Affirmative Action, Color Blindness and Tyranny

Last month, the Supreme Court decided a major civil rights case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. Throughout the opinion, the justices stated that the case was not about merits of affirmative action. According to justices, the case was simply about the political process doctrine. However, in fact, that case was all about the future of affirmative action. The case served as a proxy battlefield in the fight over affirmative action.

For now, the conservative justices prevailed.  The majority essentially gave states the blueprint to effectively dismantle affirmative action. As this Nation approached the 60th anniversary of Brown v. The Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court basically said that the white majority can change the rules of the game in the middle of the game and make it more difficult for African Americans to enact and/or pursue policies, like affirmative action, that benefit us.

In Michigan, others may simply lobby university board members if they seek to changes university admission policies regarding legacies, geography and athleticism. On the other hand, African Americans and other minorities seeking to create race sensitive admission policies must obtain the vote of two thirds of both Houses of the Michigan legislature. Alternatively, we must 10 percent of the voters sign a petition in order to get the matter on a ballot. After getting the matter on the ballot, the majority of the voters must vote to lift the ban on affirmative action. In light of the current political climate in Michigan, such obstacles are virtually insurmountable. Unfortunately, as a result of Court's decision, the tyranny of the white majority will prevail over the minority.

In the name of promoting a so-called color blind society, the Supreme Court is gradually reversing the gains of the civil rights movement. As Justice Sotomayor points out in her powerful dissenting opinion, race neutral alternatives are not an effective substitute for affirmative action. After Michigan amended its constitution to ban affirmative action, there has been a 25% decline in black admissions to the University of Michigan.

Sadly, this is just the beginning. It may be an omen of the end of affirmative action nationwide. The doors of opportunity will slam in the faces of our youth and their precious dreams will be snuffed out like the flame on the tip of a cigarette.

Uncle Thomas is Still A Lawn Jockey for the Extreme Right

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision for the case of Fisher v. the University of Texas at Austin. Thankfully, the Supreme Court did not end affirmative action. The Court held that the lower court did not apply the proper legal standard, strict scrutiny to evaluate the University's affirmative action plan under the Equal Protection Clause. Accordingly, the Court remanded the case back to the lower court and ordered that the court apply the strict scrutiny standard. More specifically, the Court held that:

Rather than perform this searching examination, the Fifth Circuit held petitioner could challenge only whether the University’s decision. to use race as an admissions factor “was made in good faith.” It presumed that the school had acted in good faith and gave petitioner the burden of rebutting that presumption. It thus undertook the narrow tailoring requirement with a “degree of deference” to the school. These expressions of the controlling standard are at odds with Grutter’s command that “all racial classifications imposed by government ‘must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny.’ ” 539 U. S., at 326. Strict scrutiny does not permit a court to accept a school’s assertion that its admissions process uses race in a permissible way without closely examining how the process works in practice,yet that is what the District Court and Fifth Circuit did here. The Court vacates the Fifth Circuit’s judgment. But fairness to the litigants and the courts that heard the case requires that it be remanded so that the admissions process can be considered and judged under a correct analysis. In determining whether summary judgment in the University’s favor was appropriate, the Fifth Circuit must assess whether the University has offered sufficient evidence to prove that its admissions program is narrowly tailored to obtain the educational benefits of diversity.

Thank God that the Supreme Court did not decide to end affirmative action. At least for a second, we can breathe a sigh of relief. Now, it the time for the civil rights community to mobilize and develop a sophisticated messaging and advocacy strategy. This case or/and another parallel case will back before the Supreme Court for consideration. So, we must start organizing now.

While I am relieved by the Supreme Court's ruling, I am disturbed, but not surprised, by Justice Thomas' concurring opinion. His concurring opinion in Fisher is just another example proving that he is still a lawn jockey for the extreme right. If Uncle Thomas had his way, he would "overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 306 (2003), and hold that a State’s use of race in higher education admissions decisions is categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause." That house negro went on to say that "there is nothing 'pressing' or 'necessary' about obtaining whatever educational benefits may flow from racial diversity." He further stated that "the pursuit of diversity as an end is nothing more than impermissible “racial balancing.”

