Here I wrote that “[i]n the past I have dogeared a number of Pages (columns by Clarence Page, that is) as good examples of the thinking (or lack thereof) of mainstream liberal columnists/talking heads,” and I then provided links to seven examples.
A few days ago he committed another one. It began, cutely, with “a quick history quiz.”
Which nationally prominent leader said this:
“Edicts of non-discrimination are not enough. Justice demands that every citizen consciously adopt a personal commitment to affirmative action, which will make equal opportunity a reality.”
Was it Rev. Jesse Jackson? Rev. Al Sharpton? Sister Souljah?
No, it was Gov. Ronald Reagan of California in a 1971 executive order. He sounded more liberal, at least on this issue, than the racial-quota fighter who later became president.
Times have changed, but on race not all that much, as far as NAACP Chairman Julian Bond is concerned. Bond whipped out Reagan’s old quote during a debate at the Library of Congress last week to argue that what was good for Reagan two generations ago is good enough for America now.
In that debate Bond, and his partner Lee Bollinger (of Michigan race preference fame), argued that class-based preferences should not replace race preferences. No surprise there. All the “civil rights” groups strenuously oppose substituting class-based preferences for race-based preferences, for the simple reason that there are many more poor whites and Asians (who almost never benefit from race/ethnic preferences) than there are poor blacks. If “class norming” (accepting/hiring the highest scoring applicants from each socio-economic group) were substituted for the defacto “race norming” currently in place, blacks wouldn’t do much better, if at all better, than they would do in a strictly neutral merit-based system. But for what it’s worth (not much), I’m all in favor of helping people who have fewer advantages (although isn’t that what need-based aid is for?), and class preferences do not violate any constitutional or legal principles.
But my main concern with this Page is not class vs. race; it is with Page’s “quick history quiz.” It is not the “Gotcha!” that Page and Bond think it is. To see why, here’s another “quick history quiz.” In what nationally famous documents, signed by which nationally prominent leaders, do the following two statements (excerpts) occur? [Emphasis added]
1.
WHEREAS it is the plain and positive obligation of the United States Government to promote and ensure equal opportunity for all qualified persons, without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin, employed or seeking employment with the Federal Government and on government contracts….
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution and statutes of the United States, it is ordered as follows:….
SECTION 301….(1) The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin….
2) The contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.
2.
Section 101. It is the policy of the Government of the United States to provide equal opportunity in Federal employment for all qualified persons, to prohibit discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin….
Sec. 202. … all Government contracting agencies shall include in every Government contract hereafter entered into the following provisions: “(1) The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin….”
I have quoted these two documents so many times that most readers probably have them memorized by now. For those of you who don’t, Number 1 is Executive Order 10925, signed by President Kennedy on March 6, 1961, instituting “affirmative action” in the federal government. Number 2 is Executive Order 11246, signed by President Johnson on September 24, 1965, reaffirming Kennedy’s order and extending it in some respects.
There is, in short, nothing inconsistent between being in favor of “affirmative action” as it was understood by the two Democratic administrations that implemented it and opposing all preferential treatment based on race. In fact, there is something inconsistent between supporting those Executive Orders and supporting any policy or practice that gives preferential treatment to any person “because of race, creed, color, or national origin.”
These two Executive Orders should be required reading for everyone who supports “affirmative action.”
And yet(if memory serves), to qualify for gum’mint contracts, advertised regularly in the
“yellow book”, one must provide PAGES of documentation of compliance with racial/gender employment quotas. I suspect it may now have aspects preferential toward “free” health insurance/ private “voluntary”, retirement investment schemes (that are NOW curiously attached by gum’mint/union tentacles).
These two Executive Orders should be required reading for everyone who even cites “affirmative action”, or EOE, with special emphasis on the word opportunity.