May 1, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 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.

f ∑

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: AID IN

DOING THE RIGHT THING

∑ Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I have

been inserting into the RECORD items

on affirmative action from time to

time because I am concerned that the

distortion of affirmative action can result in loss of opportunity for many

Americans.

Columnist William Raspberry had an

op-ed piece in the Washington Post,

and in other newspapers in which his

column is circulated, on affirmative

action.

It appeared during the days when

Congress was in recess, and many of

my colleagues may not have seen it.

It is simple common sense, and we

seem to lack that so often.

I ask that the William Raspberry column be printed in the RECORD.

The column follows:

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: AID IN DOING THE RIGHT

THING

(By William Raspberry)

It was 1967, and I had just taken my new

wife—a Washington native—on her first visit

to my home state of Mississippi.

She had heard all the horror stories of racial mistreatment, and she was pleasantly

surprised at the way white salesclerks

seemed to be going out of their way to be

nice. She was particularly intrigued by one

middle-aged white clerk at the J.C. Penney’s

in Tupelo. For some reason, this woman,

having learned that we were from ‘‘up

north,’’ wanted to talk—even after we’d paid

for our purchases.

Just as we were about to make our final effort to leave, her face lit up. She caught the

attention of a black woman across the store

and beckoned her to come over.

‘‘This,’’ she said, introducing us, ‘‘is our

new salesclerk.’’

I don’t suppose I’ll ever forget the humiliations, large and small, of growing up under

the American apartheid that used to be the

rule in the Deep South. But I’ll also remember the pride this one white woman displayed

in the fact that her boss had done the right

thing. It was almost as if she herself had

been somehow redeemed.

It’s something I think of when I hear wellmeaning people say that affirmative action

is ultimately demeaning to minorities and it

would be better to just let merit be the rule.

It’s reasonable to punish discrimination,

they say, but an artificially produced diversity comes close to the discredited practice

of setting racial or sexual quotas; worse, it is

tantamount to acknowledge that minorities

and women are inferior.

It came back to me the other day when a

colleague called my attention to Katha

Pollitt’s column in the March 13 issue of The

Nation magazine. This liberal publication

has been a staunch advocate of affirmative

action and diversity and all the things that

give minorities and women all those warmfuzzy feelings. But listen to this one passage

from Pollitt’s piece:

‘‘In the 13 years I’ve been associated with

The Nation, we’ve had exactly one nonwhite

person (briefly) on our editorial staff of 13,

despite considerable turnover. And we’re not

alone: The Atlantic has zero nonwhites out

of an editorial staff of 21; Harper’s, zero out

of 14; The New York Review of Books, zero

out of nine; The Utne Reader, zero out of 12.

A few do a little better, although nothing to

cheer about: The Progressive, one out of six;

Mother Jones, one out of seven; In These

Times, one out of nine; The New Republic,

two out of 22; The New Yorker, either three

or six, depending on how you define ‘editorial,’ out of 100 plus, . . .’’

It’s a passage that could fuel right -wing

radio talk shows for months. But that wasn’t

Politt’s point. Her point, which seems unaccountably difficult to grasp, is that it’s not

necessarily bigots and hypocrites that stand

in the way of the ‘‘diversity’’ so many of us

favor; it’s the fact that people tend not to

pay attention to unpleasant facts that they

can as easily ignore.

Atlantic editor William Whitworth told

The Post’s media critic, Howard Kurtz, that

his magazine’s statistics were ‘‘unfortunate’’

and ‘‘embarrassing.’’ He went on to describe

the publication’s open-door policy, its desire

to have black journalists and his bafflement

that so few have applied. Whitworth at least

answered Kurtz’s queries, as some others did

not. Still I found myself wondering what sort

of shot the magazine might have taken at,

say, an insurance company or police department that offered a similar defense.

It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that the

management of the Penney’s store in Tupelo

made just such an argument before some

combination of legislation, court decree and

affirmative action forced a change in the

company’s hiring policies.

And it wouldn’t surprise me, sometime

down the road, to hear Whitworth and his

peers boasting of their success in hiring

black writers and without any sacrifice in

quality, either.

