MLK Jr. would reject diversity set-asides
January 20, 2013 4 Comments
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” –Martin Luther King Jr.
Guilford County Schools’ “set-aside” program for women and minorities is a blatant violation of King’s vision. Affirmative action and all such diversity-enhancing programs are so insidious, one hardly knows where to begin. For the moment, let us examine the folly here in Guilford County.
GCS strives to reward 12 percent of school construction work to women- or minority-owned businesses, and, according to the News & Record, in the last four years, “28.5 percent of the bond money” has gone to those businesses (http://www.news-record.com/home/588205-63/schools-pressed-on-minority-contracts?printerfriendly=true.).
But these numbers are insufficient, according to Commissioners Coleman and Davis, who represent the extreme left wing of the board. Women-owned businesses have been rewarded 18.27 percent of the work, while black-owned enterprises have received 6.95 percent (Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asians received smaller percentages).
Commissioner Davis is unhappy about the percentage of work being rewarded to women, presumably at the expense of blacks. “Once you extrapolate the numbers,” he told the N&R, “if you take out the women’s owned businesses [sic], you see it’s not an African American business or a Hispanic business, it’s not those targeted groups that really need to be helped that we’re helping.”
Isn’t the insinuation of incompetence insulting to successful black entrepreneurs? It may surprise Mr. Davis to learn that many minority-owned businesses thrive without the benevolence of government programs.
When we judge people based on the color of their skin (in defiance of King’s dream), or by gender, we establish rival factions of “victims” who will be at each other’s throats over the spoils of an inherently flawed diversity program. Blacks—those of Davis’ mindset, at least—will strive to out-victim women; Hispanics will strive to out-victim blacks…there is no end to the squabble over diversity handouts: “No, we’re more incompetent than you are! No, we can’t possibly compete with white males because we’re undocumented! Standards are racist! We need to be hired based upon the color of our skin! The left-handed lesbian community has been under-represented for decades by a patriarchal, sexist society!”
In the same speech, Dr. King said, “Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline.” Commissioners Davis and Coleman thrive on bitterness, and there is nothing dignified about accepting a job that was offered as a result of one’s gender or skin color. In fact, accepting a job under such conditions is a disgrace to one’s gender and race. And worse, government entities that offer employment based upon the applicant’s gender or skin color are violating the nation’s founding principles.
Many of us are relying upon the board’s conservative wing—Phillips, Branson, and Henning—to denounce in no uncertain terms, and move to abolish, race- and gender-based quotas.
Regarding GCS, a late stage collectivist based model, with drastically falling output regardless of the drastically increased input, is at the last stage of late stage collectivist models. The last stage is where the power purveyors enrich themselves. Inputs, outputs and processes thereof are all of no real consequence to the power purveyor in the last stage. The stratagem is for the power purveyor to enrich themselves from the spongy conduit of revenue flowing through the collective. The stratagem is to redirect attention away from the enrichment. If one would like to read more about such phenomena try From Economic Man to Economic System, Harold Demsetz, 2008, Cambridge University Press.
Regarding Davis and Coleman, both are merely engaged is political constituency building exercises through taxpayer dollars [yawn]. Race can be used in political constituency building exercises through taxpayer dollars. The argument put forth is that of the exogenous. Some exogenous force is causing detriment to their particular political constituency. The argument comes complete with arguments with no argument and delivered through verbal virtuosity. In the end, the exogenous detrimental force can best be dealt with by….wait for it…. funneling taxpayer funds to their particular political constituency. Go figure! You see, by painting the world in their particular self-image, then all will be particularly correct. If one would like to read more about such phenomena try Government Failure, Tullock, Seldon and Brady, 2002, Cato Institute -and- Intellectuals and Society, Thomas Sowell, 2009, Basic Books.
MLK Jr. is dead and can’t speak for himself and you, Mr Davenport, have no clue what he would or would not support. Neither do I, so we’ll leave it at that, wondering why you would even bring his name into it, other than to incite your own racial attitudes.
