Your Turn

Affirmative action:
Those who are for and
against are missing the big picture

By ABDUL-HAKIM SHABAZZ

There's a great debate going on in this country about affirmative action and whether it's time to put an end to it.

Republican presidential candidate Pete Wilson, for instance, has made it a pet issue. The California governor has managed to overturn the university system's affirmative action programs in his state, though he was instrumental in creating them. He's also supporting a citizen ballot initiative in that state to eliminate affirmative action for all public employees. Pete Wilson is running for president, so I expect a little demagoguery from him. But then I noticed posturing on the issue wasn't limited to presidential candidates.

Here in Illinois, state Sen. Walter Dudycz has introduced legislation to end affirmative action programs in state hiring. But the idea appeared about as attractive to his GOP colleagues as Roseanne Barr in spandex. They feared the issue would throw a monkey wrench into their agenda. So Dudycz contented himself with public hearings.

In fact, it's worth noting that affirmative action isn't some liberal concept; it actually got started under Republican President Richard Nixon in the early 1970s. And Republican Gov. Jim Edgar has approached the subject cautiously, saying he wants to protect the gains that have been made, while weeding out some of the abuses.

So, is it time to get rid of affirmative action? I've always believed that affirmative action is a lot like the speed limit; if people would behave, we wouldn't need it.

Like anything that's been around for 20-odd years, a review is in order. Yet, those who have dug in on both sides of the question seem distracted by peripheral issues. They're missing the big picture.

Those who oppose affirmative action seem stuck on the hot-button topics of reverse discrimination and quotas. Their main argument against affirmative action is that some unqualified person could take their job. That argument appeals to people who want to believe that those who didn't deserve it got — or might get — their jobs, simply because they're a minority. The angry white guys say: "That job was mine, but they gave it to that _." You fill in the blank. My question is, when that complainer came in for the interview, did he see his name written on anything that said that job was his in the first place?

Yet, this myth that minorities are taking away jobs that should have gone to white males is totally unfounded. If that were true, then white males would hold fewer positions of authority.

And while we're on the subject, if the argument is that people who get jobs through affirmative action shouldn't have them because they're not qualified, then that same litmus test should also be applied to other areas, including veterans' preferences, special status granted to the kids of parents who are alumni at universities, even the good-old-boy network.

How many instances can you cite where you or someone you know was fully qualified for a job and didn't get it because of nepotism or political patronage. (And, if you live in Springfield, you could probably spend the next 20 years citing examples.)

But proponents of affirmative action are also missing the point. What very few will acknowledge is that affirmative action, indirectly, has led to the creation of the black underclass. Both my father and I have benefited from affirmative action programs; he in the military, and I in college. However, we both were more than qualified to do what we did in our respective areas and probably would have turned out OK anyway.

So, what's the problem, you might ask? Well, the problem is that for upper-and middle-class blacks, as well as aggressive poor blacks, affirmative action provides an avenue to higher social status, which is not bad because that's the American ideal. However, what happens is that people who are already in the mainstream are getting extra help; meanwhile, affirmative action will do nothing to help my poor cousins who live in the Chicago housing projects.

Capable and assertive blacks become more capable and assertive, so the end result is a growing divide between upper-and middle-class blacks and poor blacks. That gap appears to be growing faster than the gap between poor whites and upper- and middle-class whites. And let's face it: Should I — a middle-class black — be given special preference over a poor white guy from the backwoods of the Ozarks?

It's only morally right to oppose anything that denies people opportunity. After all, we're all created equal.

However, caution must be used as we try to redefine affirmative action for the 1990s. The public should beware of politicians who act like wolves in sheep's clothing, using affirmative action as a wedge issue to divide people. Like my dad always told me, in politics the uneducated voter is the best kind of customer.

Ahdul-Hakim Shahazz is a recent graduate of the Public Affairs Reporting program at the University of Illinois at Springfield. He is a Statehouse reporter for WMAY-AM/WNNS-FM/WQLZ-FM.

38/ October 1995/ Illinois Issues