-------------------------
Via Workers World News Service
Reprinted from the Dec. 19, 2002
issue of Workers World newspaper
-------------------------
LANDMARK VICTORY OVER RACISM IN JEOPARDY:
THE SUPREME COURT & AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
By Julie Fry
The Supreme Court announced Dec. 2 that it will decide whether the use
of race as a factor in the admissions process at the University of
Michigan Law School is constitutional. For over a decade now, students
and activists have been fighting back against right-wing forces who have
attacked affirmative-action programs nationwide. The court's decision
could eliminate affirmative action at all U.S. public colleges and
universities.
ROOTS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Affirmative-action programs are concessions won by the tremendous
strength of the civil-rights movement during the 1960s and 1970s.
Students held mass demonstrations and teach-ins to demand an end to the
elitist, racist and sexist admission policies of school administrations.
At the University of Michigan, the Black Action Movement led a student
strike that shut down the entire campus for almost a month in 1970. At
the time, Black students accounted for only 2 to 3 percent of enrolled
students at U of M. One of BAM's demands was to raise the enrollment
rate of Black students to at least 10 percent.
Movements like the one at U of M resulted in tremendous gains for
students of color, women and working-class youths across the country.
For the first time they gained access to traditionally white, male and
wealthy universities.
But these gains have come under attack by the ruling class.
In most of the country, primary and secondary schools remain just as
segregated now. Schools that primarily serve students of color receive,
on average, far less per-pupil funding than white schools. Students of
color are much less likely to have access to honors or advanced-
placement classes, to participate in music or art programs, or to have
access to staffing, learning materials, or technology that wealthier
public schools enjoy.
Wealth is one factor responsible for the unequal education system.
Racist policies such as "red lining" ensure that even as people of color
gain higher incomes, they are confined to segregated neighborhoods with
poorer schools. "Tracking" works within primary and secondary schools to
disproportionately push people of color into remedial or vocational
classes.
Two years ago, a study by Harvard's Civil Rights Project found that
African American students in predominately white schools were almost 10
times more likely than white students to be forced into remedial
classes.
All these factors help create enormous obstacles to receiving a good
education.
The University of Michigan has never lived up to its 1970 promise of 10
percent Black student enrollment. Instead, African American students
compose only about 7.5 percent of U of M's under grad uate enrollment.
That is a significant gain from the numbers in 1970, but still grossly
out of proportion with the state's 14-percent African American
population of the state. ("Disappointing Numbers," www.michigandaily.
com, Nov. 18; www.census2000.gov)
African American students and faculty are also still fighting for more
tenured faculty of color, the creation of an African and African
American Studies department, and an end to racist harassment on campus,
including white students parading in "blackface."
BEHIND ATTACKS ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
The lawsuit against Michigan was initiated by the Center for Individual
Rights, a racist, right-wing think-tank based in Washington, D.C. that
is responsible for most of the recent anti-affirmative-action
litigation. It has brought similar lawsuits against the University of
Washington and University of Texas. It also defended Proposition 209,
the law in California that banned affirmative action at the University
of California. (www.cir-usa.org)
At the University of Texas Law School, Black student enrollment
decreased by 90 percent the year after the CIR won its racist lawsuit.
(www.michigandaily.com, "Other universities," Dec. 3)
Similar effects from Proposition 209 have been reported at UCLA and UC-
Berkeley. Further, the few African Americans who have managed to
persevere at these schools have reported a dramatic increase in racist
harassment. (www.michigandaily.com, "UC becoming resegregated", Feb. 9,
2001)
Behind the CIR and the barrage of attacks on programs for the poor and
oppressed throughout the 1990s are wealthy foundations and elites. They
include the Bradley Foundation--infamous for its role in dismantling
welfare in favor of the "workfare" system--and the Orin Foundation,
which along with Bradley pulled the strings in former New York Mayor
Rudolph Giuliani's campaign to eliminate the progressive open admissions
system at the City University of New York.
CIR also has the help of the most racist, reactionary forces. In the
Texas case, CIR was assisted by lawyer Theodore Olson, now U.S.
Solicitor General, who defended Ronald Reagan during the Iran-Contra
scandal, and Stacey Koon, the Los Angeles cop who brutally beat Rodney
King. (Diaz, Black Issue in Higher Education, Dec. 25, 1997). In the
Michigan case, CIR used former State Sen. David Jaye to help it recruit
plaintiffs. Jaye, a rabidly racist politician, is known for his failed
attempts to reinstate the death penalty in Michigan and to pass a state
constitutional amendment banning affirmative action. (Lansing State
Journal, May 25, 2001)
Groups like the CIR try to explain away the deep disparities in wealth
and education in the United States through racist and anti-poor rhetoric
about "merit" and the "work ethic." They dismiss the effects of hundreds
of years of racism and oppression. They argue that standardized tests
like the SAT measure how "qualified" someone is to go to college, even
though study after study has shown that the only thing these tests
measure accurately is how much money someone has to throw into an SAT
preparation class or a private tutor.
They viciously attack the programs that have given at least a few of the
poor and oppressed the opportunity to get some sort of a decent
education, while staying silent about the "legacy" admissions that
benefit the children of rich alumni most of all. Underlying all these
pretexts and lies is their desire to reserve the best education in this
country for more affluent white students, to the detriment of the
oppressed.
IMPLICATIONS OF THE RECENT DECISION
The upcoming decision in the University of Michigan case will be the
first time the high court has looked at this issue since 1978. At that
time, the Supreme Court dealt a huge blow to affirmative action in the
U.C. Regents vs. Bakke ruling. The court attempted to undermine
affirmative action's role as a corrective to the cumulative effects of
hundreds of years of racism, using the false argument of "reverse
discrimination."
This time, many fear the court will eliminate affirmative action in
higher education altogether. In the lower courts, expert witnesses
testified in the Michigan case that the elimination of affirmative
action would result in a decrease in student of color enrollment from
the current rate of 14.5 percent to an abysmal 4 percent at the law
school. Similar effects are estimated for the undergraduate program.
(Gratz v. Bollinger, 6th Cir. 2002)
Some time in the spring, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in
the University of Michigan case. But the fate of affirmative action, and
of access to education in this country, cannot be left to the will of
the reactionary Supreme Court. All progressive and anti-racist people
should organize locally and nationally to combat this attack.
- END -
(Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and
distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not
allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY,
NY 10011; via e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe wwnews-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Support the
voice of resistance http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
------------------
This message is sent to you by Workers World News Service.
To subscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Send administrative queries to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
