THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, October 22, 1995 TAG: 9510230191
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY PHILIP WALZER, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: Long : 178 lines
Keep it whole or drop it all.
As the debate on affirmative action rolls on, Patty Downer has heard the clashing politicians: Jesse Jackson vs. Bob Dole. President Clinton vs. California Gov. Pete Wilson.
It's always one extreme or the other. And she feels a little left out.
``Everybody is strongly for it or strongly against it,'' says Downer, a Portsmouth resident. ``There's a few of us in the middle.
``I don't think we need affirmative action the way we have it today,'' she says. ``It needs to be redone.''
In Washington, affirmative action has been overshadowed by issues such as Medicare and welfare reform. But political observers expect it to re-emerge as a hot-button issue. And with recent events such as the O.J. Simpson verdict laying bare the nation's racial divide, the debate could be as fiery as ever.
Yet there are a precious few citizens - and even fewer analysts - who are suggesting a third way. It could be as simple as a classroom assignment to meet a friend from another neighborhood. A preacher's sermon on diversity. A series of community discussions among minorities and whites. Or as wide-ranging as a policy plan to keep preferences in college admissions, but throw them out in government hiring and contracting.
The thinkers are black and white, Democrats and Republicans. Some, like Downer, dislike affirmative action; others support it. But what they share is a desire to finally break the stalemate and increase tolerance and understanding in the country.
Downer thinks preferences for minorities are no longer needed. ``The problem today,'' she says, ``seems to be with the welfare system, not the employment system.'' The new underclass, she says, is made up of single parents, both black and white.
``You read about them: They're in job searches and they can't find jobs because nobody wants to hire them, and they end up on welfare,'' she says. And with welfare being scaled back, they may end up with no safety net.
So here's Downer's idea: Drop hiring preferences for minorities and women, and instead begin giving an edge to single parents.
``If I'm a single parent and you're not, and we both apply for the job and we're equally qualified, if you don't get it, your partner could be working as well and bringing in an income,'' she says. ``But if I don't get the job, I might have to go on the welfare system.''
Dianne Chatman, who lives in Norfolk, thinks more could be done outside the workplace - in the church, at home, in school. She doesn't think her ideas can replace affirmative action. But maybe they'll build bridges between the races and reduce the need for preferences down the road.
In church, maybe a minister could deliver sermons to raise consciousness about diversity. She said one message could be: ``Put yourself in the other person's place, the person who never had an opportunity to get a job several years ago.'' It could be reinforced with a ``food for thought'' column in the church bulletin.
At home, parents should be more vigilant about a youngster's racial references, even if they seem innocuous. For instance, she says, if a child comes home saying, ``Mommy! Johnny, that black boy down the street, tried to hit me,'' the mother should respond: ``That's not Johnny the black boy; that's Johnny the little boy across the street.''
In school, Chatman says, teachers should start instilling the notion of accepting differences when kids are young. They can tack up pictures of a multi-ethnic group of kids studying at a table. They can make sure students don't segregate themselves by race or gender. They can assign students to ``meet a new friend who comes from another country or doesn't live in your neighborhood.''
Later, in high school, promising minorities could be targeted for careers in medicine or engineering with hands-on programs with professionals and scholarships to college.
``They would be better prepared for admission into certain programs and if they enrolled, they would be more likely to graduate,'' says Chatman, a fiscal technician at Old Dominion University's Office of Residence Life. ``And maybe it would reduce the need for preferences'' in the admissions process.
Albert Glickman, a retired ODU psychology professor, isn't sure of the answers. But he thinks a good way to find them would be to hold a series of candid discussions between blacks and whites.
The system can be changed only if ``people feel that they have a reasonable control over their own fate, that they are not simply victims of manipulation by others,'' says Glickman, a Norfolk resident. ``We have to find a way of giving government back to the people.''
Under his scenario, participants would tackle such questions as: What should whites and African-Americans do - and stop doing - to improve relations? What whites and blacks do you like - and dislike - most?
But he has a couple of ground rules. First, blacks and whites would begin meeting separately. And before they came together in multiracial discussions, each group would get a copy of the other's findings and review it.
``We need to be prepared to talk; it doesn't come easily,'' he says. ``People have to feel reasonably secure in sharing their vulnerability with one another.''