Why do opponents of affirmative action

find it so difficult to understand that even

good people need a nudge now and then, or to

comprehend that anti-discrimination statutes are insufficient to overcome deeply entrenched racial attitudes? What black writer—unemployed or working elsewhere—could

be certain that some white guy on one of

these liberal publications has the job she

should have had? How can anybody know?

In some jobs, discrimination is easy to

spot; the 120-word-per-minute typist who

loses out to a competitor whose top speed is

80 wpm has a discrimination claim. But what

of the applicant for an editorial position, or

a legal clerkship, or a securities brokerage?

Anti-discrimination laws won’t do it and

neither will affirmative action—although

these things may help employers to focus on

their behavior.

I keep hoping that the time will come

when nearly all employers will react as
S5928 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 1, 1995

many already do: with embarrassment when

they haven’t lived up to what they know to

be right and with pride when they know

they’ve done it right.

That’s why I remember that beaming clerk

in Tupelo 28 years ago. And, by the way, I

don’t recall the faintest indication that her

black colleague found it demeaning to have

been hired for what may have been the best

job of her life.

∑Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, recently,

THE WRONG TARGET

fBob Herbert, a columnist for the New

York Times, had a column about affirmative action and how the politics

of meanness is in the ascent.

My colleagues have heard me address

this question before. Affirmative action is basically an excellent thing

that has helped to make opportunity

available to many people who otherwise would not have it. Has it been

abused occasionally? Yes, like any

good thing is abused, just as religion

and education are abused.

In this column, he concludes ‘‘All of

this will pass. Eventually we’ll find our

higher selves.’’

I hope he is right.

But there is both the beast and the

noble in all of us, and unless our leaders appeal to the noble in us, instead of

the beast—instead of hatred and fear—

the better instincts in our people will

not come forward. That is true, not

only in the United States but in any

country.

It is important for politicians, journalists, members of the clergy, business leaders, labor leaders, and people

of every walk of life to call upon us to

reach out and do what is noble.

‘‘One nation, under God, indivisible’’

should be more than a phrase in our

country.

At that point, I ask that the Bob Herbert article be printed in the RECORD.

The article follows:

[From the New York Times, Apr. 5, 1995]

THE WRONG TARGET

(By Bob Herbert)

One of the many important issues to

emerge battered and distorted from the insidious cavern of political demagoguery is

affirmative action. If you listen to the latest

crop of compulsively deceitful politicians, or

tune into the howling degradation of talk

radio, you might become convinced that the

biggest problem of discrimination in the

United States today is bias against white

men.

The complaint is that legions of AfricanAmericans, women and assorted others are

taking jobs, promotions, classroom slots,

theater tickets and the best seats on the bus

from the folks who really deserve them—

white guys.

The arguments against affirmative action

are almost always crafted in racial terms because the demagogues know that race is the

way to get the emotional flames roaring. In

fact, the primary beneficiaries of affirmative

action are women. If all parties would lower

their voices and try to communicate in good

faith, it could be pointed out that while

there are problems with affirmative action—

including some serious problems of fairness—the negative impact on white men has

not been great, and the problems are correctable.

What you do not want to do, in a country

where there are still prodigious amounts of

race and sex discrimination, is abandon a

long and honorable fight for justice in the

face of political hysteria.

The Federal Glass Ceiling Commission recently reported that 95 percent of top corporate management positions in the United

States are held by white men. Throughout

corporate America, women, blacks and

Latinos are paid less than white men for

doing the same work. And if you believe

there is a bias against white males in hiring,

just pair up a white guy with a black guy

and send them off in search of the same job.

Racism against blacks and sexism against

women abound. And yet the outrage we hear

today is about discrimination against white

men.

A report on discrimination in employment

commissioned by the Labor Department

found very little evidence of employment

discrimination against white men. The report was prepared by Alfred W. Blumrosen, a

law professor at Rutgers University. It found

that a ‘‘high proportion’’ of the so-called

‘‘reverse discrimination’’ claims brought by

white men were without merit.

The politicians will tell you that the attack on affirmative action is a cry for racial

justice. That is not so. It is an expression of

the anger and frustration felt by large numbers of overwrought and underemployed

white men. Their anxiety is understandable,

but affirmative action is not their enemy.