Then, he proceeded to make an absurd comparison. He compared diversity advocates to segregationists. More specifically, he states that:

It is also noteworthy that, in our desegregation cases, we rejected arguments that are virtually identical to those advanced by the University today. The University asserts, for instance, that the diversity obtained through its discriminatory admissions program prepares its students to become leaders in a diverse society. See, e.g., Brief for Respondents 6 (arguing that student body diversity “prepares students to become the next generation of leaders in an increasingly diverse society”). The segregationists likewise defended segregation on the ground that it provided more leadership opportunities for blacks.

After the idiotic comparison of affirmative action to segregation, it gets worst. Justice Thomas compares affirmative action to slavery. He states that:

I suspect that the University’s program is instead based on the benighted notion that it is possible to tell when discrimination helps, rather than hurts, racial minorities. See post, at 3 (GINSBURG, J., dissenting) (“[G]overnment actors, including state universities, need not be blind to the lingering effects of ‘an overtly discriminatory past,’ the legacy of ‘centuries of law-sanctioned inequality’”). But “[h]istory should teach greater humility.” Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, 497 U. S. 547, 609 (1990) (O’Connor, J., dissenting). The worst forms of racial discrimination in this Nation have always been accompanied by straight-faced representations that discrimination helped minorities.

Slaveholders argued that slavery was a “positive good” that civilized blacks and elevated them in every dimension of life.

His concurring opinion is problematic for several reason. Contrary to Justice Thomas' arguments, promoting diversity is a compelling interest. Diversity has many benefits. It enhances the educational experience. In a heterogeneous environment, students are able to learn more by hearing different perspectives on issues. When diverse groups of people have more social and educational interaction, it reduces prejudice and bigotry. Furthermore, diversity in college prepares students for the work place.

Obviously, segregation and slavery were tools of oppression. They stifled and snuffed out our humanity and potential. Under slavery, we were chattel property like farm animals. During slavery, we were killed, beaten and raped. During the Jim Crow era, we could not vote. We segregated in every facet of life. We were segregated at school, on the bus, at the movies, at restaurants, at hotels, etc. During the Jim Crow era, African Americans could not attend schools like the University of Texas.

Unlike African Americans during segregation and slavery, whites as a group are not harmed by affirmative action. Race is simply a factor of a factor that universities consider when admitting students. Whites continue to be the majority at schools like the University of Texas at Austin. For instance, 45.5 percent of students at the university are white and only 4.5 percent of the students are black. In sum, segregation deprived black people of the right to education. In contrast, affirmative action does not deprive anyone of an education.

It is a tool to promote education, empowerment and advancement. Affirmative action made it possible for African Americans to obtain higher degrees. It has helped expand the black middle class. It has help many African Americans and other minorities become doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, professors, politicians and other professional positions. Unlike segregation, affirmative action opened the doors of opportunity.

Clarence Thomas walked through that door of opportunity and now he wants to close it in our faces. He benefited from affirmative action. That ingrate would not be a Supreme Court Justice without affirmative action. Affirmative action made it possible for him to attend college and law school. He crossed the bridge of success. Instead of helping his fellow African Americans cross that bridge, Uncle Thomas wants to burn that bridge and prevent his brethren from crossing it. Former President George Bush, Sr. appointed Thomas in part because Thomas is black. They needed another African American to fill the vacancy left by Justice Thurgood Marshall. It is a disgrace that Thomas has tried to tear down the progress that Justice Marshall helped build. It is an outrage that the only African American on the Supreme Court is a right wing nut who has no love for his people.

It is Time for the Black Community to Learn from the LGBT Community

My view on gay marriage is no secret. Last year, I explained why I do not support same sex marriage. I may write a more comprehensive part 2 to that article. Then again, maybe this will be my last article regarding this topic.

