Glynn Custred and Luke Massie would probably not agree on
anything when it comes to the debate over affirmative action. But
they would both agree the highest court is on their side. Custred,
an anthropology professor at California State University, Hayward,
believes race should not be considered when employers look at job
applications or when college officials weigh prospective students.
To Custred, giving minority applicants a leg up because of race
would be racism. Massie, the co-director of a national civil rights
organization, believes racial discrimination is an invisible
reality in American society. To Massie, ignoring race would badly
cripple the opportunities of millions of minorities. But the two
men both believe the principles of the landmark 1954 Supreme Court
ruling of Brown v. the Topeka, Kan. Board of Education is on his
side. This point of unification is fairly unique. Affirmative
action usually drives supporters and opponents miles apart. But
both invoke the spirit of Brown v. Board to show how one side is
right and the other is wrong. The debate over affirmative action
often becomes charged for both sides. Words such as
“racist” and “disingenuous” fly when
opponents and proponents discuss whether race is or should be a
factor for hiring employees and admitting students. Opponents of
affirmative action scored a victory in California when Proposition
209 passed in 1996. The proposition outlawed the consideration of
race or gender in state hiring and admissions practices in state
schools. Proposition 209 makes California one of two states in the
nation that have laws against state agencies and state schools
““ such as the University of California ““ considering
race. The second state is Washington, and a similar law is being
pushed in Michigan but floundering badly. The law has been a
lightning rod for the nationwide debate on affirmative action.
Supporters of affirmative action say the law violates the
principles of Brown v. Board. Opponents say it upholds those
principles. “Proposition 209 basically enforced Brown v.
Board of Education. It’s saying you can’t have
race-based assignments to schools, which is exactly what 209
says,” said Tom Wood, who, along with Custred, is one of the
co-authors of the law. Not so, says Massie. “Race-conscious
measures are still necessary to achieve what Brown prescribed as
the only road to equality,” said Massie, the national
co-director of By Any Means Necessary, a pro-affirmative action
coalition.
“¢bull; “¢bull; “¢bull;
The U.S. Supreme Court justices who ruled in the Brown v. Board
decision 50 years ago were dealing with a very different reality of
race relations than what exists today. Until Brown v. Board, race
was defined by the doctrine of “separate but equal”
enforced by the 1882 ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson. Segregation was
standard practice in many schools. Black students attended
institutions with less-experienced teachers and fewer supplies.
Many blacks did not have access to higher education. But on May 17,
1954, the Supreme Court ruled that public schools have no right to
segregate, ushering in a new precedent. The ruling sparked slow but
sweeping changes in the nation’s education system. It gave
civil rights groups the legal backing to say everyone was entitled
to an education regardless of their race. It is this principle that
lies at the crux of the dispute over how Brown v. Board should be
interpreted when it comes to affirmative action. Proponents of
affirmative action argue it is the best way to reverse decades of
racist practices that hurt minorities before Brown v. Board, a
process they say Proposition 209 brought to a halt. “To now
suddenly say we’re going to wipe the slate clean and act as
if we have a level playing field, you disproportionately cripple
certain groups,” said Darnell Hunt, director of the Ralph J.
Bunche Center for African American Studies. Supporters also say
Proposition 209 is threatening the rights Brown v. Board
established, and they point to statistics and studies as evidence.
For example, admission of black students to the UC fell by 15
percent this year, and applications were down 7 percent. At UCLA,
blacks comprised 199 out of a total of 8,823 admits. The problems
minorities face exist before the college level as well. John
Rodgers, an education professor, conducted a study that found high
schools that serve predominantly non-white students are six times
more likely to have problems that threaten their students’
opportunities than high schools that serve white students. The
report, titled “Separate and Unequal: 50 Years After
Brown,” stated that its findings show “California
schools fail the 50-year promise of Brown.” Such findings
have caused some to question whether black students truly do have
equal access to an education and to say affirmative action is the
best way to revive equal access. “Here we are at the 50th
anniversary, and what we’re finding is something resembling a
resegregation of California,” Hunt said. Opponents of
affirmative action take a different view. “The Brown decision
at its core ruled the government cannot segregate its people on the
basis of their race in public school. Proposition 209 certainly is
not inconsistent with that theme,” said Ward Connerly, a UC
regent and former chairman of the Proposition 209 campaign.
“In fact, it’s probably more consistent with it than
its opponents are.” People who share Connerly’s views
say affirmative action, because it lends preference to minority
students, discriminates against other students ““ white
students, for example ““ and therefore violates the spirit of
Brown v. Board. Custred, who helped write Proposition 209, said he
authored the initiative based on the belief that race was not an
inherent disadvantage to students, something with which supporters
of affirmative action would strongly disagree. “What’s
really hurting blacks the most is the mentality that you
can’t get ahead unless the white man up there, the
bureaucracy, throws you a bone,” Custred said. Connerly
soundly rejects accusations that Proposition 209 violates the
Supreme Court decision, contending that if the proposition does
violate Brown v. Board, the Supreme Court would have struck it down
long ago. Civil rights groups tried to take the law to the Supreme
Court after it passed in 1996, but the Court, following the lead of
lower courts that ruled Proposition 209 did not violate
anyone’s constitutional rights, declined to hear the case.
But interpreting Brown v. Board to support Proposition 209 takes
the decision of the justices out of its historical context, others
argue. “Their hope was for schooling opportunities that were
equal. Their hope wasn’t for a set of policies that would
disregard a student’s race as a way to support existing
systems of inequality in society, as Proposition 209 does,”
Rodgers said.
“¢bull; “¢bull; “¢bull;
It is not clear if there is enough momentum for a successful
campaign to repeal Proposition 209. A June 24, 2003 Supreme Court
ruling upheld the consideration of race in admissions at the
University of Michigan law school, causing civil rights groups to
speculate that the law was on its way out. Now, almost a year
later, Proposition 209 is still firmly entrenched in California.
And on the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board, educators, law
makers and civil rights leaders are taking advantage of the
occasion to once again make their case for affirmative action. They
point to data that shows declining opportunities for black
students. They look at reports that indicate declining admissions
for black students at top-tier universities in California. And they
invoke the memories of the activists who fought for equality in the
Brown v. Board decision. Rodgers remembered the Rev. Joseph DeLane,
a school teacher who took up the cause of black parents of South
Carolina students who only had one school bus for all their kids.
With DeLane’s encouragement, the parents petitioned the
school board for more buses and won their case after it was
attached to the Brown v. Board ruling. “I think (DeLane)
would be shocked that proponents of Proposition 209 were seeking to
use his legacy to support their efforts to undermine the
opportunities of young people of color today,” Rodgers
said.