Downsized to the point of despair, their

wages stagnant or falling, their prospects

dim, these men are caught up in the treacherous world of technological innovation, economic globalization and unrestrained corporate greed. Buffeted by forces that seem

beyond their control (forces that are affecting everybody, not just white men), they listen to the demagogues. It’s the blacks doing it

to you. It’s the women. They’re getting your

piece of the pie. Otherwise you’d be O.K.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ISN’T ANTI-WHITE

The Clinton Administration, under pressure, is reviewing Federal affirmative action

programs. Fine. Let whatever abuses exist

come to light. Scrap whatever programs are

unnecessary or unfair. Where affirmative action is being used to help the disadvantaged,

remove the racial or ethnic requirements.

There are white kids all over the country

who are economically and educationally deprived. Give them a hand.

But neither Bill Clinton nor anybody else

should back off from the commitment to

fight what is still an enormous and debilitating problem—discrimination against blacks,

other ethnic minorities and women. Where

affirmative action is needed to counter the

effects of discrimination, let it be.

The United States is going through a period in which the politics of meanness is in

the ascent. In many circles, it is

unfashionable to be compassionate. Putting

down others is the dominant mode of political expression, preferably with a vicious remark accompanied by cruel laughter.

All of this will pass. Eventually we’ll find

our higher selves and chase the dogs of bigotry and fear and ignorance from the yard. I

am convinced this will happen. We are Americans, after all. We are better than we have

been behaving lately.

f∑

DR. HENRY FOSTER SHOULD BE

CONFIRMED

∑ Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I had the

privilege of serving in the House of

Representatives with Congressman

Paul Findley, who is now retired and

writes a Sunday column for the Jacksonville Journal-Courier in Illinois.

My friend, Gene Callahan, who once

served as administrative assistant for

Senator Alan Dixon, still get the Jacksonville newspaper, and he sent me

Paul Findley’s commonsense reaction

to the nomination of Dr. Henry Foster.

I ask that it be printed in the

RECORD.

The column follows:

DR. HENRY FOSTER SHOULD BE CONFIRMED

(By Paul Findley)

During a discussion at a meeting of the

Pittsfield Rotary Club, a member asked if I

favor the confirmation of Henry Foster,

M.D., President Bill Clinton’s nominee to be

surgeon general of the United States.

My answer was affirmative. Based on what

I believe to be factual about Foster’s career,

he should be confirmed. The president is entitled to have a surgeon general of his own

choosing, barring the disclosure of some important flaw in character or record.

A casual reader glancing at headlines and

picking up snippets from televised news reports might easily reach the erroneous conclusion that Foster’s record is badly flawed,

that he is a back-alley disgrace to the medical profession who has spent a long career

performing abortions.

It was a curious happenstance that the

question was raised in Pike County, once the

family home of a physician who fit that

dreary description and gained a reputation

as one of Chicago’s preeminent abortionists.

This was a half-century ago when abortion

was illegal, not job in Illinois but throughout the nation. Never indicted, the doctor in

question made abortion his career, performing the surgery clandestinely in various

parts of Chicagoland. It was his specialty. So

far as I know, he did nothing else. He catered

mainly to people who could not afford to

travel to Sweden for the desired surgery.

Legend had it that he periodically hauled

bags of money back to Pike County.

By contrast, the president’s nominee is not

an abortionist. In the years since abortion

has been made lawful by ruling of the U.S.

Supreme Court, Foster, by his own account,

performed 39 abortions, all of them to save

the life of the mother or to end pregnancies

caused by rape or incest. He has delivered

several thousand babies and declares that he

abhors abortion.

Some years ago, like many other physicians, he performed procedures that sterilized institutionalized women who were determined to be severely mentally retarded.

At the time, that procedure was legal and

broadly accepted by the medical profession.

Both law and medical policy have since

changed. Under existing law, sterilization

can be performed only through court order.

Abortion, of course, has been legal for

many years in the United States and is widely practiced. In fact, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education now requires that programs to train doctors in obstetrics must include abortion skills. About

a million abortions are performed here each

year, notwithstanding widespread controversy that sometimes becomes violent

and even fatal. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, although anti-abortion, wisely advises

his Republican colleagues in the Senate,

where the confirmation vote will occur, not

to focus on Fosters, abortion record.

Although, like thousands of other U.S.

physicians,, Foster has performed a few abortions since the procedure became legal, it

has never been more than a minor part of

this 38-year practice. To his credit, he has

been candid on all points.