Affirmative action plays a big part in this argument. While I cannot think of a government program off the top of my head that practices reverse racial discrimination in hiring, lending, or what-have-you, I would like to offer these observations from my most recent American Government textbook (United States Government: Democracy in Action. Glenco/McGraw Hill publishers, 1998.)
In the early 1960s, the federal government began to require employers, labor unions, and universities to adopt affirmative action programs. Affirmative action means that employers and other institutions must take positive steps to remedy the effects of past discrimination against minorities and women.
The Supreme Court first ruled on affirmative action in Regents of the University of California V. Bakke, (1978). Allan Bakke claimed to have been refused admission to the Univsity of California medical school because he was white. The medical school had set up a quota system that reserved 16 places out of 100 each year for minorities. Minority students with lower test scores than Bakke were admitted to fill the quota. Bakke sued, claiming he was a victim of reverse discrimination.
Upholding the basic idea of affirmative action by a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that the university could consider race along with other characteristics when admitting students. The Court, however, went on to explain that a strict quota system based on race was unconstitutional and in violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Court ordered the university to admit Bakke to its medical school.
The Supreme Court has since considered many other affirmative action cases to decide whether it is proper to deny members of the majority fair treatment in order to make up for the unequal treatment of minorities in the past. Its record leaves the issue clouded because the Court has struck down as many affirmative action plans as it has upheld.
In 1987 the Supreme Court favored affirmative action in a dispute involving equal protection for women. In the case of Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, Calif. (1987), the Court upheld a voluntary affirmative action plan the transportation department had adopted. The plan's goal was to move women into high-ranking positions. In this case Diane Joyce and Paul Johnson had been competing for the job of road dispatcher. Johnson scored two points higher on the qualifying interview. Because of the county's affirmative action plan, however, Diane Joyce got the promotion. Johnson went to court claiming the plan violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
By a vote of 5 to 3, the Court ruled against Johnson. The Court held that so long as it was carefully used, affirmative action was an appropriate remedy for past discrimination.
Could affirmative action be used in a case that did not involve a remedy for past discrimination? In 1990 the Court answered yes by upholding a Federal Communications Commission policy of favoring women and minorities when it awards radio and television broadcast licenses. The Court agreed with the intent of the policy--to increase the number of broadcast stations owned by women and minorities.
The Court appears to be sending mixed messages about affirmative action. One, it can be used to reverse the effects of past discrimination. Two, it cannot be used in a strict quota system based on race. Three, it can be used in cases that do not involve a remedy for past discrimination. With the government talking out of both sides of its mouth, it's no wonder that the people on both sides of this argument, cannot seem to see the other side's point of view.
Regards, Shuckins