After the President publicly supported same sex marriage around election time, all of the sudden the American sheeple are prepared to discard thousands of years of human history to embrace what is trendy and cool for the moment. I don't care if I'm the last man standing in the blogosphere. I will never, ever support same sex marriage. I'm sure that the thought police will call me "closed minded", "a bigot" or even worst. I'm sure that they will threaten me like they did the last time. Frankly, I don't give a damn. I will not remain silent.

Anyway, that's not even the point of this article. In an interesting piece by Keli Goff on the Root entitled Gay Marriage Coverage: A Media Shut Out?, Ms. Goff raised some interesting questions. She asked:

"Quick question: Who is the latest Democratic senator to come out in support of affirmative action?

OK, another question: Who is the latest Republican senator to come out in support of affirmative action?

How about this one: Do any Republican senators support affirmative action?

Last question: Do you know the answer to any of the above questions?

Chances are you don't. Most of us don't. But I bet you know that Republican Sen. Rob Portman now supports same-sex marriage, spurred by his love and compassion for his openly gay son. I bet you also know that 10 Democratic senators oppose gay marriage.

The reason you know both of these facts is that same-sex marriage has become the mainstream media's civil rights cause célèbre --even though it ultimately affects just under 4 percent of the population. To be clear, this population deserves rights and protections regardless of how few of them there may be, but not at the expense of other groups.

Though I have sensed a disparity in civil rights coverage for months in print, online and on television, I only recently tried multiple online searches to see if I was being paranoid.

I wasn't.

A search of "Affirmative action before the Supreme Court" produced just over 100 million results. (This number came up whether I tried including the year 2013 or used parentheses.) "Voting rights before the Supreme Court" netted more than 400 million results. But "Gay marriage before the Supreme Court" produced article after article after TV clip after TV clip, with just over 800 million results. "Same sex marriage before the Supreme Court" produced even more: just under 900 million results.

I have been baffled by the fact that while the Supreme Court's upcoming rulings on voting rights and affirmative action were relegated to a couple of days of nonintensive media coverage, coverage of the court's upcoming rulings on same-sex marriage has been treated as the second coming of the Brown v. Board of Education case, which literally changed America for all Americans, as opposed to the second coming of Loving v. Virginia, which the gay-marriage case more closely resembles, and which ultimately changed the lives of some Americans: those pursuing interracial relationships."

Ms. Goffi is baffled. I am not. Many Negroes let the media define what is important. The media tells them to support gay marriage. So what do they do? Support gay marriage. Now, my misguided brethren are all up in arms, waving their rainbow flags, tweeting their butts off in support of same sex marriage. Yet, many of those same people do not have a damn thing to say about affirmative action and voting rights. If African Americans do not prioritize affirmative action and voting rights, how can we expect others to do so?!!?

Although I don't support LGBT community's position on same sex marriage, I admire their organizing skills and their commitment to their cause. I just have one question. Why isn't the African American community as organized, as passionate and as successful as the LGBT community?

The LGBT community successfully pressured Vice President Joe Biden and President Barack Obama to publicly support same sex marriage. Through traditional media, social media and public pressure, they transformed American culture. They replaced the phrases "homosexual marriage" and "same sex marriage" with the more palatable phrase "marriage equality". They pushed their opponents into the margins of society by calling them "bigots". On the other hand, they rewarded those who adopted their view by describing them as "evolved". Through such powerful propaganda, they convinced the public to parrot their phraseology and champion their cause.

What was once considered an abnormality is now widely accepted. Like alchemists turning lead into gold, LGBT activists morphed a common sense, moral issue into a "civil rights issue." Despite the fact that same sex marriage is clearly contrary to everything in the Bible, LGBT activists persuaded some prominent African American preachers to appear in political ads supporting same sex marriage in Maryland. Everyday, like grotesque mushrooms sprouting out a lawn, another opportunistic politician miraculously comes out in favor of gay marriage. Activists even recruited my man Yoda from Star Wars to support gay marriage. Yesterday, my Facebook news feed was been bombarded and blanketed with photos like the one used for this article. When I saw that Yoda photo on social media, I thought to myself, "Give me a freaking break." However, I also reflected on the sheer brilliance of their social media campaign. As I write this blog post, the New York Times reports that the Supreme Court is poised to strike down the Defense of Marriage Act. In sum, LGBT activists have hustle, and I can't knock it.

