Affirmative Action Does Not Promote Equality
Arch Puddington
Arch Puddington argues in the following viewpoint that affirmative-action programs reward incompetent minority businesses and individuals with employment opportunities in the interest of "diversity" and "expanding opportunity" for minorities, while passing over candidates with superior qualifications. This system of favoritism promotes mediocrity because it provides no incentive for less qualified minority job-seekers to improve their skills, according to Puddington. In the author's opinion, a private-sector initiative of programs that enhance black business skills and entrepreneurship would be preferable to government-mandated race preferences that lower standards and discourage hard work. Puddington is vice president of Freedom House, a non-profit organization working to advance economic and political freedom.
As you read, consider the following questions:
A friend of mine has become acquainted with the real-life workings of the "diversity" idea. Michael works as a mid-level bureaucrat in the social-services department of a large Midwestern state. As part of his responsibilities, he reviews proposals submitted by care-providing agencies that do business with the state. He knows the strengths and weaknesses of each agency and agonizes before giving his opinion on the merits of a proposal. His integrity is legendary.
Recently, Michael has come under pressure to consider "diversity" in his calculations. Since there is no formal set-aside or affirmative-action policy for the contract-approval process, officials in his department have suggested various informal criteria--giving preference to agencies located in black or Hispanic neighborhoods, for example--in order to ensure that a specified percentage of contracts is awarded to minority-operated agencies. Michael is a confirmed Great Society liberal; he has, to my knowledge, never voted for a Republican. Nor is he dogmatic about the sanctity of the contract-awards process. He is not opposed to bending standards a bit to favor a promising minority agency. He will not, however, give assent to agencies with records of incompetence or whose proposals do not measure up.
But that is precisely what he is expected to do. Michael's superiors include a "diversity officer" whose job is to ensure minority hires and minority contracts. Whether an agency is effective at delivering services is of little concern to the diversity officer. Nor is racial discrimination; the agencies involved could not remotely be accused of bias, and their staffs include heavy proportions of blacks and Hispanics. But these facts do not detract from the diversity officer's mission. He dreams up schemes to implement de-facto set-asides; these schemes, it is understood by all, enjoy the support of higher-level officials and, especially, of elected state officials from minority districts.
Michael does not have final authority over the contracts. But because of his sound judgment and honesty, he commands the respect of his peers, and his opinions must be given serious weight. Meanwhile, officials of minority-run agencies have come to understand that a certain percentage of state grants has been, or should have been, reserved for them. They also regard Michael, a white male with high standards, as an adversary. They have called Michael a racist--behind his back, of course. In meetings, minority-agency officials justify claims to grants on the hackneyed grounds that only a black (or Hispanic or Asian) agency has the cultural sensitivity to serve the black (or Hispanic or Asian) community effectively.
There is no denouement to this stow, just as there is no denouement to the affirmative-action controversy. Michael soldiers on, taking a firm stand in extreme cases, and making concessions in less outrageous instances. He remains a devoted liberal and retains a high sense of mission as a public servant. But personal experience has convinced him that affirmative action is an insidious policy that harms those who receive social services and makes him and other government officials complicit in a process that is dishonest to the core.
America's experience with affirmative action is rather neatly encapsulated in my friend's encounter with "diversity." In almost every instance, there are winners and losers. The winners are the undeserving agencies that win contract awards, and the diversity officials who take credit for "expanding opportunity" for minorities. The losers are the agencies that were passed over, despite their superior performance, and the social-service clients who are likely to receive subpar services. Some of the agencies passed over are large enough and wealthy enough to sustain the setback with no serious consequences; others, however, are small operations run by highly motivated and extraordinarily hard-working professionals. The loss of a major contract can mean a great deal to these smaller agencies.
If there is a social benefit in this particular case, it is that some minority agencies will take advantage of affirmative action to become effective in serving their community. Such cases do exist. Other agencies, having been rewarded despite a lack of qualifications, will see no reason to change. They will continue to rely on their friends in the government or the state legislature to press for a policy by which minority clients are served by minority agencies.
