A dispute over affirmative action has erupted into an all-out brawl between the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and its own advisory committees in the Midwest, with the groups in Illinois, Indiana and Michigan in open rebellion.
The unusual fight reflects the acrimony surrounding the national debate on affirmative action and reveals how divided and contentious the once-distinguished civil rights commission has become.
The dispute began last year when the three advisory committees submitted reports concluding that affirmative action enjoys wide support in their states. The civil rights commission refused to accept or publish the papers, declaring them “unbalanced.”
Angered by the decision, advisory committee members are publishing the reports on their own, without permission from the commission. Illinois’ report was issued Tuesday.
Each side accuses the other of acting illegally. The rift is especially striking because the state committee members are appointed by the commission.
“We were furious,” Joseph Mathewson, chairman of the Illinois committee, said of the commission’s rejection of the reports. “We felt that our work was being ignored wrongly. They are now sitting as censors over these state committees that they are supposed to be listening to.”
Many people in Illinois took time to contribute to the report, Mathewson said, and taxpayers have a right to see the report they paid for. That is why the committee is publishing the report on its own, Mathewson added, “despite the perverse attitude of the commission.”
The commission was not unanimous in its rejection of the reports. The motion to accept the Illinois, Indiana and Michigan documents failed on a 4-4 vote, prompting Chairwoman Mary Frances Berry to publicly apologize to the members of all three advisory committees.
The four who voted “no” say they have accepted reports from other states, but that these three were too one-sided.
“What clearly a majority, and probably all, of the commissioners would have accepted as balanced was just a short articulation of the other side of the argument,” said Commissioner Russell Redenbaugh.
Redenbaugh said he was not sure why the matter has erupted so dramatically. “These reports are pretty innocuous,” he said. “These are not the Pentagon papers. You will need No-Doz if you read two of them in a row.”
To some, the dispute highlights the increasing dissension and perhaps irrelevance plaguing the commission, created in 1957 to study civil rights issues and publish its findings.
President Ronald Reagan shocked the commission in 1983 by firing several of its members.
Some conservatives say that was long overdue, but civil rights leaders say the agency never recovered.
“The commission lost its credibility and truly became a laughingstock,” longtime civil rights activist Ralph Neas said in an interview. “The House, the Senate, the press–no one paid any attention to it.”
These days, the body’s eight members seem more polarized than ever. The president appoints all eight commissioners, but four must be from another party. As a result, the commission is always split in half, with each faction having veto power.
“The ideological schism couldn’t be any greater,” said Karen Narasaki, executive director of the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium. “Many people in the civil rights community view the commission as being dysfunctional.”
It was a year ago that the civil rights commission received reports on affirmative action from Indiana, Illinois and Michigan, as well as other states. The Republican appointees immediately denounced the three as biased.
“We’re not going to have credibility if what might represent 40 percent of national sentiment isn’t in any way represented,” said Commissioner Constance Horner. The commissioners returned the reports to the states, urging them to seek greater balance.
But the advisory committee members scoffed.
“To artificially pump up one side of a debate in order to make it appear more significant and important in Illinois than it actually is would be specious,” said Mathewson, a former Republican Cook County commissioner. “The result would not fairly reflect the views of the people of Illinois.”
When the commission finalized its rejection, the committee leaders were even more upset.
“It was like a slap in the face,” said Paul Chase, who heads the Indiana committee.
“We are very disappointed,” added Roland Hwang, chairman of the Michigan committee. “The polarization, or politicizing, of the issue is getting in the way of our mission.”
So they decided to act on their own.
In Michigan, the 13 advisory committee members each chipped in $30 to publish 70 copies of their report. In Illinois, First Penn/Pacific Life Insurance Co. has agreed to foot the bill for 100 copies. The Indiana committee is “on the verge” of finding someone to pay printing costs, Chase said.
This is not likely to end the battle. Some commissioners believe the committees are violating at least one law forbidding them to publish documents in their official capacity without the commission’s approval.
“It’s clearly in violation of the statute,” Redenbaugh said.
The committee leaders retort that it was the commission that broke the law, by rejecting their reports without a valid reason.
A statement from the chairman that is part of the Illinois report acknowledges that the document is being published “independently” of the commission. That, it adds defiantly, stems from “an abrogation by the commission of its responsibility.”
The three reports consist mainly of statements submitted by people from around each state. In Illinois, that includes figures such as James Compton, president and chief executive officer of the Chicago Urban League, and Douglas Whitley, president of Ameritech Illinois.
The chairman’s statement at the beginning of the 150-page report says, “The Illinois Advisory Committee opines that affirmative action programs are still necessary to address the racial, color, gender and disability-based discrimination that persists in this country.”
The dispute may stem in part from the complexity of affirmative action itself. The state committees define it as outreach only–but they acknowledge that many equate it with quotas or preferences.
During the commission debate, Commissioner Carl Anderson complained that the Michigan report includes 20 statements supporting affirmative action and just one against. But others say that few of the statements are so clear-cut; many support affirmative action but suggest reforms.
The state panel leaders argued most passionately that when U.S. commissioners second-guess their findings on what is happening in their own states, that amounts to tampering with the facts.
“Most people in Illinois felt affirmative action should be continued, and we said that,” Mathewson said. “The commission didn’t want to hear that. They wanted balance, which seemed to mean more opposition to affirmative action.”
Redenbaugh responded that the commission agreed several years ago to weigh the balance of the advisory reports. Since then, he said, the panel has accepted about 90 percent of studies submitted.
“In the case of these three, we did encourage them to have a balanced presentation and discussion of the topic,” Redenbaugh said. “They declined and said they wanted to do it this way, take it or leave it.”
Three years ago, the Michigan committee submitted a report on hate crimes, which the commission rejected because it included a chapter on violence against gays. More recently, the commission refused to accept a report from Utah on workplace violence that it considered intemperate.
It is unclear whether such deadlocks will continue. President Clinton will appoint two new commissioners in December, and that may alter the contentious atmosphere.
But for now, many on and off the commission remain frustrated. Former Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.) noted that Clinton, in launching his national dialogue on race, turned elsewhere.
“It is significant that when the president decided to do something on race relations, he appointed a special commission,” Simon said. “In previous years, it would have gone to the civil rights commission.”
