by Benjmain T. Moore, Jr.

President Kennedy

The Question of “Affirmative Action” has been a contentious matter since it was first introduced in 1961 by then President Kennedy. The words “affirmative action” were first mentioned in Executive Order 10925. It was proposed as a method to redress the discrimination that persisted in spite of”Civil Rights Laws” and constitutional guarantees.

It is one thing to put laws in place. It is quite another thing to put in place mechanisms that make certain those laws are enforced. Unlike some of our more recent Presidents who are known for their unfunded mandates, President Kennedy took the next step. Criteria were established and enforcement mechanisms were put in place to ensure compliance with “Civil Rights” laws.

President Lyndon Johnson (LBJ)

President Lyndon Johnson continued President Kennedy’s legacy giving a speech defining “Affirmative Action” in March of 1965. In September of that same year, he signed Executive Order 11246 which enforced “Affirmative Action” for the first time. It required government contractors to hire minorities and treat them with the same considerations they gave their white employees. Equal pay for equal work, equal benefits and equal opportunities for promotions and advancements.

Has affirmative action helped Black people?

Shirt seen at a Mitt Romney rally. Racism is alive, well and out in the open.

Let us examine this critically. First, make no mistake the institutionalized racism upon which this nation was founded is as alive and well today as it was back then. In spite of what we’d like to believe, the election of our first African-American President has revealed the cancer which has been festering just beneath the surface of society. When grown men, whom we’ve entrusted with the responsibility of governing, are willing to commit the treasonous act of destroying our economy rather than work with a Black President for the betterment of all, imagine what things were like back in the early 60’s when racism didn’t have to slink in the shadows.

Those who opposed affirmative action were not without guile. The first thing they did was successfully connect it to the “woman’s suffrage” movement. The plan was ingenious. By having women classified as minorities, and folded up under the affirmative action umbrella, they effectively broadened the scope of the program to such and extent, loopholes and the opportunity for mischief were the inevitable results.

Since the number of females is roughly equal to that of males, by definition, being a female does not and should not qualify one for minority status. While any fair minded person would agree that women certainly have their own issues which need and deserve redress, the purpose and intent of the affirmative action program was to redress historic injustices against Black people.

Gaming the system

Unemployment rate for Blacks versus Whites

Employers were quick to realize if they hired a Black female, they got a two for one deal. They could double count her as two minorities. They could also pad their minority numbers by hiring white women. Thus, they effectively diluted the intent and effectiveness of the program. Black males who were the nominal “bread winners” in the Black family did not see the increase in jobs intended by the program. In addition, this role reversal created a destructive pressure on the Black family. Mothers are critical to family cohesion. When they began leaving the home to enter the workforce in greater numbers Black families began to destabilize. Children with mothers at home, do better in school, are less likely to get into trouble, do better and are more apt to become productive, contributing citizens.

Prospective employees at a jobs fair

Yet another technique was “malicious obedience.” This technique was designed to generate anti-affirmative action sentiment from the white workforce. This was the hiring of any warmed bodied Black person regardless of skill and qualifications. This of course meant that a skilled Black person did not get the job and white people developed resentment because it was clear that their unskilled co-worker was there merely because of his skin color. Employers were not at all bashful about pointing out, that they were being forced to hire Black employees because they had to meet their quotas.

I am not saying that these practices were the norm for every employer. There were many who appreciated the concept of “affirmative action,” and did all they could  to carry out the provisions of the law to the best of their abilities. It only takes a few bad apples to spoil the bunch and there were considerably more than a few racist employers who did all they could to undermine and game the affirmative action program.

This classic misdirection was also used in our institutions of higher learning. In 1954 “Brown v. Board of Education” was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. Prior to this case, the prevailing theory that you could have a duel track – now a track for each minority group – system wherein Black people could attend an all Black school and receive an equal education to their white counterparts, was a carry over from “Reconstruction” following the Civil War. Black people were no longer Slaves, but they were not welcomed into, and were denied access to the institutions and facilities used by white people.

A young Thurgood Marshall

The case argued by the NAACP’s lead attorney and future Supreme Court Chief Justice Thurgood Marshall, proved that for a variety of reasons, separate was not equal. Schools are funded by tax resources which are directed – just as they are today – based on political interests. Just as suburban schools receive the lion’s share of tax money, the all white schools receive more funding than Black schools. This disparity in resources means that two children, one white and one Black who applied themselves fully under this so called “separate but equal” system would come out with unequal educations.

From my own experiences, I attended an inner-city school up until the 4th grade. Leschi Elementary was experimenting with what was then the cutting edge approach of allowing students to progress at their own skill level. In 4th grade I was in a 6th grade reading class – the highest they offered – and I was taking what they called “5th grade Algebra.” I thought I was doing well. My grades were good and I was presumably advanced for my grade and age.

That year my parents bought a house in the suburbs. I was enrolled in an “all white school” – except for me – and I discovered very quickly there is a difference. Although I may have been advanced for an inner-city school, I was way behind the other white kids who were not experimenting with learning at their own pace. They were simply moving along as the curriculum required. It took me several months to get back up to speed.

Here’s the upshot. Had I continued on with the inner-city schools, I may have easily made the Honor Roll and graduated from high school with honors. The rude awakening wouldn’t have come until I sat down for my college entrance exams. Those exams weren’t geared toward inner-city applicants. They were designed to level the field across all schools regardless of privilege. My SAT scores would have been too low to merit consideration for most colleges.