People waited in line for days outside in the cold weather in order hear oral arguments for the two same sex marriage cases. When arguments were heard, there was a large crowd outside of the court house. That's dedication. That's commitment. That's a story that cannot be ignored by the corporate media.

On the other hand, I don't see the same level of commitment and organization in the black community. Affirmative action and Section 5 of Voting Rights Act are in jeopardy. Both tools enabled African Americans to advance as people. Affirmative action is a natural extension of the Brown v. the Board of Education legacy. It opened the doors of higher education and helped to increase the size of the black middle class. It helped many black people to become doctors, lawyers, judges, engineers, scientists, teachers, business people and other types of professionals. If it was not for affirmative action, I would not be a lawyer today.

The Voting Rights Act is just as essential. If it was not for the Voting Rights Act, Jim Crow and segregation would still exist. There would be no black mayors, no black city council people, no black U.S. representatives and no black senators. Barack Obama definitely would not be in the White House. Obviously, the Voting Rights Act and affirmative action have a much greater impact on African Americans than same sex marriage.

Yet, we did not wait in line for days to hear arguments in Fisher v. The University of Texas and Shelby County v. Holder. Our young people would rather wait in a line for the new Air Jordans or the latest iPhone than wait in line to hear cases that have a direct impact on their future. It is a damn shame. Where is our sense of urgency? The crowd outside of the court for the Fisher case was not nearly as large as it should have been. I am sure that the crowd for the Shelby case was not as large as the crowds for the Proposition 8 and the DOMA cases. Unfortunately, we have become apathetic and complacent. Many of us believe that we have made it to the Promised Land and that civil rights movement is a relic of the past. Some of us have actually started to believe that America is a "post-racial society".

States around this country are enacting laws designed to suppress black voters. For example, as reported on the Huffington Post,

Civil rights advocates say a new voter ID law signed by Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) on Tuesday will creating more hurdles to voting.

“Rather than address the real issues Virginians have faced at the polls on Election Day, such as waiting in line for 6 to 7 hours to vote, the Governor decided to impose unwarranted restrictions that will only further exacerbate existing problems,” said Marcia Johnson-Blanco, co-director of the Voting Rights Project at the Lawyers’ Committee. “This law will inflict undue burdens on the very communities we should be encouraging to participate in our democracy – students, communities of color and poor persons.”

The Justice Department has to sign off on the law before it goes into effect. But that could change if the Supreme Court strikes down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires states like Virginia with a history of racial discrimination to have their voting laws and procedures approved by either the DOJ or a panel of federal judges in D.C.

Equally as important, the United States Supreme Court recently agreed to hear another affirmative action case. As reported in the Washington Post,

The Supreme Court decided Monday to take a second case concerning affirmative action in university admissions, agreeing to review a lower court’s decision that said Michigan’s ban on the use of race in college acceptance decisions was unconstitutional.

A bitterly divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit struck down the ban in 2012, six years after it was approved by 58 percent of the state’s voters. It is similar to constitutional amendments in several other states, including California and Florida.

The high court accepted Michigan’s appeal of the 6th Circuit opinion and will hear the case in the term that begins in October. The case will be heard by just eight justices; the court noted that Justice Elena Kagan recused herself.
The court earlier this term considered a challenge to the admissions process at the University of Texas, which considers race as one factor in choosing part of its freshman class. The justices heard oral arguments in that case in October and have not issued a decision.

Some had thought the court might hold the Michigan case until it rendered the Texas ruling, but the cases present different issues for the court. Michigan’s is a constitutional amendment forbidding the use of race. Texas contends that its use of race in limited circumstances is sanctioned by the Supreme Court’s recognition that universities have an interest in building diverse student populations.

