I’ve said here on a number of occasions that I don’t understand why people who favor racial preferences say they oppose quotas (other than the obvious but disingenuous reason that “quotas,” whatever they are, are unpopular with the public at large. But then, so are racial preferences). This may imply that I don’t really believe them when they say they oppose quotas.
Evidence for that distrustful suspicion can be found in an editorial in the New York Times-owned Boston Globe that, in the name of “diversity,” defends an actual, no-bones-about-it quota.
…. Last week, fearful of costly litigation, the [Boston city] administration dismantled its Minority and Women Business Enterprise program, which was designed to address racial and gender discrimination in the construction trades.
[….]
Every government program that sets goals for minority participation should be subject to intensive judicial scrutiny to ensure that it meets relevant standards, such as redress for specific acts of discrimination or historical patterns of racism. But such vetting cannot take place when localities reject their own preference programs, such as the one crafted in Boston 15 years ago that directs general contractors to subcontract 15 percent of the work to minority-owned businesses.
[….]
The city maintains it can achieve fairness by awarding contracts to small and local businesses. But its actions threaten a retreat from diversity….
Suspicions confirmed: a hard 15% quota is described as a “preference program” than is necessary to achieve “fairness” and “diversity.”