This problem would not have been because I had not applied myself. Nor would it have been because I had not earned good grades. It would have been the result – ultimately – of some politician deciding to funnel money to the schools in the affluent white suburbs and not the largely minority inner-city. To then pretend that SAT scores are applicable across the board is an exercise in sophistry.

Colleges know this. There is a direct correlation to the amount of money spent and the quality of education received. If this were not the case, “Ivy League” schools like Harvard, Princeton and Yale wouldn’t be able to command the high tuitions they require. Students are willing to go into debt because they understand, you get what you pay for. Inner-city schools are no different. You don’t get what you don’t pay for.

The end result of this insidious perfidy – if allowed to go unchecked – would be the creation of a permanent underclass not unlike a stratified society based on a Caste system. India is thousands of years older than we are. They are an ancient people with records – Vedas – going back so far into history, they are considered by some scientist to be anachronistic works of fiction. Why aren’t they the World’s “Super Power?” I submit it has everything to do with the stratification of their society and their creation of permanent under classes. When you limit the potential of a segment of your population you’re cutting yourself off from the most important resource we have, the human mind.

Affirmative action for white people

The fact of the matter is, white people benefit from affirmative action all the time. They don’t call it that. They do not perceive it as affirmative action, yet that is exactly what it is. You’ve seen glaring examples of it lately. Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Todd Akin to name but a few. All supposedly have college degrees. Two have been – one is – governors of are largest States – based on land mass – one is a sitting congresswoman and the other is running for the U.S. Senate. Need I say more? How did any of them even get into college let alone receive a degree?

By the time I entered high school – Todd Akin – I had a working understand of human reproduction. By the time I entered high school – Sarah Palin – I was very familiar with a “World Map and Globe.” By the time I entered high school I had a reasonable grasp of American history. I could recite the standard reasons for WWI and WWII I knew that the Russians had been our allies in WWII. I had a working definition of the differences between Communism, Socialism and Capitalism. I had studied the McCarthy era and black listing – the “Red Scare” – and had a reasonable understanding of the dangers of labelling people and why certain individuals and companies did so for their own gain. Yet, these people seem to be totally ignorant of the basic facts any high school student who’s paid attention in class should know.

Notice any minorities in this graduating class?

One of the programs used to provide affirmative action for white people with regards to education is the “Legacy Program.” If either of your parents or grandparents attended a University, you are given special consideration for admission to that University. In fact you will get more points for your legacy status than any consideration you might receive under affirmative action based on your race. Does anyone truly believe that George W. Bush truly got into Yale, graduated and then got into Harvard and received a legitimate MBA? I sincerely doubt he could graduate from the high school I attended. Yet because his father and grandfather attended Yale, he had no problem getting in. He took a seat that other, better qualified white people and minorities did not get. 

The reverse discrimination argument

The theory behind this attack on affirmative action is that preferential treatment on the basis of race – 400+ years of discrimination to the contrary – is now a violation of various equal protection clauses in the law. It is actually rather clever however, it fails to take into account that affirmative action was put in place to address the already existing disparity in opportunity, education and hiring practices. I’ve already demonstrated that with the dilution of affirmative action provisions through the rolling up of women and other minorities under it’s umbrella, affirmative action has not truly been applied in the manner it was intended. Has affirmative action helped Black people? Not as it was originally intended to do.

The basis of these reverse discrimination law suits ironically by their very nature admit to an original existing discrimination. Hence the “reverse” clause. They are predicated on a sense of white entitlement and white privilege. Black people are only 12% of the total population. Just 12%. If you said that colleges had to set aside 12% of available slots for Black people that’s 88% of available slots for everybody else. Thus, white people already have their 88% and they’re now drooling with anticipation at getting our meager 12%. This would be bad enough if we actually had 12% set asides, which we do not.

I want to introduce you to Tim Wise. He is an activist and advocate for racial equality and he puts things in a manner that other white people can understand. The following is a 9:31min excerpt from one of his lectures. I believe you’ll find it enjoyable and enlightening.

Tim Wise on White Privilege

Defining affirmative action

A tale of two cubicles

Imagine two employees or two students. One has everything they need. They have a nice work cubicle with a powerful computer connected to the Internet via a high speed network. The other has only pencil and paper. If you give them similar assignments, whom would you expect to perform? You decide to “level the playing field” as it were by giving the employee with only the pencil and paper, a computer as well. However, you give him or her an old IBM-XT computer connected to the Internet over a 300 baud modem. Do you feel better? You did do something, but did you actually level the playing field? Of course not. Yet, in essence you gave out some affirmative action.

The game of life?

To use another analogy, consider a Monopoly Game. One that’s being played with real money, real property/land and what happens in the game happens to you in real life. Further imagine that this game has been going on for the past 1,000 or so years. There are hotels on Board Walk and Park Place. In fact there are hotels on all the properties. Whenever someone leaves the game – through death – one of their heirs takes their chair and the game continues.

The passage of the “Civil Rights” laws now means you get to play. We’ll give you your $200 dollar salary and let you roll the dice. Do you want to play? Would you play under these conditions? I’ve been involved in Monopoly games where I prayed to go directly to jail. At least I could sit out my 3 turns without worrying about having to pay anything.

Let’s sweeten the deal a bit for you. We’ll give you some”affirmative action.” We’ll give you Baltic Ave. No hotels. No houses. You’d need Mediterranean to put those up and we’re not sure we want to give you that much “affirmative action.” Besides, some of the other players are grumbling because we gave you Baltic Ave. How about now? Would you play with real money now?

This is what “affirmative action” is. It is an inducement to get you to play a game you can never truly win. Your objective is to merely survive. Has “affirmative action” benefited Black people? Truthfully? The Jury is still out.