A bare majority of the Michigan appeals court ruled that the ban on race-conscious admission decisions “reorders the political process in Michigan to place special burdens on minority interests” and thus violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection for all races.

Circuit Judge R. Guy Cole Jr., writing for the majority, said Michigan’s Proposal 2 “eliminated the consideration of ‘race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin’ in individualized admissions decisions, modifying policies in place for nearly a half-century.”

Why aren't black intellectuals, activists, and media forcing the media to cover these important matters? There has been some coverage, but not nearly enough. When the Michigan affirmative action case is heard, thousands upon thousands of African Americans should be rallying in front the Supreme Court. As the LGBT movement has done, we must develop more persuasive messaging. We cannot allow affirmative action to be defined as "reverse discrimination" or a "quota" system. We cannot allow the Voting Rights Act to be defined as "a racial entitlement". We must do better.   

The LGBT movement adopted its strategies and messaging from the civil rights movement. Now, it is our turn to learn from the LGBT movement.

This article is cross-posted on Jack and Jill Politics.

Justice Sotomayor Tells Her Story

Good morning family. Listen as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor tells her story to 60 Minutes. Check out the contrast between her and Justice Clarence Thomas on the issue of affirmative action. Do you support affirmative action?

Dear Black People: You Are Invisible and Irrelevant

So far, I have watched all three of the 2012 Presidential and Vice Presidential debates. Each debate lasted approximately 90 minutes. All three moderators were white. The final debate is on Monday. Again, the moderator will be white. The last debate will focus on foreign policy. During these debates, the candidates have discussed important issues such as the economy, taxes, education, women's rights, health care reform and terrorism. However, none of the debates discussed race or affirmative action.

Race is still a major issue in America. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether the University of Texas' affirmative action policy is constitutional. If the Supreme Court strikes down UT's affirmative action policy, the doors to higher education will be closed to many African American young people. Universities and colleges will become more and more segregated. However, that issue was not important enough for the debate moderators.

Moreover, the moderators failed to raise the problem of racial profiling. New York city's racist stop-and-frisk policy has been a major issue in the civil rights community. In New York and many cities around the country, young, innocent black men and women are constantly stopped, harassed and humiliated by police just because of the color of their skin.

Another example of racial profiling is the tragic Trayvon Martin case. This year, self-appointed neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman hunted and shot down Trayvon Martin just because he was black. After great struggle and massive protests, Zimmerman was finally charged with murder.

In addition to racial profiling, mass incarceration was not raised during any of the debates. As explained in Michelle Alexander's book The New Jim Crow, the so-called War on Drugs has led to the mass incarceration of black people. Due to the mass incarceration problem, a disproportionate percentage of African Americans have been reduced to second class citizens even after they leave prison. In most states, they lose the right to vote and other precious rights.

In this mythological post-racial era, none of those issues matter. Unfortunately, the debates are fixated on issues that mainly impact white, moderate, middle class, undecided voters. As far as the presidential debates are concerned, black people are invisible and our concerns are irrelevant.

These debates have taught me one thing. In the eyes of the debate organizers and most of the viewers, the plight of Big Bird is far more important than the plight of my people. "Binders full of women" are more important than prisons full of black people.

This article is cross-posted on Jack and Jill Politics.

We Must Defend Affirmative Action Now!

As reported in the New York Times,

In a 2003 decision (Grutter v. Bollinger) that the majority said it expected would last for 25 years, the Supreme Court allowed public colleges and universities to take account of race in admission decisions...[T]he court signaled that it might end such affirmative action much sooner than that.

By agreeing to hear a major case (Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin) involving race-conscious admissions at the University of Texas, the court thrust affirmative action back into the public and political discourse after years in which it had mostly faded from view. Both supporters and opponents of affirmative action said they saw the announcement — and the change in the court’s makeup since 2003 — as a signal that the court’s five more conservative members might be prepared to do away with racial preferences in higher education...

