```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 70 (Monday, May 1, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5926-S5927]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                           AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, there is more and more discussion on 
affirmative action these days.
  Most of those who question affirmative action are the same people who 
opposed the civil rights legislation.
  But there is no question that, like any good thing, affirmative 
action can be abused.
  I ask that an excellent Los Angeles Times editorial titled, ``Glass 
Ceiling? It's More Like a Steel Cage'' be printed in the Record, as 
well as a tongue-in-cheek column by Robert Scheer, ``Who Needs 
Affirmative Action?'' and a column that I wrote for the newspapers in 
Illinois discussing this subject.
  The material follows:

              [From the Los Angeles Times, Mar. 20, 1995]

  Glass Ceiling? It's More Like a Steel Cage--Bush Panel Finds Little 
                   Room at Top for Women or Nonwhites

       In the heated debate over affirmative action, some who want 
     to abolish all such programs suggest that lots of white males 
     are being unfairly shunted aside in favor of lots of African 
     Americans, Latinos, Asians and white women. However, there 
     simply are no facts to support this. Indeed, according to a 
     bipartisan commission appointed by then-President George 
     Bush, the senior ranks are still populated almost exclusively 
     by white males.
       The findings by the Glass Ceiling Commission, a panel of 
     business executives and legislators, are important and 
     especially timely. It is expected that an initiative calling 
     for a blanket rejection of policies that allow race, 
     ethnicity and gender to be taken into account in hiring, 
     promotion and college admissions will make it onto the 
     California state ballot.
       In Washington, President Clinton, mindful of the evident 
     exodus of angry white men from the Democratic Party, for 
     starters has ordered an evaluation of federal affirmative-
     action programs. That's defensible and could prove useful. 
     But too many in Congress are rushing to jump on the anti-
     affirmative-action bandwagon, including Senate Majority 
     Leader Bob Dole. Ironically, long before Dole made his 
     presidential ambitions public, he sponsored the very bill 
     that created the federal panel to study the situation of 
     minority men and all women in American industry. And it is 
     that panel, in reporting its findings last week, that turned 
     up so little evidence of progress.
       The facts are simple. White male managers dominate the 
     senior levels at the top 1,000 U.S. industrial firms. They 
     also dominate the top 500 business firms. In the top echelon 
     of U.S. commerce, no less than 97% of the positions at the 
     level of vice president and above are held by
      whites, the panel found. Between 95% and 97% of these senior 
     executives are male. They have a lock on most of the top 
     jobs, while most minority men and women and most white 
     women struggle to crash the glass ceiling.
       The commission said that one case of the paucity of 
     promotions was the fear and prejudice of white men. Of course 
     that is only part of the problem. More minorities and women 
     must be given access early on to educational and social 
     opportunities that lead to business success. But even 
     education does not always level the playing field. Asian 
     Americans are nearly twice as likely to hold college degrees 
     as the general population, yet they remain much less likely 
     to become executives and managers. Do racial stereotypes 
     block their promotion?
       Black men with professional degrees earn 79% of the pay of 
     their white male counterparts. Black women with professional 
     degrees earn even less; they earn, on average, only 60% of 
     what white males do. Latinos, who are less likely to have the 
     advanced degrees that foster advancement in companies, are 
     ``relatively invisible in corporate decision-making 
     positions,'' the report says. Their visibility should 
     increase as their qualifications and numbers increase. 
     Latinos are also hampered by pernicious stereotypes, 
     including the misperception that most Latino workers are 
     foreign-born, the panel maintains.
       The Glass Ceiling Commission based its findings on hard 
     information, not unsubstantiated fears. Facts, and nothing 
     but, should inform the intense debate over affirmative 
     action--and the decisions that will determine how this nation 
     can fairly handle the moral obligation of opening the doors 
     of opportunity to all who knock.
                                                                    ____

              [From the Los Angeles Times, Mar. 20, 1995]

                     Who Needs Affirmative Action?

                           (By Robert Scheer)

       Forget affirmative action. Maybe it once was a necessary 
     tactic but its time is clearly gone. True, there used to be 
     slavery and segregation and women didn't have the vote but 
     that's all ancient history. C'mon, blacks and women have all 
     the power now. Just look at the O.J. trial.
       Try getting a decent job if you're a white man. You don't 
     see my name on the masthead of this paper. What kind of 
     meritocracy is this if my merit isn't rewarded the way I 
     think it ought to be?
       I'm not making this up, folks. The census stats back me up. 
     Minorities and women now hold 5% of senior management 
     positions, and those used to be white-guy jobs. Even among 
     Fortune 1,000 companies, women now have 3% of the top slots, 
     according to last week's report by the bipartisan federal 
     Glass Ceiling Commission. So far, black men don't have any of 
     the top jobs, but if affirmative action isn't stopped, who 
     knows what could happen?
       Don't try to paint me like some kind of racist for saying 
     this, like I've got something against black men. Our beef is 
     more with women than with black men, who are going nowhere 
     fast. Even though almost 800,000 black students a year 
     graduate from college, many of them business majors, they 
     don't have what it takes to get to the top. Most of them 
     still don't play golf. That's what a lot of white executives 
     told the federal commission, which, incidentally, was created 
     by the Bush Administration, so its results are reliable. One 
     white manager told the truth: that, in hiring, ``What's 
     important is comfort, chemistry, relationships and 
     collaborations.'' That's why black, college-educated 
     professional men earn only 71% of their white counterparts on 
     the bell curve: The comfort level is too low.
       The real threat is from women, with whom white men have a 
     longer history of relationships. I hesitate to bring it up 
     because they vote and it's better to have white women believe 
     that affirmative action is a black thing. But take what's 
     called ``middle management.'' Black men account for only 4% 
     of those positions, but almost 40% of middle managers are 
     women. Unless you marry one of them, you're out of luck, and 
     what does that tell you about who wears the pants?
