Opponents of affirmative action advance the myth that it is a new concept invented by the left during the civil rights movement as a means of creating “reverse discrimination” or “quotas.” Affirmative action is criticized as an unfair punishment for people in the present for crimes of the past. These fabrications are part of the campaign to discredit affirmative action policies. Recently Bush criticized the federal courts in their debate over the University of Michigan’s admission policy, invoking the scare word quota.

Along with the quota label, opponents of affirmative action have argued that “two wrongs don’t make a right.” In other words, providing quotas is a harm that doesn’t right the wrong of past injustices such as slavery. In their view, there isn’t a fine to be paid for past transgressions. We are supposed to go on from there, as though nature will take its course and make everything all better. To the contrary, affirmative action has one purpose, not to be a reverse discrimination but to reverse discrimination. History is dotted with examples of affirmative action that were welcomed by politicians, governmental leaders and the people.

Affirmative action as a political tool is best understood as a policy designed to acknowledge and then surmount practices or events that denied a segment of the population social-economic opportunities and Constitutional rights. It is meant to make up for lost time, or to say “thank you” for past services. It attempts to right a wrong and often demands an abrupt change and manipulation of practices that are accepted as customary. It is ubiquitous in history, dating from before the civil rights legislation of the 20th century.

In 1868, the clearest statement yet made in favor of affirmative action was the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment. After the Civil War, “40 acres and a mule” was advanced as a means of compensating ex-slaves. Never mind that this ended up being mostly hype. For most, the words were never backed up by deed.

A widely held misbelief is that it is limited to use only in the workplace or college campus. Current policy stems from the application of affirmative action following the 1976 Supreme Court decision that held minorities were entitled to retroactive job security if it were shown that their denials were based on any existing minority status. In 1978, the Bakke ruling was handed down. Although that decision did assure Californian Allan Bakke a place in his university medical school class, reversing a prior rejection, it also affirmed the constitutionality of college admission policies that allowed universities to consider race and ethnicity to enhance the educational environments of their campuses.

Many adults alive today are the beneficiaries of the famous GI Bill of Rights, enacted after World War II which provided returning military personnel money for college educations and low-cost FHA housing mortgages. Millions took advantage of the way America was saying “thank you” for their wartime efforts and sacrifices. It was obviously a way for the veterans to help mend the pieces of their broken lives. It was the way that many would be able to enter the mainstream of society and contribute to the post-war recovery. And it was clearly affirmative action by every definition.

There is no better example of affirmative action than the penalties meted out to the German government after Nuremberg in the form of reparations paid out to those Jewish and other families that had been ravaged by Nazi war crimes and genocide. The label of affirmative action was not applied - it was properly hailed as justice. Other examples abound. Building codes call for special ramps and facilities to be wheelchair accessible; buses and other forms of public transportation with their boarding platforms and inclines are paradigms of how a caring public reaches out for those who are handicapped through accident of birth, trauma, disease or geriatrics. Never do we see the words quota or reverse discrimination applied. We allow for special places in parking lots for those with wheelchair emblems on their license plates and a yielding driver just finds a less convenient space.

Throughout the country, tax laws are passed that occasionally, though not often enough, force local governments to build housing for the poor, dwellings for the elderly and recreation facilities for the infirmed. Indeed, it is a form of affirmative action that has created the progressive income tax system as the affluent pay, allegedly, at a higher rate than the indigent, despite system loopholes that have relegated that rule to the same wastebasket as 40 acres and a mule. At least it remains in principle if not in practice. Even with a shamefully derelict comprehensive health care system for its people, Medicare and Medicaid do exist for some of the less fortunate and the elderly. They are both democratic and sensible responses to those in need. Would we have it any other way?

Nepotism in hiring in the board rooms of US multinationals is not uncommon. In fact, nepotism under any guise is a form of affirmative action, although in this case the definition requires a leap of faith in that it is not a socially-engendered handicap that is being rectified. Favoritism is often showed to the children of college alumni; many schools use residence in order to achieve a geographic cross section in their class makeups. All of these practices are well known, well accepted and sometimes beneficial. Demagogues harp on our fears by implying that today’s unmarked quotas will leave us with the unqualified or the unfit in positions of power and authority and will also deny rightful places in schools, factories and offices. Yet, we accept the idea of the balanced ticket when nominating our candidates for the highest offices. We favor certain northerners and southerners, moderate and radical, Jew and Gentile, if it is deemed to have stronger voter appeal.

Judicial appointments are continually made to account for various election districts and along geographic lines. Despite his denials, the majority of the American people did not believe George H.W. Bush when he insisted he had no quota in mind when he nominated Clarence Thomas to fill a seat on the Supreme Court after the death of Thurgood Marshall. It was even later revealed, during those congressional nomination hearings, that nominee Thomas accepted college and law school admissions and even a federal agency appointment through forms of affirmative action that made his own disdain for affirmative action even more ironic. Why then has affirmative action as a policy suddenly been castigated by an often sensitive people and government? The terms quota and reverse discrimination are applied only when such programs, policies and tactics are interpreted as beneficial or favorable to people of color. This is as disingenuous as when busing is scorned as a handicap to white students of today, never adding that until the civil rights movement took hold, those same buses were used to transport black students away from white schools, denying them advantages they would need to take their rightful places in society.

Racism is being fought and some inroads have certainly been made this past half-century. But such progress has been slow and superficial. Racism and the slavery that gave it its societal acceptance were created because they served a purpose that still exists – the need for an underclass and an underpaid work force. Racism will not be conquered until every American resident has all the rights and privileges guaranteed by our Constitution.

This requires an alert, educated and aware public. Blatant inequalities cannot be eliminated until we make up for time lost. Civil rights for all begins with education. Adequate health care and job security at a living wage will follow. This requires the preservation of affirmative action.

Without it, the playing field is uneven. Without affirmative action as but one part of a broad and honest civil rights policy, segregation will persist. Any form of dishonest compromise becomes acceptance of an old world dinosaur of racism.

--Don Sloan is assistant editor of Political Affairs.