Discrimination | Introduction
On November 5, 1996, California voters agreed to adopt the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI), a ballot measure designed to end affirmative action programs in government hiring, contracting, and public education. Noting the widespread support that the initiative received both in California and throughout the United States, many policymakers view the CCRI as an example that other states—and perhaps the federal government—may eventually follow. Supporters of the CCRI would likely agree with California high school senior Scott Hunter’s comments on the initiative’s victory: “I’m all for it. I think it’s going back to the civil rights initiative of ’64, which disallowed discrimination.”
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited job discrimination based on age, race, religion, gender, or national origin, provided the groundwork for affirmative action policies. As early as 1965, these policies were implemented to correct the effects of discrimination on women and minorities by requiring employers to take “affirmative” measures to achieve gender and ethnic diversity in the workplace. Such measures typically include aggressive recruitment techniques and outreach programs designed to enlarge the pool of qualified female and minority job applicants.According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, affirmative action “is considered essential to assuring that jobs are genuinely and equally accessible to qualified persons, without regard to their sex, racial, or ethnic characteristics.”
Many critics of affirmative action policies, however, argue that such measures are no longer necessary because blatant racial discrimination and intolerance have been adequately brought under control. Glynn Custred, one of the authors of the CCRI, contends that “the feelings about race now in the 1990s are really quite different than they were in the 1950s. In fact, we don’t give ourselves enough credit for this, but it’s a massive job of [antidiscriminatory] education we’ve done over these past thirty years. The situation today of acceptance is different than it was then, and therefore you need different methods to assure everyone’s treated equally.”
Different methods are especially needed, CCRI supporters maintain, because affirmative action policies have created a system of racial and gender preferences in hiring and in education. Affirmative action critics argue that these preferences favor women and minorities simply because of group affiliation and are, in effect, a form of government-sanctioned discrimination. Such discrimination, they contend, gives privileges to some groups while placing others at a disadvantage, thereby violating the foundations of equality guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.
Furthermore, some CCRI advocates argue that affirmative action calls attention to racial and ethnic differences and thereby creates divisiveness among groups. This divisiveness leads to increased racial tensions and interethnic conflict, they maintain. In a 1995 USA Today article, for example, California assemblyman Bernie Richter claims that affirmative action in its present form “creates racial hate, animosity and frustration in ways the Ku Klux Klan couldn’t even invent.” In addition, California governor Pete Wilson contends that affirmative action damages the ideal of American unity: “Rather than uniting people around our common core, this system of preferential treatment constantly reminds us of our superficial differences. Instead of treating every American as an individual, it pits group against group, race against race. Instead of moving us toward a color-blind society, it is holding us back.” CCRI supporters conclude, therefore, that dismantling affirmative action is the best approach currently available for ending discrimination.
Critics of the CCRI, on the other hand, support affirmative action because they believe it is still the best way to create equal opportunity in employment and education for women and people of color. Although many of these critics agree with CCRI supporters that incidents of blatant discrimination have decreased since the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, they contend that racism and sexism continue to limit opportunities for women and minorities. A February 1995 San Francisco Chronicle editorial points out that “one look at the nation’s corporate and public boardrooms, which are overwhelmingly dominated by white males, should tell Americans that the country is still far from having achieved equal opportunity for all. . . .Women and people of color have not yet reached parity in government, education and myriads of other professions, especially in positions of authority.” Such evidence, CCRI opponents maintain, proves that discrimination still exists in society’s institutions and that affirmative action efforts should not be abandoned.
In response to CCRI advocates’ argument that affirmative action policies benefit women and people of color simply because of their minority status, CCRI critics contend that white men have enjoyed privileged status because of their group affiliation for much of America’s history.Women and people of color, however, have been and continue to be systematically denied a “fair shot” at many employment and educational opportunities merely because of their group affiliation, these critics argue. Ignoring or discounting minority group affinity, they assert, does not further the cause of equal opportunity. In the opinion of San Francisco State University professor Rita Takahashi, “Judgments based on skin color, ethnicity, culture, and gender are real. Recognizing this fact, dealing with it, and rectifying injustices are what is needed to move this country forward.We need to take off the blinders, suspend denials, and stop pretending that group affinity does not count.”
Many CCRI opponents also take issue with the claim that affirmative action in itself creates interethnic divisiveness and conflict. Instead, they argue, racial tensions often stem from ignorance about America’s diverse, pluralistic nature. These critics maintain that when people lack knowledge about cultures, values, or belief systems other than their own, they tend to fear measures that will bring them into contact with individuals from other racial or ethnic groups. However, affirmative action supporters contend, such measures actually encourage the diversification of society by increasing the amount of interethnic contact in workplaces and educational environments. They claim that the intentional inclusion of diverse groups in society’s institutions eventually decreases racial tensions and discourages discriminatory attitudes. Takahashi, for example, asserts that “through affirmative action, there is an effort . . . to bring people together, rather than to keep them apart.” In the final analysis, CCRI opponents conclude, retaining affirmative action policies is the best solution to the problem of discrimination.
As the CCRI and other proposals to eliminate affirmative action policies gain support, policymakers, educators, workers, political activists, and others increasingly debate the causes of and possible solutions to discrimination. Discrimination: Opposing Viewpoints spotlights this ongoing controversy in the following chapters: Is Discrimination a Serious Problem? What Causes Discrimination? Are Claims of Reverse Discrimination Valid? How Can Society Put an End to Discrimination?
