In a recent editorial, The Tribune praised the Supreme Court`s decision curtailing affirmative action requirements in Richmond, Va., construction contracts.
Set-asides are necessary to remedy the scourge of past discrimination by increasing minority business participation in federal, state and local construction projects. Richmond is about 50 percent black, yet blacks have won less than 1 percent of city construction contracts in recent years. The Richmond City Council recognized that absent specific goals, minorities will continue to be excluded from the construction industry. We need only look to our own backyard and the notorious Dan Ryan project for proof.
The court`s decision unhappily disregards the real-world difficulties confronting cities attempting to provide fair opportunities for minority business. In rejecting, for example, the gross disparity between the number of contracts awarded minorities and the city`s minority population, the court claimed that the appropriate comparison is between the number of minority contracts and the number of minority contractors.
In speaking for the majority, however, Justice Sandra Day O`Connor appears to have forgotten her previous reasoning in a 1987 affirmative action case where she held that the ”relevant comparison” is not with the percentage of minorities who have experience but with the total percentage of minorities in the labor force. Because discrimination rarely leaves fingerprints, victims of discrimination are forced to rely on such statistical comparisons to prove discrimination. The Supreme Court`s decision eliminates the use of that common-sense measure.
