I found William Rusher's recent column
"Conservative governor juggling hot potato for black votes" interesting.
It's interesting the way he talks about the lack of affirmative action
as being "simple fairness."
I suppose it was simple fairness at play when in our recent past, minorities and women were severely underrepresented in many jobs and schools ... simply fair that white men held the best positions and were able to get ahead while women and minorities were relegated to a lesser class.
I also think it's interesting the way Rusher writes about affirmative action while not actually understanding what it is. He would lead us to believe that affirmative action is simply hiring less qualified minorities instead of the more qualified whites.
He wonders if Florida's governor will "opt for simple fairness" or "hold out for black quotas." Again an interesting choice of words, especially since the Supreme Court decided a long time ago in Bakke vs. Davis that "quotas" were in fact illegal, and the majority, if not all, affirmative-action programs today are in fact not based on quotas.
In this historic decision, the Supreme Court correctly ruled that affirmative-action programs were not reverse discrimination because they serve to correct past wrongs - the types of things that would make minorities and women "less qualified," such as lack of access to quality education.
Affirmative-action programs allow schools and employers to take into account more than just a person's supposedly objective "qualifications."
They also allow them to aggressively recruit minorities and, to a lesser degree, women in order to not only try to right these past wrongs, but also to provide their firms or institutions with valuable diversity.
Since Proposition 209 has banned affirmative action in California, the number of minority students in the state universities has plummeted. Without this education, potential students will remain "less qualified." They will remain trapped because of the past and present wrongs of our society. Is this simply fair?
Rebecca C. Smith
Chicago
THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION has given researchers at Rutgers University Law School data on job discrimination that could provoke the next big battle over affirmative action. The researchers are using EEOC numbers to measure racial and sexual harassment, geographic patterns of bias in hiring and promotion, and the extent of "hostile work environments." Judging from an early peek at their work, the findings could be explosive.
The academics say that while discrimination has fallen overall, some regions are still highly biased. Initial results suggest that in Washington State, for example, 25% of employers with more than 50 workers still intentionally discriminate against women. And in Georgia, almost 40% of larger employers racially discriminate, while 30% display a bias against women.
The study is expected to bolster calls for retaining affirmative-action initiatives. "Without this study, all we have is anecdotal evidence" when debating the need for such programs, says Alfred Blumrosen, Rutgers law professor and co-author of the Ford Foundation-funded project. The release date: around Labor Day.
Frito-Lay Inc. will pay $225,000 in back wages to 233 minority applicants who were victims of discrimination for entry level positions at its Harahan, Louisiana, plant, near New Orleans. The back wages are part of a consent decree between Frito-Lay and the U.S. Department of Labor which was approved yesterday (April 20, 1999) by an Administrative Law Judge.
"Discrimination remains stubbornly entrenched in too many American workplaces," said Secretary of Labor Alexis M. Herman. "As long as some Americans are kept from participating in the economic life of our society because of their race, gender or other factors unrelated to their qualifications to perform a job, this Department will act on their behalf."
As a federal subcontractor, Frito-Lay is prohibited from engaging in discriminatory practices in the workplace. In 1995, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs undertook a compliance review of the plant and found that the company had discriminated against African Americans in the hiring process. Suit was filed by the Department in 1997, and the extensive discovery revealed not only that the plant hired disproportionately more whites than blacks as route salespersons and store representatives, but that those blacks who were hired were disproportionately assigned to higher crimes zones in New Orleans.
Following settlement discussions, Frito-Lay and DOL agreed to the terms of the consent decree, which will resolve the allegations of racial discrimination. Frito-Lay, which employed about 200 people at the plant when the review began, agreed to offer jobs as openings occur to the minority applicants in the affected class until 25 have been hired. All of the newly hired who successfully complete the probationary period will also be entitled to a full-service credit with benefits retroactive to January 1, 1995. Additionally, Frito-Lay will train managers in equal employment opportunity, establish affirmative action programs to hire qualified minorities, keep and maintain certain records and submit follow-up progress reports twice a year for two years.
