[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 136 (Tuesday, September 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S12627]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    IT'S NOT FOR WHITE MEN TO DECIDE

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, we have heard a lot of talk about 
affirmative action, much of it designed to attract votes rather than to 
contribute any light or rational discussion.
  Recently, I was on a radio discussion program with our former 
college, Pete Wilson, now the Governor of California. His position is 
one that I am sure is supported by a majority of Republicans and may be 
temporarily politically wise. But I do not believe it serves the Nation 
well.
  In an appearance on the David Brinkley program, he quoted Arthur 
Schlesinger, Jr. It was of interest to me then to pick up the Los 
Angeles Times and read Arthur Schlesinger's response.
  Like most things Arthur Schlesinger writes, it is loaded with good 
sense, and I ask that his response be printed in the Record.
  The response follows:

               [From the Los Angeles Times, Aug. 3, 1995]

                    It's Not for White Men To Decide

                      (By Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.)

       On Sunday, July 23, while I was befogged in Dark Harbor, 
     Me., Gov. Pete Wilson of California seemed even more befogged 
     on ``This Week With David Brinkley.'' On this program, he 
     cited me and my small book ``The Disuniting of America'' in 
     support of his crusade against affirmative action. 
     ``[Schlesinger] uses a phrase,'' Wilson said, ``that various 
     policies are, in fact, tribalizing America, and, in fact, 
     that is unhappily the case, and we need to end it.''
       Wilson is quite correct in noting my concern about the 
     campaign by ``multicultural'' ideologues to promote and 
     perpetuate separate ethnic and racial communities. But he is 
     quite wrong in suggesting that I am, for that reason, opposed 
     to affirmative action. On the contrary, affirmative action 
     has been, in my view, a valuable and potent means of moving 
     the republic away from ethnic and racial separatism and 
     toward a more integrated and unified society.
       Before affirmative action, the labor market and the 
     educational system were encrusted with barriers, antipathies 
     and conditioned reflexes that systematically excluded women 
     and non-white minorities. Affirmative action has played an 
     indispensable role in breaking these terribly well-entrenched 
     patterns in employment, college admission and other arenas of 
     recruitment and upward mobility. The goal of affirmative 
     action is precisely to destroy racial and gender barriers; 
     and it is the free intermingling of peoples that provides 
     that basis for a common culture and an embracing national 
     identity.
       Unquestionably, some reforms are in order. Rigid 
     application of ``diversity'' standards often leads to bad 
     results, especially in government employment. Programs 
     carried out in the name of affirmative action, especially 
     preferences for what purport to be minority business 
     enterprises, have been sorely abused. Still, affirmative 
     action in the main has served as an agency for the uniting, 
     not the disuniting, of America.
       I regard affirmative action as a transitional program. I do 
     not expect it to become a permanent feature of the labor 
     market. When should the transition end? It should end when 
     our white male ruling class no longer automatically 
     discriminates against women and against nonwhite minorities. 
     And the decision as to when the point is reached surely 
     belongs to those whose needs affirmative action is intended 
     to meet.
       Already some beneficiaries are growing increasingly uneasy. 
     Affirmative action seems to cast doubt on their own 
     credentials, competence and worth. They have become partners 
     in the firm or professors in the university, others might 
     think, not on their merits but because of racial or gender 
     preference.
       Affirmative action can thus become a means of undermining 
     self-esteem and dignity. It can imply that, without 
     affirmative action, women and minorities could not survive 
     and compete in the world of affairs. It may carry with it a 
     flavor of condescension and patronage. And it inevitably and 
     understandably arouses the resentment of those who feel that 
     affirmative action discriminates against them.
       When enough beneficiaries regard affirmative action with 
     embarrassment and discomfort, the time will have come to roll 
     up the policy. And the more white male America practices 
     policies of inclusion rather than exclusion, the sooner that 
     time will come.
       But until women and nonwhite minorities see affirmative 
     action as more a handicap than a help, the case for its 
     continuation in some form seems strong. And surely the 
     decision about continuation is not one to be made for hapless 
     minorities by politically ambitious white governors. Such 
     overweening presumption by powerful white men is the true 
     road to the disuniting of America.

                          ____________________