As a researcher in Washington in the '60s, Glickman used this sort of approach in San Francisco to help reduce friction between the community and police. A national organization, the Common Ground Network for Life and Choice, has undertaken a similar strategy to bring peace in the abortion controversy.
In more than two dozen cities, it has brought together a group of anti-abortion and abortion-rights sympathizers for a day of dialogue. In some cities, the groups disband afterward; in others, they continue meeting. In St. Louis, both sides have joined forces to promote adoption.
Nationally, the most comprehensive compromise on affirmative action has been proposed by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank aligned with the Democratic Leadership Council, a moderate arm of the Democratic Party once led by Clinton.
The group suggests keeping racial preferences in college admissions, but also adding income as a factor, so that low-income whites would get the edge over middle-class blacks. But the institute proposes eliminating affirmative action in government hiring and contracting.
Instead, the government should help minorities buy homes - by increasing grants to build low-cost housing and to cut mortgage rates in poor areas - and should allow ``charter schools'' to encourage innovation in public education, says institute president Will Marshall.
Elsie Barnes, acting dean of Norfolk State University's School of Social Sciences, sees the value in considering income in college admissions: ``People are saying that when affirmative action is based on race entirely, all you're doing is helping people who didn't need it anyway. If you introduce income, you make sure you're targeting the groups you really want to target.''
But Benjamin Berry, a history professor at Virginia Wesleyan College and former civil rights activist, has little patience for such compromises. ``We either open up opportunities across racial lines or we don't,'' he says. ``It's as simple as that.''
On the other hand, some opponents say any preferences are unjust. But Adrienne Kaufmann, co-director of Common Ground, says, ``Those are two points on a line, but there are so many other places to be than at that point and that point.''
Though the middle ground has been conspicuously absent in the debate on affirmative action, it's where most Americans stand, Marshall says. His report cites a CNN/USA Today poll taken over the summer showing 8 percent of Americans would leave policies intact, 22 percent would eliminate them and 61 percent would rework them.
Marshall blames the media for blocking out the nonextremists: ``The most polarizing voices predominate. The media, hungry for drama, produces Farrakhan vs. somebody on the other side. People who have less dramatic and more nuanced views get drowned out.''
Barnes believes that some compromise will indeed be forged, perhaps similar to Marshall's plan, though she'd prefer no cutbacks on affirmative action. ``As this evolves and goes through political cycles, you're going to see some moderation,'' she says. ``Any time you have these numbers speaking out and the intensity of these feelings, you're going to get some change in policy.''
Lawrence Desilets, a sophomore at the University of Virginia from Chesapeake, illustrates the possibility of moving to the center.
A strong opponent, he's had to rethink his position after learning some more about black history this semester. He still thinks affirmative action should be eliminated, but maybe not yet.
``I was looking at the present,'' he says, ``but I wasn't looking at the past. There are still people affected by the discrimination of the past. . . . It's hard to go from nothing to being something.'' ILLUSTRATION: Graphic
FROM PREFERENCES TO EMPOWERMENT
Excerpts from the Progressive Policy Institute's study, ``From
Preferences to Empowerment: A New Bargain on Affirmative Action'':
``What's missing from the debate is a civic perspective that
rises above race or other group identity to consider the interests
of society as a whole. Such a view grants neither side a moral
monopoly; rather, it acknowledges the tensions inherent in
affirmative action and rejects the all-or-nothing choice posed by
absolutists in either camp. . . .
``Seen through the lens of shared principles rather than group
rivalry, affirmative action appears to go too far in some directions
and not far enough in others. The emphasis on numerically driven
preferences, for example, ineluctably contradicts the principle of
equal protection. On the other hand, few dispute that affirmative
action as we know it fails to lift the minority poor, whose moral
claim on society is strongest.
``These twin defects suggest an opportunity to strike a new
bargain on racial equality and opportunity. It requires that each
side make a key stipulation: Critics of affirmative action should
acknowledge that the legacy and lingering presence of racial bias
remain significant obstacles to black progress, especially the
poorest African-Americans stranded in inner cities. Defenders of
affirmative action should concede that preferences cannot be the
answer because their reach is too limited and because they make it
more rather than less difficult to transcend racial difference.''
by CNB