Are Quotas Really The Problem?

By ELLIS COSE

In the rhetorical quagmire of the racial-quota debate, it's easy to lose sight of the fact that virtually all Americans abhor brazen racial favoritism. Blacks, whites, Democrats and Republicans alike passionately believe in the meritocracy, but radically disagree on whether we are becoming one.

Most nonwhite Americans know, deep in their bones, that the deck is unfairly stacked against them, while most whites know, with absolute certainty, that such is profoundly untrue, or at least that whatever discrimination exists is, - for the most part, justified. That difference in perspective will endure long after the House-passed civil rights legislation is killed, compromised or enacted into law, for the fundamental discord is not over quotas but over the aptitude of those classed as racial minorities. Non-"Anglos" may not typically be tapped to run FORTUNE 500 companies or manage professional sports teams, but the reason -- many whites quietly believe -- has less to do with racial bias than with the failure of such groups to measure up. Those sentiments are, of course, rarely voiced in polite society. When they are (as by the likes of former Los Angeles Dodgers vice president Al Campanis, who observed that blacks lack "necessities"), condemnation is quick and merciless. Americans, after all, draw little pleasure from hurting people's feelings, especially those of the self-declared downtrodden. Such solicitude, however, does not translate into acceptance of affirmative action, which is widely perceived as little more than the elevation of incompetents beyond their ability.

Of course, everyone knows that occasional preferential treatment is inescapable; but when the beneficiary is a white male, we have a way of assuming that the basic ability exists, that in time the ambitious go-getter will grow into his unearned station. Even when qualifications are so slight (witness Dan Quayle) as to make a presumption of merit difficult, we tend to see the incident as an aberration in a system that by and large works the way it should.

Favoritism toward minorities is viewed differently, because they themselves are viewed differently. A nationwide survey last year by the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center found three-fourths of white respondents agreeing that blacks were more likely than whites to prefer welfare to employment. Blacks were also thought likely to be lazy, violent and unintelligent. Hispanics were viewed in an equally negative light, and Asian Americans were seen as not much better. Obviously, if minority citizens are fundamentally flawed it is better to discriminate against them than against whites. Even if in the process a few deserving minorities are pushed aside, the meritocracy's essential integrity is maintained. To countless whites, such a rationalization of racial bias is morally defensible -- while naked racism is not.

Only such an attitude could explain why so many acknowledge the existence of discrimination against minorities but oppose doing anything about it; or whites' stubborn insistence, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that discrimination is not a problem. The majority of whites responding to a Washington Post/ABC News poll, for instance, denied that minority applicants encountered discrimination in hiring, even though they conceded that minority workers were less likely than whites to advance into management. Even among the large number -- 44% -- who acknowledged discrimination, support for programs to end it was virtually nonexistent. In contrast, nearly 90% of blacks thought discrimination existed, and roughly two-thirds supported programs to ameliorate it.

To describe the difference in views as a disagreement over quotas is to deny the obvious impact of racial bias on American thought. White complacency about discrimination is not derived from mere opposition to preference programs. It is an example of how stereotypes, as they interact with a belief in the meritocracy, add up to a firm conviction that members of racial minorities deserve no better than they get.

Many Hispanics and blacks do poorly on certain tests, and this provides plausibly objective support for such ideas. Yet even before ability tests existed, society assumed that whites were an intellectually and morally superior race. Such a presumption is, in effect, a white American's birthright. Minorities face a society convinced that they are less fit, unless proved otherwise. As a result, even for the most talented nonwhites, the standard for advancement and access is different from that for whites -- so- called quota programs notwithstanding. If management is predisposed to doubt the qualifications of minority applicants, ways will be found to neutralize such programs even as bosses offer (largely unconscious) advantages to whites.

In defense of affirmative action, Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in 1978: "In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race . . . And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently." In the current racial climate, one can only conclude that taking account of race, even in a supposedly ameliorative way, does not guarantee the ability to get beyond race. The only question is how we choose to deal with it. Do we do so by applying outwardly unbiased policies that ultimately rely on the judgment and goodwill of those who assume minorities lack "necessities," or by following a racially conscious course that, in trying to set things right, stirs up massive resentment and animosity?

We seem fated to continue doing both at once. Given that, political leaders have the option either of exploiting racial tensions by ranting about quotas or of trying to help all Americans understand that a true meritocracy is impossible as long as we cling to racial stereotypes. It may be comforting to pretend that quotas lie at the root of America's racial problems. Yet deep down we probably all know that if the truth were so simple, quotas would not even be an issue.