|
|
|
|
|
Opinion page essay
PROP 200: THE ISSUE IS RE-SEGREGATION by James Gregory Let us be clear. Proposition 200 is about re-segregation. That may not be what most of its proponents think or intend, but hidden behind the attractive rhetoric of fairness and equal rights are a set of outcomes that are anything but fair and wholesome. The simple fact is that Proposition 200 will undo procedures that have brought some improvements in the distribution of job and educational opportunities, and without those procedures there is evidence before us that opportunities will once again constrict. The effects of affirmative action have been modest. Indeed if the public realized just how modest, much of the hysteria would surely melt away. The fact is that there have been no wholesale redistributions of jobs or school admissions to women or minorities. There have been some high profile court-ordered interventions into selected job categories like the construction trades, police and fire departments that had been rigidly segregated. There have been a few law school and medical schools where admissions procedures have invited charges of reverse discrimination. And the systems for distributing a small portion of government contracts to minority-owned firms have in some instances been unwise. But these are the rare points of genuine controversy within a framework of affirmative action that overall has worked gently to open up opportunities. The University of Washington is the case I know best. For almost thirty years, UW has followed federal and state guidelines that mandate affirmative action. Surely with all of the idealism and experimentalism that we associate with the University, this would be a good place to scout out the excesses of affirmative action. What excesses? Take a look at the student body. Take a look at the faculty. Three decades of affirmative action have registered only modest changes in the composition of either. This fall the University of Washington enrolled 25,228 undergraduates of whom a little more than 3 percent are African Americans, close to 4 percent are of Hispanic backgrounds, and less than 2 percent are American Indians. Roughly half of these students benefitted from affirmative action procedures. Now look again at the tiny numbers. Do we really want to reduce them? Is anyone really being harmed by procedures that squeeze open a few extra opportunities for members of these three groups? The latest figures on faculty employment are a year old. In October 1996 the University employed 2,705 faculty members in what are called ladder positions (tenure eligible, full time faculty). Let us see what decades of affirmative action have done in that area. In undergraduate admissions women and Asian Americans are not underrepresented and thus receive no special attention, but these categories are relevant at faculty level in some University units according to federal guidelines. But again we see that the impact of affirmative action efforts have been very modest. African-Americans hold only 1.6 percent of faculty position, Hispanics 1.4 percent, American Indians 0.2 percent, Asian Americans 5.4 percent. After all these years, the faculty is still more than 90 percent white and almost 70 percent white male! So where is the great injustice that Proposition 200 purports to remedy? When we actually look at the distribution of opportunities in this state it is clear that affirmative action does almost nothing to inconvenience whites. Incidents of "reverse discrimination" are very rare. In almost any institution where the procedures apply, affirmative action has been used sparingly, indeed, looking at the numbers, one could easily argue too sparingly. If proponents of Proposition 200 actually believed in the principles of equal opportunity that they claim to cherish, they would commit themselves to addressing the problems of discrimination that still operate in too many workplaces. Affirmative action (which only applies to government institutions and large corporations) barely begins to make up for the disadvantages that minorities continue to experience in parts of the private sector. Anyone who has observed the hiring practices in retail establishments and smaller firms and businesses knows that ethnic stereotypes continue to limit job opportunities. Notions that some ethnic groups have strong or weak work ethics, or that people of one race are more cooperative than people of another routinely enter into hiring decisions, unfairly privileging or harming job candidates before they get a chance to prove their individual worth. Equally insidious are the networks of kinship and friendship that ease people with the right connections into jobs. Guess which ethnic groups do not have the right connections? Until these habits of discrimination end there is a need for the kinds of modest corrections that affirmative action provides. Proposition 200 would be a tragic mistake. There is nothing mysterious about the impact it will have on the University of Washington or for that matter the state of Washington. Critical opportunities will be lost, the already minuscule populations of African Americans, Latinos, and American Indians who have access to the colleges and office buildings of our state will be reduced. Intended or not, Proposition 200 will interrupt the slow progress towards equal opportunity and put us on the road to re-segregation.
James N. Gregory is an Associate Professor of History at the University of Washington and on the Executive Board of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP-UW).
UW STUDENT POPULATION FALL 1997
Undergraduates 25,228
African American 855 3.4% Hispanic 959 3.8% Asian American 5,530 21.9% American Indian 403 1.6% White 15,261 60.5% Foreign students 540 2.1% decline to state 1,680 6.7%
Graduate students 7,661
African American 175 2.3% Hispanic 206 2.7% Asian American 598 7.8% American Indian 85 1.1% White 5,090 66.4% Foreign students 1,166 15.2% decline to state 341 4.4%
Source: University of Washington Office of the Registrar
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FACULTY 1996
LADDER FACULTY 2,705
African American 44 1.6% Hispanic 41 1.5% Asian American 157 5.8% American Indian 8 0.2%
White female 584 21.6% White male 1,873 69.2% Source: University of Washington Employment Opportunity Office African Americans (3.4%) African Americans (1.6%) Asian Americans(5.8%) Latinos (1.5%)
American Indians (0.2%)
Whites (90.9%)
African Americans Asian Americans Latinos American Indians Whites African Americans Asian Americans
|
American
Association of