Page 4
John H. Sengstacke Publisher (1951 - 1997)
The Mid-Southʼs Best Alternative Newspaper
A Real Times Newspaper
OPINION
Tri-State Defender
June 27 - July 3, 2013
• Bernal E. Smith II President / Publisher • Dr. Karanja A. Ajanaku Executive Editor
Bad news for affirmative action backers
Affirmative action polls show deep racial gulf
In the months leading up to this week’s Supreme Court decision on affirmative action, a public opinion poll by ABC News and the Washington Post showed that 76 percent of Americans oppose affirmative action in college admissions. However, a poll conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute showed that 68 percent of Americans favor the principles behind affirmative action. How do Americans really feel about affirmative action? The short answer is that it depends on how the question is asked. The ABC/Washington Post question, asked June 5-9, was posed this way: “Overall, do you support or oppose allowing universities to consider applicants’ race as a factor in deciding which students to admit?” Of those responding, 76 percent opposed, 22 percent voiced support and 2 percent were undecided. Public Religion Research Institute, which conducted a poll May 15-19, phrased its question differently: “In order to make up for past discrimination, do you favor or oppose programs which make special efforts to help blacks and other minorities get ahead?” More than two-thirds of the respondents – 68 percent – favored such efforts, 24 percent opposed, 6 percent were unsure and 2 percent provided other replies. Note the wording of the questions. The ABC/Washington Post question provided no context for evaluating affirmative action admissions, only whether respondents support or oppose using race as a factor. On the other hand, the Public Religion Research Institute approach placed the issue within the context of “past discrimination” and using “special efforts” to help people of color get ahead. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, conducted May 30-June 2, showed Americans evenly divided on the issue. Respondents were asked to choose between two statements: A) Affirmative action programs are still needed to counteract the effects of discrimination against minorities, and are a good idea as long as there are no rigid quotas and B) Affirmative action programs have gone too far in favoring minorities, and should be ended because they unfairly discriminate against whites. In that poll, 45 percent of the respondents said affirmative action programs are still needed to counteract the effects of discrimination against people of color. But the same margin – 45 percent – said they feel the programs have gone too far and should be ended because they unfairly discriminate against whites. A closer examination of the numbers show a deep racial divide. For example, 71 percent of African Americans strongly believe affirmative action programs are still needed, compared to only 20 percent of whites and 39 percent of Hispanics. Another 11 percent of blacks feel affirmative action should continue, but did not feel as strongly about it. Among Hispanics, 29 percent were in that category and 14 percent of whites. When supporters – strong and not as strong – are added together, 82
percent of African Americans want to retain affirmative action, compared to 68 percent of Hispanics and 34 percent of whites. When you add the two categories of those wanting to abolish affirmaGeorge tive action, a maE. Curry jority of whites – 56 percent – support such a move, compared to 7 percent of African Americans and 24 percent of Hispanics. A CNN/ORC poll, conducted June 11-13, asked the question: Do you approve or disapprove of affirmative action programs at college and law schools that give racial preferences to minority applicants? The reference to “racial preferences” is a loaded term unlikely to elicit a favorable response. In this case, 68 percent of respondents said they disapprove of affirmative action as it was defined, 29 percent approved and 3 percent expressed no opinion. Affirmative action should be viewed in light of overall racial attitudes in America. As we approach the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, people of color and whites have closely aligned views on whether Dr. King’s dream of equality has been fulfilled. In the CNN/ORC poll conducted Jan. 14-15, respondents were asked: “Martin Luther King gave his famous ‘I Have a Dream Speech’ at a civil rights march in Washington in 1963. In your view, do you think the U.S. has fulfilled the vision King outlined in that speech, or don’t you think so?” According to the poll, 51 percent of whites in the U.S. believe Dr. King’s vision has been fulfilled; 49 percent of non-whites subscribe to that view. Unfortunately, the poll does not separate the black responses. In an Aug. 4-7, 2011 USA/Gallup Poll, 55 percent of black respondents said they believe relations between blacks and whites will always be a problem, compared to 44 percent for whites, with 2 percent unsure. That same poll showed how differently blacks and whites view the proper role of government. When asked about the role government should play in trying to improve the social and economic position of blacks and other people of color, 59 percent of blacks said the government should play a major role, 32 percent said a minor role, 8 percent said no role and 1 percent was unsure. Among whites, only 19 percent said the government should play a major role, 50 percent said a minor role, 30 percent said no role and 1 percent was unsure.
(George E. Curry is editor-in-chief of the National Newspaper Publishers Association News Service (NNPA. He can be reached via www.george curry.com. Follow him at www. twitter.com/currygeorge and George E. Curry Fan Page on Facebook.)
