It is not that he initiated the debate or is the only antagonist (Pete Wilson and Bob Dole being two others). But as challenges arose to government-mandated preferences, Clinton failed to mobilize the power of the presidency to subject them to a genuinely critical examination. As a result, affirmative action now involves political theater more than social policy. The shouting and hating have more to do with affirmative action’s symbolism- reverse discrimination to its critics, racial and gender justice to its friends-than its actual effects. These are much smaller than either side admits.
The confusion over affirmative action arises because it has two meanings. The first is a conscious, though largely voluntary, effort to improve opportunity for blacks, women and ethnic minorities. This approach employs “outreach” programs and concedes that racial, gender or ethnic considerations are sometimes unavoidable in job decisions or college admissions–and can be legitimate, if candidates are qualified. No major newspaper now wants only white men as reporters or editors; no sensible company wants to exclude blacks, women or Hispanics.
Call this Version A of affirmative action. It is fairly popular because it embodies most Americans’ belief in an open society. When surveys depict affirmative action in general terms, it usually commands majority support. In a CNN/USA Today poll, 54 percent of respondents said “affirmative action has been good for the country.” And the Supreme Court has blessed Version A. It allows employers an “area of discretion” to reduce dramatic job imbalances, if candidates are qualified. In one case, a woman with a slightly lower test score than a man got a job because all of the employer’s 238 skilled craft jobs were held by men.
But now comes affirmative action’s Version B: explicit preferences that are mandated-directly or indirectly–by government. It is wildly unpopular because it offends most Americans’ belief that individual effort and reward should be connected. Once polls identity, affirmative action with mandatory preferences, support collapses. In an ABC/Washington Post poll, three quarters of the respondents opposed preferences.
Which version does Clinton support? Why, both, of course. He favors preferences while opposing their objectionable features. They are all right “if there are no quotas, if we give no opportunities to unqualified people, if we have no reverse discrimination.” Exactly how is a mandatory preference not reverse discrimination? How is a set-aside not a quota? This is true Clinton-speak. Good intentions abound; hard choices don’t. Everyone should be reasonable; people who differ are extremists.
In all this, Clinton avoided the three central facts about Version B of affirmative action. These are:
In 1987, the federal government abandoned “goals and timetables” for its own agencies’ hiring and promotions; it has also de-emphasized their use in the affirmative-action programs of contractors, which include most major firms. In June, the Supreme Court’s Adarand decision held that government preferences are illegal unless they meet a “strict standard” of need. Many preferences won’t survive, argues Yale law professor Paul Gewirtz in The Wall Street Journal. More recently, California abolished preferences for its university system.
True, job opportunities have expanded for women, blacks and minorities. But the prohibition against discrimination (and the shift in behavior it caused) may explain most change. In the 1970s, federal contractors (covered by affirmative-action programs) had only a slightly better record than noncontractors in increasing jobs for black men. For women, differences were even smaller. Set-asides have helped some black-owned businesses. Still, black-owned firms represented only 1 percent of all business sales in 1987 (the latest data).
People may not feel spontaneous rage, but if goaded, they will. In one survey, whites say (by a 52-to-44 percent margin) that affirmative action is no longer needed; blacks say (by 82 to 16 percent) the opposite. “The Scar of Race,” a study of opinion on race, found that many whites see affirmative action as so unfair that “they have come to dislike blacks.” A policy intended to narrow racial division is “further widening it,” the authors say.
It is true, as Clinton says, that reverse discrimination is exaggerated; but that is because the benefits of preferences are also exaggerated. The case for ending affirmative action (Version B) is that, whatever its past benefits, its main effect now is to sow conflict–and it is being abolished anyway. That is the responsible position, but not Clinton’s.
Enforced preferences–legalized discrimination–can be justified only to compensate for present or past discrimination. So Clinton claims that the “evidence suggests, indeed screams” the existence of bigotry. Of course, prejudice endures, but it is no longer the main obstacle to progress among minorities. In education, the problem is not that blacks don’t get into college; it is that many don’t stay. In 1990, they accounted for about 10 percent of students in higher education but only 8 percent of the associate’s degrees and 6 percent of the bachelor’s degrees.
As a conciliator, Clinton is an impostor. He might have depoliticized affirmative action by declaring that government preferences had outlived their usefulness. This would have preserved most voluntary programs and government’s power to attack discrimination. Instead, he engages a debate along largely artificial, though incendiary, lines. He figures he can paint his adversaries as small-minded and hateful. Perhaps the political gambit will succeed. But it is no act of moral leadership.
