Tuesday, December 30, 1997

Affirmative action vs. racial preferences

By MYRIAM MARQUEZ

The Orlando Sentinel

What's the difference between affirmative action and racial preferences?

According to most conservatives, there is no difference, which is why they view affirmative-action programs with such disdain. And if there were no difference, that view might be mine, too.

Most Americans support affirmative action when it is explained that such programs seek equal opportunity - not equal outcomes - for women or minorities looking to get into college or find a good job.

By law, racial preferences are anathema to the Constitution's guarantees of equal treatment for all. And polls show most Americans in all racial categories agree that preferences for some amount to discrimination for others.

So how do we reconcile all of this?

President Clinton, who has appointed a commission to look at America's racial divide, met with several conservatives recently to try to find common ground.

For Clinton, race is one issue - perhaps the only issue - that I believe he deeply cares about. Part of Clinton's belief that affirmative action is still needed comes from his experiences growing up during the 1960s civil-rights struggles. He also learned first hand about affirmative action when he was a college professor.

"I used to deal with admissions policies," Clinton said in a news conference last week. "The whole premise on which affirmative action is being attacked is that there really is a totally objective, realistic way you can predict success in college and the right to go to college and capacity to learn in college based on your high school grades and your SAT (Scholastic Assessment Test) scores.

"And yet we know, if you forget about race altogether, that grading systems in some high schools are very different from those in others, and that the work done in the courses in some schools at the same period of time are different from those in others.

"Furthermore, we know that performance on the SAT scores is not a perfect predictor of capacity to learn and capacity to perform in college, because there are some people who just won't do as well because of the experiences they've had, but they're capable, given the chance, of making a huge leap in college. That is why I say I honestly believe that it's going to be difficult to finally resolve all this at the ballot box."

Difficult, indeed. We know from national experience that laws aren't always sufficient to ensure equality. We know, too, that the way some affirmative action programs are administered amounts to unfair preference.

Under the law, affirmative-action programs do not "guarantee" a woman or minority will get admitted to college or get a good job simply because of that person's gender or race. Those programs do, however, make sure women and minorities are sought out to apply for college or jobs, and some are given remedial help. Remediation is meant to offset economic or social disadvantages created by years of either benign societal neglect or outright discrimination.

It's well-documented, for instance, that public schools serving inner-city neighborhoods have far fewer experienced teachers than suburban schools and few computers or other valuable teaching tools that can make a huge difference in how well a child is taught.

"I honestly believe," the president said, "that if every kid in this country had the right kind of preparation and a hand up where needed enough in advance, and the right sort of supports - and you had a realistic set of criteria for letting people into college - that there would not be much racial disparity in who got into which institutions."

Clinton is on the right track by focusing on creating educational opportunities for all children so that no one mistakes affirmative action for preference. Will conservatives of good conscience work with him to make it so?

Myriam Marquez is an editorial page columnist for the Orlando Sentinel.

Knight-Ridder/Tribune Information Services