Apparently, the GCS is striving to offer contracts for work to a variety of companies that are owned and operated by individuals of groups that have been, and still are being offerred far less opportunities than those business owners that are well established by decades of participation in the old-style social network comprised of service organizations, country clubs, politics, bowling leagues, hunt clubs, churches, neighborhood clubs, and so on. You know, the Good-Ole-Boys.
How you can make the quantum leap to to judging people and their abilities by their race or gender is mind-boggling; most likely because it’s complete rubbish. No one is questioning the competence of any person or group of people. What the gentlemen are pointing out is the GCS has stated guidelines for awarding contracts and they have not followed those guidelines to their satisfaction thus far. The assumption is ALL competing parties are competent and worthy of being awarded contracts by the district.
It seems apparent to me, Mr. Davenport, when you assert that accepting a job under such conditions is a disgrace to one’s gender and race, you are the one saying, “you know you’re incompetent, you can’t possibly compete with white males, standards are racist, and the only way to be hired is based upon the color of our (white) skin.” For far too long all employment opportunities were given to this guy, that man, my nephew, or your brother-in-law simply because, you know, “He’s one of us!” Why is it NOT a disgrace to accept a job because your race is white and your gender is male, but it IS disgraceful for everyone else?
In every area of the economy, but especially where the public’s money is involved, all groups must be included in the process and guaranteed that all available opportunities will be administered according to the stated policies, legislated requirements, or both. After all, all groups’ taxes created the pool of “public money” and they all should have the right to compete for it.
While many may hope some commissioners will submit to the pressure of conservatives, MOST of us hope the entire board understands that all men are created equal and deserve every chance to participate in this great economy.
Thomas, I brought up MLK Jr. because, in case you missed it, we recently celebrated MLK Day. You claim that I can’t possibly know what King would think of set-asides, but I beg to differ. Words mean things, and King wanted his daughters to be judged by the content of their character, and not by the color of their skin. Do you understand that? It’s really quite simple. Assuming King meant what he said, the only rational conclusion is that he would scornfully reject diversity set-asides. The guidlelines GCS uses to award contracts are flawed, because they are obsessed with the gender and race of potential contractors. This, too, based upon his own words, King would reject.
Your philosophy is appropriate to 1955, but racism has nearly been abolished. The policies you support–because they are flagrantly racist–would only turn back the clock a half-century, and tear the scab off of wounds long-healed.
Finally, all men are indeed created equal, but when reminded of this, Fisher Ames (author of the First Amendment) used to snap back at his colleagues, “But they differ greatly in the sequel!” Indeed they do: some of us endorse a color-blind society, while others prefer to wallow vengefully in miseries cured decades ago.
Cordially,
Charles Davenport Jr.
Words do mean things and Dr. King wanted his children and all people to be judged on the content of their character; judge whether they are good people or not, do they show respect and consideration for others, do they obey the laws, pay their taxes, help when help is needed. Do you really believe he was talking about judging people’s competency to pour a concrete sidewalk at the local High School?
Words do mean things and I can only read the words you put out there. You said the “GCS strives to reward 12 percent of school construction work to women- or minority-owned businesses”. That would be their publicly stated goal and, flawed or not, that’s their promise to the people and contractors in the community they serve.
The moderate Commissioners Davis and Coleman did the math and discovered that 89.77% of the diversity handouts go to white business owners. Black-owned business managed to obtain 6.96% of the work and Hispanics and Asians picked up the remaining 3.3%. Naturally, they point out that we’re not really helping those groups that we really wanted to help.
The question is, Charles, what group ar YOU trying to help? Would you have the same position if 90% of the work went to the Black, Hispanic, and Asian businesses with the whites dividing up the remaining 10% of the “diversity handouts”?
No, Charles, I didn’t miss Dr. King’s holiday. I spent it watching a couple documentaries on the life of Dr. King and then watched the iinauguration of our President.