SCOTUS aiding and abetting voter disenfranchisement
The Supreme Court just aided and abetted those who seek to suppress our right to vote. A narrow majority has ruled that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. This is the formula used to determine which states and localities need preclearance before changing their voting laws. With the formula scrapped, the Department of Justice’s most effective tool to prevent voter disenfranchisement has been put on hold ... for now. The decision also gives Congress clear authority to enact a new formula that ensures no one is denied the right to vote. But whether or not Congress acts is up to us. The Supreme Court’s decision is extreme, and simply unconscionable. At least 31 states are considering laws to make it harder to vote by restricting early voting periods, enacting harsh voter ID laws, and instituting the modern day equivalent of poll taxes. The target for these discriminatory laws is clear: communities of color, and young, women, elderly, and disabled voters. The extremists responsible for these
laws probably think today’s ruling is a big win. They are smiling ear to ear as they read the Supreme Court’s decision. Not for long, my friends. In 2006, the NAACP mobilized thousands to protect Benjamin Todd Jealous the Voting Rights Act. We’re already working to protect voting rights in all 31 of these states, and to aggressively demand Congress expand Section 4 to include each and every state that has restricted the right to vote. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision, tell your representatives they must defend our voting rights. (For more information, visit www.naacp.org/defend-voting-rights.) (Benjamin Todd Jealous is president and CEO of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.)
What it means to be an American
With the deepening polarization of our country, I have been reflecting on the cause of this polarization. One of the major issues confronting the U.S. is what it means to be an American. This may sound a bit trite, but this is at the heart of a lot of the intractable problems we are facing as a country. Everyone wants to carve out their own identity, with individuality being the motivating force behind the move, not the betterment of America. There was a time when we were simply all Americans. Then we became Irish-Americans, JewishAmericans, African-Americans, Homosexual-Americans, Illegal-Americans, etc. There used to be the Chicago Bulls, the Jackson 5, and the Supremes. Then they became Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls, Michael Jackson and the Jackson 5, and Diana Ross and the Supremes. We used to rally around the principle of being an American. We “Pledged Allegiance (now optional),” we sang the national anthem at public events (now controversial), we prayed at graduations (mostly illegal and very controversial). Blacks, Jews, and Mexicans celebrated their heritage, but still considered themselves Americans first. Now that has all changed. You have people in the country that cannot speak English and have no interest in learning. They expect America to accommodate their unwillingness to learn our language. Now you have illegals in the country demanding rights; homosexuals wanting to become a protected class based on their sexual preference, and you have the county of Los Angeles required to print ballots in English, Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Tagalog, Japanese, and Korean. These ballots are mandated by federal law. The Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965 was originally enacted to prohibit state and local governments from denying or abridging the right to vote “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” a right guaranteed by the 15th Amendment. It applied to political jurisdictions with a history of denying such rights to black Americans and was specifically aimed at removing barriers to voter registration. It was intended to be a temporary remedy. But in 1975, Congress greatly expanded the Voting Rights Act’s original intent by inserting special protections for “language minorities.” The so-called language minorities singled out for protection under Section 203 of the Act were: American Indians, Asian Americans, Alaskan Natives, and citizens of Spanish Heritage. For the first time in our history, states and counties with substantial populations of these newly-protected protected language minorities were required to provide ballot and elec-
Tri-State Defender Platform
1. Racial prejudice worldwide must be destroyed. 2. Racially unrestricted membership in all jobs, public and private. 3. Equal employment opportunities on all jobs, public and private. 4. True representation in all U.S. police forces. 5. Complete cessation of all school segregation. 6. Federal intervention to protect civil rights in all instances where civil rights compliance at the state level breaks down
tion materials in languages other than English. Our shared values, not our uniqueness, is what makes us Americans. The English language should be the language we can rally around and the Raynard language that Jackson creates a common bond. When you focus on the individual, the group loses its identity. We must get back to what it means to be an American. We must speak one language – our national language – and not have our motives questioned for insisting on that basic requirement. No other country abandons its language to accommodate “language minorities” who don’t speak its national language. One of the beauties of America is that we are free to disagree. Recently, however, the Language Police for various groups are trying to infringe on the rights of others with whom they disagree. Your disagreeing with me on affirmative action, doesn’t make you a racist; your disagreeing with me on abortion, doesn’t make you immoral; your disagreeing with me on war doesn’t make you a warmonger. Rather, it simply means we have a difference of opinion. That is what being an American is all about – respecting our differences, but yet the acknowledging of our commonality. Homosexuals have called me homophobic because I don’t agree with their lifestyle choices. Those in the country illegally think that I don’t have a heart because I don’t support amnesty. Many liberal blacks think I am a sellout because I am Republican. Why can’t it be, “I disagree with you, now let’s go to dinner.” It would be a sad world if we only surround ourselves with people who share our opinions. If we agree on everything, one of us is not thinking. On the other hand, a healthy exchange of views helps us refine our arguments. And if we’re open-minded, it might even cause us to change our opinions from time to time. We celebrate the Fourth of July next week and this will be an ideal time to reflect on what it means to be an American. Our difference of opinion should not be divisive, but a tie that binds us. So, whether we agree or disagree, we are all Americans. (NNPA columnist Raynard Jackson is president & CEO of Raynard Jackson & Associates, LLC., a Washington, D.C.-based public relations/government affairs firm. He can be reached via www. raynardjackson.com. Follow him on Twitter at raynard1223.) DISTRIBUTION: Tri-State Defender is available at newsstands, street sales, store vendors, mail subscription and honor boxes throughout the Greater Memphis area. No person may, without prior written permission of the Tri-State Defender, reprint any part of or duplicate by electronic device any portion without written permission. Copyright 2013 by Tri-State Defender Publishing, Inc. Permission to Publisher, Tri-State Defender, 203 Beale Street, Suite 200, Memphis, TN. 38103. Back copies can be obtained by calling the Tri-State Defender at (901) 523-1818, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays.