"Affirmative action and non-discrimination are required for Frito-Lay and all federal contractors," said Bernard E. Anderson, Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards, of which OFCCP is a part. "I urge all businesses to evaluate their hiring and recruitment practices to ensure that those who are hired are chosen based on their abilities, not excluded based on their race. I recommend that they do so on their own before the Labor Department seeks redress."
OFCCP is part of the Labor Department's Employment Standards Administration. It enforces Executive Order 11246, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Vietnam Veterans' Readjustment Act of 1974, as amended. This group of laws prohibit federal contractors and subcontractors from discrimination in employment based on race, gender, religion, national origin, disability or veteran status.
For more information call: 202-219-8211
Voters who passed Proposition 209 wanted to end discrimination and preferential treatment, but didn't want to eliminate all affirmative-action programs, attorneys for the city of San Jose argued Thursday.
"If we do nothing that is race- or gender-conscious, then we're condoning, or allowing, racial discrimination to continue against minorities and women that we know is happening today," George Rios, San Jose assistant city attorney, told the state Court of Appeal.
He was asking the three judges to reconsider a 1998 Superior Court decision halting the city's public works contracting program that required contractors to either include a percentage of minority or women-owned subcontractors or show that they tried to solicit bids from those subcontractors in their projects.
At stake is the way state and local government will interpret the proposition approved by a 54 percent majority in 1997. The law bans race or gender considerations in public hiring, contracting and education.
The San Jose case was brought by Rancho Cordova contractor Hi-Voltage Wire Works. The company challenged San Jose's program last year after its low bid -- $197,000 -- to supply a circuit-switcher for the city's sewage treatment plant was rejected because 5 percent of the funds were not going to a woman or minority-owned subcontractor.
"Proposition 209 is intended to get rid of these programs that give preferential treatment on the basis of minority status or gender," said Sharon Browne, an attorney with the Sacramento-based Pacific Legal Foundation, arguing for the company.
Hi-Voltage had said it didn't need to employ subcontractors to do the job, but would have been forced to break the work into parts and subcontract them out to meet city requirements.
"Any time a government agency has a program that treats one group differently because of race or gender, some people are benefited and some are burdened," said Browne.
After voters passed Proposition 209, the San Jose City Council interpreted the measure to mean no preferences may legally be granted to any group. If a majority of city contracts were given to white men, the council reasoned, that would be an unlawful preference.
San Jose's existing affirmative action program was renamed and semantic changes were made in the city ordinance governing the program.
However, contractors vying for city contracts were still required to either employ women- or minority-owned subcontractors for a portion of the job, or to prove they had attempted to do so.
Rios said Proposition 209 left San Jose "between a rock and a hard place."
"The government has a duty to act to prevent discrimination based on federal law and Proposition 209. If we do nothing, we may well be in violation of federal law."
Under President Clinton's leadership,
we are building a stronger "One America" for the 21st century. Creating
a more just and fair society that underscores our shared strengths instead
of focusing on our differences -- that is Clinton's vision. As he has emphasized,
our national diversity is our greatest strength -- discrimination may well
be our greatest weakness.
April of Fair Housing Month, the time we traditionally commemorate the enactment of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, better known as the Fair Housing Act. Congress passed this landmark civil rights legislation one week after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., as a tribute to his work.
In 1988, Congress passed the Fair Housing Amendment Act to further strengthen the law, which now covers the sale, rental, financing and advertising of almost all housing in the nation. Actions that discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, disability, family status or national origin are strictly prohibited. The Amendments Act also established new administrative enforcement mechanisms within the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development whereby attorneys could bring actions before administrative law judges on behalf of victims of housing discrimination, as well as revising and expanding Justice Department jurisdiction in bringing a suit on behalf of victims in federal district courts.