       The big problem up the road is that you'll have to get 
     along with those women, what they call networking, just to 
     get a job. What does that say about traditional values when a 
     man has to worry about what a woman thinks of his 
     performance? Meritocracy, in the wrong hands, can be a 
     killer. No wonder the federal commission concluded that 
     ``Many middle- and upper-level managers view the inclusion of 
     minorities and women in management as a direct threat to 
     their own chances for advancement.'' They'd be stupid not to.
       But we don't have a chance a turning back the tide unless 
     we eliminate the discrimination against white males in the 
     universities. On the nine campuses of the University of 
     California, white men were 40% of the student body in 1980, 
     and now they're a miserable 24%, less than half the number of 
     women. Girls were always better at the school stuff but you 
     could count on them to drop out along the way. Another threat 
     is the 12% who are Latino, but Proposition 187 should scare 
     them off. Same for the Asians, who outnumber white males at 
     UC. I know that Asians are not covered by affirmative action, 
     but even with round-the-clock tutoring, we can't keep up with 
     them. And none of this would have happened if the blacks 
     hadn't stated all this. You don't see blacks endangered at 
     UC--they went up a full two-tenths of a percent in the past 
     15 years, from 3.8% to 4%. They're taking over.
       Don't get me wrong, I'm not against a level playing field, 
     and I know that a lot of blacks come from disadvantaged 
     backgrounds due to poverty. After all, census data show that 
     almost half of black children 
     [[Page S5927]] live in poverty, which shows that they have 
     lost the spirit of individual responsibility. We have got to 
     stop coddling them. The answer is to end poverty by 
     eliminating food stamps, school lunches and infant nutrition 
     programs that provide such an irresistible incentive for 
     people to raise their kids in lousy neighborhoods. If poor 
     people want a good job, they should get it the way the rest 
     of us do. Call an uncle or a business associate of your 
     father. Invest your inheritance. Get active in a prestigious 
     church or a good golf club. Blacks are going to make it when 
     they learn to act and look like everyone else.
       I am for social policies that are colorblind, just as the 
     founders of our nation were.
       For me, all I want is my country back. You know what I 
     mean: a return to traditional values where the white man is 
     king, even if his woman has to work.
                                                                    ____

                 The Proper Role for Affirmative Action

       ``Affirmative action'' is not-so-suddenly becoming a major 
     topic of discussion.
       Affirmative action is like religion or education: A good 
     thing, but it can be abused.
       Affirmative action means opportunity and fairness. It does 
     not mean quotas. It does not mean hiring unqualified people.
       Some believe that affirmative action hurts minorities and 
     women and those with disabilities, because when people secure 
     jobs there will be some who say, ``He (or she) only got that 
     because of being a minority.'' Or a woman or being disabled. 
     They believe that it is demeaning for people of ability.
       The distinguished African American writer Shelby Steele 
     properly suggests that we are troubled by ``race fatigue'' 
     and ``racial anxiety.'' He oppose affirmative action and 
     wrongly--in my opinion--calls the opportunities that result 
     ``entitlements.''
       No one is entitled to a job or an opportunity because of 
     race or gender or ethnic background.
       I accept the idea that diversity in our society needs 
     encouragement and is good for us.
       If, for example, someone employs 500 people--and they all 
     happen to be white males--it still may not be possible to 
     prove discrimination. One answer for that situation is to go 
     through the lengthy legal process of proving discrimination.
       A better answer is affirmative action, where that employer 
     understands that his business should not compromise quality, 
     but opportunity should be given to those who don't fall into 
     the usual personnel pattern.
       Employing people on the basis of ability is just good 
     business, and affirmative action encourages good business.
       My office is an example. If I were to hire everyone from 
     Chicago or from Southern Illinois, the people of Illinois 
     would regard that as strange. I look for diversity in 
     geography, and it does not compromise quality. I don't lower 
     my standards when I choose to hire someone from central 
     Illinois.
       In the same way, I have consciously made sure that in my 
     employ there are African Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans 
     and people with disabilities. Anyone who knows my office 
     operation knows that we have not compromised quality to do 
     this.
       Has this harmed the people of Illinois? To the contrary, it 
     has helped them and it has helped me.
       To move away from affirmative action, back to a situation 
     where discrimination has to be proven to bring about change, 
     invites clogging the courts with endless litigation, and 
     denying opportunity to many.
       A federal judge in Texas ruled that the University of Texas 
     law school can set a general goal (not a rigid quota) of 
     admitting 10 percent Mexican Americans and 5 percent African 
     Americans, but if the school lowers it standards to reach 
     those goals, that is unconstitutional.
       That strikes many legal scholars as sound.
       Interestingly, if that same school gives preference for 
     admission to children of alumni--who are overwhelmingly 
     white--no one objects to that. But if steps are taken to 
     diversify the student body, some of the same alumni object.
       Complicating all of this is the fact that many Americans 
     are out of work. The opportunity for people of limited skills 
     to have a job is declining, and will continue to decline.
       The person in that situation rarely says, ``I'm not working 
     because I don't have the skills that are needed.''
       It is often easier to say, ``I don't have a job because a 
     black [or a woman or a white or someone else] got the job I 
     should have.''
       And so tensions rise.
       The answer is not to get rid of affirmative action, but to 
     work on jobs programs for those of limited skills, expand 
     education opportunities for all, and increase efforts to give 
     training (including reading and writing) to those who are 
     unemployed.
       We should diversify opportunity, and at the same time see 
     that everyone has the basic tools to function 
     effectively.
     

                          ____________________
```