Informed discussions about affirmative-action policies have rarely taken place in the media, by politicians or among the public because misinformation and confusion abound.
Your coverage of the June 12 Supreme Court decision regarding affirmative-action programs in the awarding of construction contracts did little to encourage the honest debate that must happen around affirmative action.
First, the history of affirmative action accompanying the main article, which sweepingly outlined programs in contracting, employment and education, obscured the fact that the Supreme Court’s decision in Adarand Constructors vs. Pena immediately affects affirmative action only in the awarding of construction contracts. Executive Order 11246, which aims to ensure non-discrimination in the employment practices of federal contractors, is not at issue; nor are affirmative-action programs in the private workplace or programs designed to enhance diversity in educational institutions.
Moreover, in this chronology of affirmative action “key events,” you misrepresent President Nixon’s 1969 amendment to Executive Order 11246, stating that he set “quotas for hiring minorities under federal contracts.” Quotas are not now nor have they ever been required or permitted in hiring. Rather, in 1969, the inclusion of goals and timetables was recommended to the Nixon administration by a group of 350 large corporations that recognized that, as in every other aspect of business, some measurement was necessary to gauge progress in improving their hiring practices.
This issue demands accurate reporting in order to enhance readers’ understanding of its complexities so that they may make informed judgments and engage in healthy discussions about affirmative action. In its inaccurate use of the loaded word “quotas” and failure to clarify the limited impact of this recent Supreme Court decision, the Tribune has served only to confuse the issue and its readers.