Thirty-one years after the Fair Housing Act was passed, HUD is still seeing thousands and thousands of cases of housing discrimination every year. Discrimination used to be blatant -- what HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo describes as "discrimination with a fist." A racially derogatory remark is made to potential Hispanic renters. A cross is burned on an African American family's lawn. These things still happen, albeit rarely.
It is more likely that someone will be the victim of a more subtle form of housing discrimination -- "discrimination with a smile." A rental agent will smile politely as she tells a minority couple that there are no more vacant apartments available. Ten minutes later, the agent will suddenly have an apartment to rent -- because the customers are a white couple.
Discrimination with a smile is much harder to prove. The victims, wanting to believe that discrimination is no longer a problem in this country, will believe the rental agent. In most cases, the couple will not know what happened after they left the rental office. The rental agent, and the company he or she works for, will have successfully discriminated -- and broken the law.
HUD's focus on fair housing is being driven throughout the country under the leadership of Secretary Cuomo. "If we are serious about ending housing discrimination, then we must understand and recognize its complexities and subtleties. If we are to create the 'One America' that President Clinton seeks, we must end housing discrimination once and for all," Cuomo said.
A strategic effort to crack down on housing discrimination is currently in place. On Nov. 16, 1998, Cuomo announced a nationwide audit of housing discrimination in America. The audit will evaluate housing discrimination in urban, suburban and rural communities nationwide through 3,000 to 5,000 tests for housing discrimination. The audit will evaluate patterns and trends in housing sales, rentals and mortgage lending to minorities.
HUD also promotes innovative partnerships with communities, nonprofits and fair housing organizations. These partnerships assist us in education, promoting home ownership opportunities and building communities.
To commemorate Fair Housing Month, activities and summits are planned around the country to educate people about housing discrimination, including screening of fair housing videos on local access Channel 2 in Portland. We also have made fair housing educational material available to thousands of Mainers at both the Portland and Bangor home shows this month.
We can all made a difference in the effort to ensure fair housing by determining if you or someone you know has been a victim of housing discrimination. Contact HUD if:
Loren T. Cole is senior community builder at the HUD's Maine state office.
AUGUSTA -- Representatives of the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the state of Maine
signed an agreement Thursday that will permit the Maine Human Rights Commission
to investigate fair housing complaints.
Signed in the governor's office, the agreement makes Maine the fifth of six New England states to have fair housing regulations similar to federal regulations. New Hampshire is the only New England state without such regulations.
Gov. Angus King said the agreement establishes a partnership that will promote better cooperation between the state and HUD to eliminate discrimination. April marks the 31st anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing Act, which outlawed housing discrimination.
The act bars discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, family status and national origin. It covers the sale, rental, financing and advertising of almost all housing in the nation. Fair housing investigations are conducted by HUD employees, state and city agencies working with HUD, and private fair housing groups that receive HUD funds.
"The Fair Housing Act gives members of every family in America the ability to live in any neighborhood and in any home they can afford, free from discrimination," said Susan Forward, HUD's general deputy assistant secretary for fair housing. "Maine residents no longer have to file with HUD to have their rights enforced. They can go directly to the Maine Human Rights Commission and be assured that their complaints are filed dually with the state and with HUD."
Forward said the agreement will allow the Maine Human Rights Commission to receive funding from HUD for each case it investigates. The commission is responsible for enforcing the state's Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, credit and education.
Forward also announced that HUD is distributing more than 100,000 copies of a new booklet to make it easy for people to file claims of illegal housing discrimination. Titled "Are You a Victim of Housing Discrimination?" the booklet contains a simple form to report discrimination. The Maine State Human Rights Commission will receive copies of the booklet.
The form is also on the Internet at http://www.hud.gov/hdiscrim.html and can be filed electronically.
The information collected on the form will be used to contact the person who filed the claim, make an initial determination regarding HUD's jurisdiction over a claim, and lay the groundwork for the investigation of a claim.
As the result of Thursday's agreement, HUD will be able to forward the claim to the Maine Human Rights Commission for investigation. For information call William Burney or Loren Cole in the HUD Bangor Office at (207) 945-0468.