything positive is to come out of the divisive and ugly debate over the CCRI, it will be a renewed sense of urgency on the part of civil rights groups to promote colorblind programs for the disadvantaged as a way of helping their constituencies. If Californians have rejected the notion that because of past discrimination, all people of color deserve a preference, they may be willing to accept that poor and working-class kids deserve a leg up, and that because of our history, a disproportionate number will be minority.
Liberals and conservatives need to reflect hard on the lessons of CCRI. Passage of the initiative poses a challenge and opportunity in the journey to racial and economic justice.
Where do we go from here? Both sides have an interest in searching for common ground. It can be found in a policy of need-based affirmative action.
Richard D. Kahlenberg is a fellow at the Center for National Policy, in Washington, D.C.
- The Washington Post
LENGTH: Medium: 93 linesby CNB