The consequences of such a decision would be striking. It would, all sides agree, reduce the number of African-American and Latino students at nearly every selective college and graduate school, with more Asian-American and white students gaining entrance instead...

Ms. Fisher is soon to graduate from Louisiana State University. Lawyers for the University of Texas said that meant she had not suffered an injury that a court decision could address, meaning she does not have standing to sue.

Ms. Fisher’s argument is that Texas cannot have it both ways. Having implemented a race-neutral program to increase minority admissions, she says, Texas may not supplement it with a race-conscious one. Texas officials said the additional effort was needed to make sure that individual classrooms contained a “critical mass” of minority students.

The University of Texas clearly satisfied the requirements of Grutter by implementing a multi-factor admission policy. The top ten percent of all Texas high school graduates are automatically admitted to the university.  They make up 88% percent of the students admitted.

The remainder are admitted using a multi-factor admission policy. Race is just one of many factors that the university considers. As noted in the Fifth Circuit's decision, the school considers standardized test scores, high school class rank, essays, "leadership qualities, awards and honors, work experience,...extracurricular activities and community service...socio-economic status of applicant and his or her high school and...the applicant's race."

That is not reverse discrimination. For decades, as documented in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Sweatt v. Painter, the University of Texas deliberately denied qualified African Americans admission solely because of their race. Today, vast inequities continue to exist between affluent, suburban white public school districts and poor, urban minority school districts.  Affirmative action is a means to remedy the continuing impact of that despicable legacy.  In the words of President Lyndon Johnson, "You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say you are free to compete with all the others, and still just believe that you have been completely fair." (Source: Leadership Conference)

Clearly, by deciding to hear this case, the Supreme Court is sending a clear message. The days of affirmative action are numbered.  The legacy of Brown is in jeopardy. If we do not act, we may witness the re-segregation of higher education. While doors to higher education close to black people, the doors to prison remain wide open. As stated in the Fifth Circuit's opinion, the African American enrollment rate at the University of Texas dropped almost 40 percent when the university ended its prior affirmative action program in 1996. According to a June 2005 Social Science Quarterly study, at elite universities:

"....without affirmative action the acceptance rate for African-American candidates likely would fall nearly two-thirds, from 33.7 percent to 12.2 percent, while the acceptance rate for Hispanic applicants likely would be cut in half, from 26.8 percent to 12.9 percent. While these declines are dramatic, the authors note that the long-term impact could be worse."

It would be tragic and ironic if affirmative action ends while a black man is in the White House. We cannot passively allow that to happen. Certainly, civil rights law organizations will file amicus briefs in favor of affirmative action. However, the legal strategy is only one aspect of the struggle.

We cannot let affirmative action die without a fight. We must protest in the streets, on the college campuses, on the airways and on the blogosphere immediately. We must do everything in power to educate the public about the benefits of diversity and affirmative action. We cannot afford to wait until the US Supreme Court begins to hear oral arguments. We must act now! We must defend affirmative action!

This article is cross-posted on Jack and Jill Politics.

Does Affirmative Action Discriminate Against White People?

First, Virginia's Governor passed a resolution honoring Confederate history. Now this.

In his Wall Street Journal article titled Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege, U.S. Senator James Webb (D-VA) wrote:

"Lyndon Johnson's initial program for affirmative action was based on the 13th Amendment and on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which authorized the federal government to take actions in order to eliminate "the badges of slavery." Affirmative action was designed to recognize the uniquely difficult journey of African-Americans. This policy was justifiable and understandable, even to those who came from white cultural groups that had also suffered in socio-economic terms from the Civil War and its aftermath.

The injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own government have no parallel in our history, not only during the period of slavery but also in the Jim Crow era that followed. But the extrapolation of this logic to all "people of color"—especially since 1965, when new immigration laws dramatically altered the demographic makeup of the U.S.—moved affirmative action away from remediation and toward discrimination, this time against whites. It has also lessened the focus on assisting African-Americans, who despite a veneer of successful people at the very top still experience high rates of poverty, drug abuse, incarceration and family breakup.

