THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, July 2, 1995 TAG: 9507010402
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J6 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY BENJAMIN D. BERRY JR.
LENGTH: Medium: 97 lines
When Lyndon B. Johnson demanded that departments of the federal government take ``affirmative action'' to end discrimination in its operations, there was a chorus of objections and opposition.
The objections raised and the opposition positions to the idea of affirmative action have not changed substantially since 1965. Opponents of affirmative action argue that the programs polarize the society, that they are instances of ``reverse discrimination'' which promote unqualified minorities and women over qualified white males, and that affirmative action aids the middle class and does nothing to help the ``truly disadvantaged.''
None of these arguments has any substance.
It is true that our society is being polarized, but not because of affirmative action programs. Affirmative action does not demand that unqualified minorities be selected over qualified whites. On the contrary, the demand is that minorities be given serious consideration for employment or admission to college - consideration which did not come prior to 1965, irrespective of the qualifications of the minority worker, student or company.
What is polarizing American society is the fear which some whites feel in the face of change in the worldwide economic structure and in the structure of our society as we have moved from an industrial to a ``post-industrial society.'' When white males voted in 1994, largely in protest against major changes in American government and in American culture, they were reacting to their fear of what they see happening to the world they thought they knew, and that fear was used by some in politics for personal gain. That is the source of polarization.
The concept of ``reverse discrimination'' is totally meaningless. The idea that affirmative action programs demand that whites become the victims of discrimination in order that less-or unqualified minorities might enter school, get a job or get a contract is simply not supported by statistics on minority hiring or college admission.
The numbers simply will not support such nonsense. The overwhelming majority of upper and middle-level management remains white male; the number of African Americans or Latino students matriculating at the major institutions of higher education remains woefully small; the number of minority businesses has not shown great growth. That such ``reverse discrimination'' has been blamed for the economic problems of a large segment of the white male population is again a product of unscrupulous individuals who exploit fears for personal gain.
Beyond the numbers, the reality of what is demanded of minorities does not support the myth that the unqualified are replacing qualified whites, especially in education. Irrespective of what a few African-American conservatives are saying, most of us who have been the benefactors of affirmative action have had to perform at a level far above that of our white counterparts.
Many white faculty continue to hold to the untrue but long-standing idea that minorities (particularly blacks) are incapable of performing well in academic areas, and this makes life for black students on white campuses very difficult. Affirmative action might be an avenue of entrance into a prestigious institution, but it does not guarantee graduation.
Finally, affirmative action programs are meant to counter the effects of past and existing discrimination. They are not anti-poverty programs. Even the opponents of affirmative action will admit to the existence of racial and gender discrimination in the past. But most are reluctant to accept that such discrimination continues today. They would find the cause of the maldistribution of wealth and power in this society in the lack of preparation among minorities and women, even though ample evidence to the contrary has been shown almost daily.
Discrimination is as real in American society today as it was when I entered college in 1957, and its effects are still as vicious. True, the signs designating sections of public buildings for each race are gone, but the cities are segregated residentially and African Americans who are confined to the racial ghetto are paying a ``black tax'' in the form of extra expense and inconvenience for goods and services.
So long as there is discrimination, there will be a need for affirmative action to end that discrimination. It will not simply go away.
What the opponents of affirmative action are unwilling to say to the public is that the concept, where vigorously pursued, has led to economic and social programs. Much of the growth of Atlanta, for example, is the result of efforts to end discrimination in that city. The consequences are magnificent: Businesses from around the world have been locating offices in Atlanta; the educational institutions, once they could cooperate across racial lines, have become stronger; even the World Olympic committee selected the city as the host for the 1996 Summer Games.
Communities which are paralyzed by fear generated by a self-centered, racist group of politicians have and will continue to suffer isolation in a world that is no longer white-dominated.
Ending discrimination, the goal of affirmative action, is of benefit to all races, for it allows the full potential of the population to be developed. We as a society destroy these programs at our own risk.
- MEMO: Benjamin D. Berry Jr. is a professor of American studies and history at
Virginia Wesleyan College. A graduate of Harvard Divinity School and
Case Western Reserve University, he teaches courses on the civil-rights
movement. During the 1960s and 1970s, he was a civil-rights activist. by CNB