Racial Preferences Are Entrenched in U.S. Law
Congress, under both parties, has supported affirmative action by statute and in budgetary provisions. By Readers July 31, 2023 10:23 am ET The emblem of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on a podium in Vail, Colo., Feb. 16, 2016. Photo: David Zalubowski/Associated Press There are reasons to be skeptical of Judge Glock’s claim that “Racial Preferences in Contracting Face Legal Peril” (op-ed, July 26). First, President Lyndon Johnson’s Executive Order 11246 from 1965 created the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. It explicitly calls for “affirmative action” and has always been used to push corporations to hire minorities and women. Any GOP president since could have erased it; none did. Second, Congress has supported affirmative action by statute and in budgetary provisions, using minority set-asides and
The emblem of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on a podium in Vail, Colo., Feb. 16, 2016.
Photo: David Zalubowski/Associated Press
There are reasons to be skeptical of Judge Glock’s claim that “Racial Preferences in Contracting Face Legal Peril” (op-ed, July 26). First, President Lyndon Johnson’s Executive Order 11246 from 1965 created the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. It explicitly calls for “affirmative action” and has always been used to push corporations to hire minorities and women. Any GOP president since could have erased it; none did.
Second, Congress has supported affirmative action by statute and in budgetary provisions, using minority set-asides and creating Offices of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization that pervade the federal government to help minorities garner government contracts. (A recent court case Mr. Glock mentions didn’t undo these efforts.)
Third, the federal government is an affirmative-action employer and has been since 1971, when the Civil Service Commission caved to pressure from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Fourth, in 1979, the Supreme Court upheld affirmative action in private-sector employment.
Fifth, this past February the Biden administration added another layer. “Agency Equity Teams,” relying on the 1964 Civil Right Act’s Title VI funding-cutoff threat, will now go looking for “disparities” to “remedy.”
Let’s be realistic. Someday, someone might write an accurate summary of the status of affirmative action as a practical matter in America. The left won’t like it because it will show how big the left has won out, despite all its whining to the contrary. The right won’t like it for the same reason.
Prof. Thomas Powers
Carthage College
Kenosha, Wis.
Mr. Glock correctly notes that “white contractors often use minority ‘front companies’ to win contracts.” Often, however, this works the other way. After they win the contract, the minority or “set aside” firms hire nonminority firms to complete the work because they have superior experience and expertise.
Joe C. Freeman
West Lake Hills, Texas
As to minority set-asides in government contracts, the disparate impact is on taxpayers. With our progressive income tax, that group is becoming an oppressed minority.
Gregory Marshall
Marietta, Ga.
What's Your Reaction?