Here is the stuff of minor scandal. But the press will never touch the subject because everyone has a stake in remaining quiet, and because the press itself is compromised by its commitment to diversity in the newsroom. Affirmative action could never have survived if the press had devoted one-quarter of the coverage to the intricacies of its functioning that it devoted to the nuclear-power industry during the 1980's. Unfortunately, the integrity of the press is one more casualty of our misguided racial policies.
As a means of "mending" affirmative action, some have suggested restricting it to blacks, as originally intended. This could actually serve as an important transitional step toward the eventual elimination of government-mandated race preferences. But one should not expect any serious action along these lines. The leadership of black civil-rights organizations may privately resent the inclusion of immigrant groups in a program designed to make amends for centuries of state-sponsored discrimination aimed at blacks. But they are unlikely to propose any scaling back of affirmative-action eligibility for fear of weakening what is emerging as a potent pro-preferences coalition.
This coalition, made up of blacks, Hispanics, and, to a lesser extent, Asian-Americans and liberal whites, represents a minority in national political affairs, but it is a larger group than many suppose. The rejection of an anti-preferences referendum in Houston in November 1997 demonstrates that affirmative action cannot be eliminated in cities where black and Hispanics constitute a majority, or even a near majority. In states with substantial minority populations, the chance of reducing affirmative action through the legislative process is increasingly remote.
If the elimination of affirmative action through normal political means is unlikely, we can nevertheless expect some erosion of its reach by the workings of economic competition and by the demands of Americans for higher standards in both the economy and government. The educational-standards movement is at heart a response to the pressures of the global economy, and it is worth noting that [former] President Clinton endorsed standards despite the opposition of minority politicians. Standards have also stiffened in certain industries as the production process becomes increasingly reliant on computers. Many police departments demand some college experience of new recruits.
This trend is likely to become more pronounced in the future, as is American impatience with the kind of duplicity and unfairness that my friend experienced and that is built into the diversity process. America does, however, face a very real problem in the continuing economic divide between blacks and everyone else in America. Given the fact that the outright elimination of preferential policies seems inconceivable over the short term, we should at least move toward a policy that uses affirmative action to deal with actual social problems. The foremost such problem is the failure of poor blacks to secure jobs in those parts of the economy where the opportunities of the future lie.
The first step would be to jettison altogether the concept of diversity. Second, we should look to the private sector rather than government-enforcement agencies to develop a strategy for black advancement in the business world. There is ample precedent for this in business's voluntary involvement in education reform. Indeed, a private-sector initiative toward black economic advancement could be regarded as an adjunct to that involvement, starting with scholarships for business study or partnerships with community colleges or historically black colleges to develop programs that inculcate business skills and entrepreneurship.
The federal government could give this endeavor both moral and financial support. The United States already spends modest amounts to assist formerly Communist societies in their transition to a free-market economy. A similar but more ambitious initiative might be considered for America's inner cities. Unlike past urban-change ventures, however, government-funded initiatives would be implemented by private corporations rather than by government agencies.
As part of this strategy, private corporations would be given considerable latitude in establishing voluntary programs for hiring and promotion, with the understanding that the preeminent goal would be the integration of one group--blacks--into the private economy. In the meantime, the government would phase out over a few years those affirmative-action programs that entail government coercion.
There is, in fact, every reason to believe that business would be more effective at drawing blacks into the economic mainstream than is the case under the current affirmative-action regime. Under private-sector auspices, more attention would be paid to preparing young blacks for careers in the real economy. The corruption of the process by political intervention would be minimized. There would be an emphasis on meeting high standards rather than on reducing standards in order to meet a goal or quota.
I am under no illusions about the prospects for the replacement of affirmative action by a private-sector initiative. But America is a country full of surprises--witness the far-reaching changes in the welfare system enacted under a liberal Democratic President [Bill Clinton]. No policy that contradicts the very democratic premise of America can be expected to last forever, a fact that should be pondered by affirmative action's supporters before they gird themselves for all-out resistance to alternative arrangements.