Those who came to this country in recent decades from Asia, Latin America and Africa did not suffer discrimination from our government, and in fact have frequently been the beneficiaries of special government programs. The same cannot be said of many hard-working white Americans, including those whose roots in America go back more than 200 years.

Where should we go from here? Beyond our continuing obligation to assist those African-Americans still in need, government-directed diversity programs should end.

Nondiscrimination laws should be applied equally among all citizens, including those who happen to be white. The need for inclusiveness in our society is undeniable and irreversible, both in our markets and in our communities. Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners. It can do so by ensuring that artificial distinctions such as race do not determine outcomes."

I strongly oppose Senator Webb's arguments for several reasons. Although no group is monolithic, white privilege continues to be a reality. Contrary to Mr. Webb's assertions, the so-called "WASP" elites continue to dominate the American social, economic and political system. For example, the overwhelming majority of corporate leaders are white. As noted in George Curry's article titled Race, Gender and Corporate America,

"A 1995 report by the federal Glass Ceiling Commission observed, "At the highest levels of business, there is indeed a barrier only rarely penetrated by women or persons of color. 97 percent of the senior managers of Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 companies are white; 95 to 97 percent are male. In Fortune 2000 industrial and service companies, 5 percent of senior managers are women - and of that 5 percent, virtually all are White.

The Glass Ceiling report observes, "...The world at the top of the corporate hierarchy does not yet look anything like America. Two-thirds of our population, and 57 percent of the working population, is female, or minorities, or both." The commission projects that this year, people of color and women will make up 62 percent of the workforce.

In addition, all U.S. governors, except four, are white. All U.S. senators, except one, are white.

As a result of the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, even poor and working class whites benefit from white privilege. By virtue of their skin pigment, they are treated better than African Americans and other minorities by police, teachers, employers and society in general.

Senator Webb's proposal may end all affirmative action programs. Mr. Webb cites the legacy of slavery and general societal discrimination as the only basis for continuing some government-directed affirmative action programs. However, in Regents of University of California v. Bakke, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that goal of affirmative action measures must be "far more focused than remedying of the effects of societal discrimination, an amorphous concept of injury that may be ageless in its reach." The court further stated that there must be "judicial, legislative or administrative or administrative findings of past discrimination." That is a very difficult standard to meet. Accordingly, if Mr. Webb's limited view was adopted, the number of affirmative action programs would greatly diminish. Many African Americans who "still need" would not be able to reap the benefits of affirmative action plans.

In addition to past discrimination, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that diversity is a compelling interest justifying affirmative action programs. As noted in Grutter v. Bollinger, diversity enables better understanding of persons of different races. The court noted that "the skills needed in today's increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints." In Grutter, military officers filed amicus briefs stating that diversity in the military is essential to national security. In sum, affirmative action benefits America, not just African Americans and immigrants.

Furthermore, Mr. Webb offers no proof that white workers have been marginalized by affirmative action programs. On the other hand, there is substantial proof African Americans and other minorities continue to be marginalized. According to Julianne Malveaux, "The unemployment rate for black people nationwide is twice that for whites." According to Nikitra S. Bailey, "African American have a median net worth of $5,998, compared to $88,651 for whites." African Americans and Latinos continue to be denied employment opportunities based on race. As noted in the ACLU's position paper on affirmative action,"the National Urban Institute...sent equally qualified pairs of job applicants on a series of interviews for entry-level jobs. The young men were coached to display similar levels of enthusiasm and “articulateness.” The young white men received 45% more job offers than their African American co-testers; whites were offered the job 52% more often than Latino “applicants.”"

In conclusion, if lawmakers and courts adopt Mr. Webb's view, the doors of opportunity will be closed to many African Americans, Latinos and other minorities. For example, in his article titled The Fall of Affirmative Action, William C. Kiddler cites a study of college admission rates following the end of affirmative action in California, Texas and Washington. The study found that admission rates for African Americans at elite public colleges fell from 6.65 percent to 2.25 percent.