The executive order, best known for its impact in the employment arena, is Executive Order 11246, passed in 1965 and focusing on government contractors in the construction industry. Later orders and revisions expanded the coverage to non-construction contractors and women. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 expanded the coverage to include educational institutions more specifically. According to Revised Order No. 4, an organization with 50 employees or more and government contracts of $50,000 or more had to prepare a written affirmative action plan with separate goals and timetables for women and minority members.
The 1980s showed a diminution in federal enforcement of affirmative action legislation. Affirmative action's gains slowed as result of the "hands off" approach. William Bradford Reynolds, assistant secretary of labor for civil rights, and Clarence Pendleton, chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, traveled around the country alleging that affirmative action goals were quotas and, as such, were illegal. Although three decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1986 supported using race as one of the factors in a hiring decision, clarified that goals and quotas are not synonymous and affirmed the development of a voluntary affirmative action program, the seed had been planted that affirmative action programs constituted preferential treatment for certain groups of individuals because of their race.
Today we find history repeating itself. The U.S. Supreme Court is interpreting civil rights cases on the basis of terms such as "strict scrutiny" and "narrowly tailored remedies." The general public does not understand what really constitutes affirmative action. There is an assumption that affirmative action should be eliminated because the "playing field is now level;" because it has been ineffective for all except the middle class "protected class" members who did not need affirmative action programs anyway; and because goals and set-asides are un-American, supposedly not based on merit. There is a belief that affirmative action is reverse discrimination because it creates a stigma against minorities as being less than qualified. These myths and others have been perpetuated by a segment of the media which is woefully uninformed.
Economic conditions influenced the attitudes about affirmative action in the 1980s, and those conditions are affecting affirmative action now. Companies and corporations are downsizing and moving to foreign countries where labor is cheaper in order to increase their profitability. Affirmative action is not the culprit; the desire for greater profit is. However, the significant and positive accomplishments of well-designed affirmative action programs on the lives of women and other "protected class" members deserve our primary attention. Abolishing an effective concept because of the protestations of angry white males would diminish the opportunities of an ever growing and increasingly competent population of women and people of color.
Affirmative action continues to be necessary. A 1989 Money magazine article titled "Race and Money" indicated that blacks earn 10 percent to 26 percent less than whites with similar educational backgrounds. The distribution of wealth is lopsided in part because middle-class blacks are less than one-third as likely as whites to have equity in businesses. Hiring audits by the Urban Institute and certain television programs indicate that in one-fifth of the cases, white applicants were able to progress further in the employment process than equally qualified blacks. In 1991, Holiday Spas health club chain settled a $9 million lawsuit for systematically discriminating against black applicants in Washington, D.C., New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Atlanta. In 1992-93, Denny's Restaurant settled claims of discrimination for refusing to serve black customers. Finally, Chevy Chase Bank agreed to an $11 million settlement when the U.S. Justice Department found it guilty of race discrimination in its mortgage lending practices for redlining minority neighborhoods in Maryland. Affirmative action is a concept that has, and will, enable this country to refute Thomas Jefferson's belief in the 18th century that a harmonious society was inconceivable. Mr. Jefferson said: "Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites and 10,000 recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained would lead to the extermination of one or the other race."
If we have learned anything in this country since Mr. Jefferson's statement, we should be able to avoid having his prediction come true. Rather than focusing on the native position presented by Mr. Jefferson, I prefer that we capitalize on the diversity that will be prevalent in our workforce by the year 2000. We must utilize the skills and talents of women, people of color, immigrants and people with disabilities if we want to compete successfully in the global marketplace. Implementing a well conceived affirmative action program is a proven method of systematically capitalizing on our most important human resource, diversity. Affirmative action has been the concept that has been adopted to make diversity true in fact. The results have been positive, but much more work remains to be done. Women, people of color and people with disabilities continue to be underrepresented on decision-making boards, in higher-level administrative and faculty positions in colleges and universities, and as doctors and lawyers. Minorities and women continue to earn less than white males with the same level of education. Until these differences cannot be attributed to race or gender, affirmative action will be necessary. Equal opportunity is an egalitarian goal that can be accomplished through a well conceived and well implemented affirmative action program with goals and timetables.
Robert Ethridge is associate vice president for Equal Opportunity Programs.