SUBSCRIPTIONS: Mail subscriptions to the Tri-State Defender are available upon request. One Year, $30.00; Two Years, $55.00. Domestic subscriptions must be addressed to: Subscriptions, Tri-State Defender, 203 Beale Street, Suite 200, Memphis, TN. 38103. Delivery may take one week. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Tri-State Defender, 203 Beale Street, Suite 200, Memphis, TN. 38103. GENERAL INFORMATION: Any and all inquiries can be made in writing, by calling (901) 523-1818 or by e-mail. TELEPHONE: Editorial and Administration: (901) 523-1818. Advertising (901) 523-1818. Fax: (901) 578-5037.
The Supreme Court’s ruling Monday, while not the death blow to affirmative action that many of its supporters had feared, continues a push led by the Court’s conservatives to impose very high stanPerry dards on any conBacon Jr. sideration of race in public policy and will likely make it harder for universities and other institutions to defend racial preferences in future cases. The Court’s 7-1 ruling in practice does not affirm or reject the affirmative action programs at the University of Texas at Austin or any other school in the country, so its direct implications depend on how the Court and lower courts interpret the justices’ words. But the ruling ensures affirmative action programs across the country will be continue to be challenged in court, and it weakens the defenders of affirmative action on two grounds. First, the Court opted against affirming the University of Texas’ admission program, which at first glance looks like a non-decision, but actually is a bold stance by the justices. The University of Texas at Austin’s program was the kind of affirmative action it seemed the Supreme Court supported. The program was modeled after the method used by the University of Michigan’s law school, which the Court upheld in 2003. The Texas program, like the one at Michigan, does not expressly give points in the admissions process to students simply for being black or Hispanic, or impose racial quotas for the school as a whole. Most students aren’t affected by the program, as 75 percent of the school’s students enter through a system in which the top 10 percent of each high school in Texas are admitted automatically. The remaining quarter of the students are considered through a “holistic” program that considers race, but also family income and other factors. White students can benefit from this second admissions system as well, so it is not solely for minorities, at least according to the university. Two lower courts had backed the Texas’ system, and the U.S. Supreme Court could have done so as well. It did not invalidate the Texas’ admissions system, but the Supreme Court’s decision to send the system back for a consideration at a lower court was definitely not an endorsement. And the refusal to affirm the Texas approach suggests that Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court’s key swing vote, may never outright say he opposes all considerations of races at universities, but also never rule in favor of an admissions program that does so. “Like so many educational institutions across the nation, the University has taken care to follow the model approved by the Court,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her dissent. She added, “I would not return this case for a second look … the University’s admissions policy flexibly considers race only as a “factor of a factor of a factor of a factor” in the calculus.” Just as significantly, Kennedy’s opinion creates a new, higher threshold for the consideration of race in admissions policies. In the future, for an affirmative action program to be defended, it must be shown that “no workable raceneutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity.” Those words are likely be invoked by every litigant who files against an affirmative action plan in the future. The justices did not explain exactly how that standard would be applied. But it will complicate the University of Texas in defending its diversity program, as the university’s 10 percent plan on its own has increased the number of black and Hispanic students at the school without any direct consideration of race. Schools will feel pressure to find systems that don’t directly invoke race, although critics of the 10 percent plan note that it in some ways relies on segregated high schools to result in diversity at the University of Texas. (Perry Bacon Jr. is a columnist for The Grio. Follow him on Twitter at @perrybaconjr)
E-MAIL: Editorial e-mail (press releases, news, letters to editor, etc.): editorial@tri-statedefender.com; Display advertising e-mail (ads, advertising price requests, etc.): advertising@tri-statedefender.com; Classified advertising e-mail (ads, advertising price requests, etc.): classifieds@tri-statedefender.com; Subscription/Circulation e-mail (subscriptions, subscription price requests, etc.): subscriptions@tristatedefender.com; Production e-mail (technical questions/specs, etc.): production@tri-statedefender.com. The Tri-State Defender (USPS 780-220) is published weekly by Tri-State Defender Publishing Co., 203 Beale Street, Suite 200, Memphis, TN 38103. Second Class postage paid at Memphis, TN.