Behind debate over

Scan page 15

The real target of the current debate over the 1991 Civil Rights Act, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on June 5, is affirmative action, not quotas as charged by President George Bush.

The House adopted the bill by a vote of 273 to 158, 15 short of the two-thirds majority needed to override an expected veto by Bush. The U.S. Senate will discuss the bill next. It is likely a new bill will be forged in an attempt to either get Bush to sign it or win enough votes to override his veto.

The Bush administration attacks the proposed bill as a "quotas" bill. In fact, what Bush and his supporters mean by quotas is any use of timetables or goals to combat discrimination in hiring and promotion, education, housing, and all walks of life for Blacks, other minorities, and women. They falsely call anti-bias laws a form of "reverse discrimination"— that is, discrimination against white males, who now dominate all jobs in a disproportionate number in industry, education, and commerce as well as goverment.

Not a quotas bill Unfortunately, the new bill does not do what Bush says it does. It is a retreat from affirmative action and even accepts the idea that women should be compensated less for discrimination than Blacks. (There is a cap for punitive damages women can win.) It also accepts the asinine notion that quotas are bad.

Rep. Richard Gephardt had this to say about the House bill: "We have produced a bill that makes quotas illegal, and which gives white workers, Black workers, women and men, religious minorities, and the disabled access to the courts to enforce their rights." (My emphasis.)

Yet affirmative action is nothing more than taking the minimal steps necessary to begin to erode privileges enjoyed by white males over Blacks and women. Affirmative action was won after the victory of the massive civil rights movement of the 1960s.

It was extended to cover other minorities and women, as they fought for their rights. What affirmative action does when it is enforced is help break down divisions created among working people under capitalism.

Not surprisingly, the rich employers have sought to undermine affirmative action programs from day one. Court challenges have been frequent over the years.

The decline of the Black rights and women's rights movements and the weakening of the labor movement in the 1980s is a big reason the U.S. Supreme Court began to erode earlier rulings favorable to civil rights.

Today it is virtually impossible to win a class action suit proving discrimination based on the fact of inequality. Individual claims are still possible but only if "intent" of discrimination is proved.

Quotas, timetables, and fixed goals simply concretize the necessary steps to end historic and current discrimination. Without such hard goals little progress to end discrimination is possible.

For example, in the airline industry few Blacks or women were mechanics or pilots until the late 1970s. This was true even though the Civil Rights Act was adopted by Congress in 1964. At United Airlines it took legal action by Black employees that led to a court order/consent decree in 1976 to begin to change that.

In the 1970s, civil rights groups were firm backers of affirmative action goals and quotas to remedy discrimination-to give Blacks a chance to catch up.

Unfortunately, that's changing under the onslaught of the rightwing attacks on affirmative action. Many leaders of the major trade unions, women's rights groups, and Black rights groups are now backtracking on quotas.

Retreat by rights' groups Molly Yard, president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), said this about the new bill: "By discouraging employers from maintaining discriminatory practices, the [new] Act actually is an anti-quota bill, which can help eliminate unlawful quotas that keep women and people of color and others from receiving fair treatment."

The AFL-CIO and its affiliates have made similar statements. Most unions have always opposed quotas and rarely negotiated such clauses in their contracts.

Civil rights leaders are also jumping ship. John Jacob, head of the National Urban League, said, "Quotas were a phony issue from the day they were first raised. Long experience with anti-bias laws, regulations, and court decisions never led to quotas."

Jacobs and others charge Bush with using the quotas issue to worsen race relations. Yet none of the groups have taken the initiative to organize mass protests to defend affirmative action. Their entire campaign is around adopting new legislation. History, however, has taught us that progressive legislation is always a byproduct of mass agitation, not the other way around.

This retreat on quotas is in fact a retreat from defending affirmative action. Discrimination is institutionalized in our society. That is why the average income of Blacks and women is considerably less than for white males.

The reason is simple: super profits are made by the employers by maintaining race and sex discrimination. The capitalist system is based on exploiting all labor. It pits worker against worker based on their race and sex. This divide and conquer policy is how they rule and control working people. We fight among ourselves— due to lack of solidarity-instead of fighting them.

The trade unions must be in the forefront of resisting these methods. The unions must defend affirmative action programs which are enforceable that is, quotas (timetables and goals). The political high ground is to stand four-square behind affirmative action and its most effective tool: quotas.

----- pull-quotes -----

By Malik Mi