[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 28, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E31-E32]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


             THE TRUTH ABOUT THE TAXMAN V. PISCATAWAY CASE

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. WILLIAM (BILL) CLAY

                              of missouri

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, January 28, 1998

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, when the Black Leadership Forum decided to 
finance the settlement of the Taxman v. Pascataway, many outside the 
civil rights community asked

[[Page E32]]

``why?''. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments and the case 
was said to be perfect for an argument in defense of affirmative 
action--both applicant were allegedly ``equally'' qualified. This was a 
total distortion of the facts. The candidates were NOT equally 
qualified. Debra Williams, the African-American teacher, had 
significantly higher academic credentials than did the other teacher. I 
submit an insightful column that accurately sets forth the real issue 
in the Piscataway case. The column was written by the distinguished 
economist, columnist, and educator Dr. Julianne Malveaux and appeared 
in the December 11, 1997 issue of Black Issues in Higher Education.

   The Myth of Educational Attainment: When a Black Women's Master's 
            Degree Equals a White Woman's Bachelor's Degree

       The Black Leadership Forum--an organization that includes 
     the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National 
     Urban League, the National Council of Negro Women, and 
     others--deflected energy from the controversial Taxman v. 
     Piscataway case that the Supreme Court had committed to hear 
     this session. The forum agreed to finance 70 percent of the 
     nearly $450,000 settlement that the plaintiff and her lawyers 
     will receive from the Piscataway school board.
       Sharon Taxman was the White business education teacher who 
     was laid off in a downsizing while Debra Williams, an African 
     American business education teacher, was retained. Since the 
     two women were hired the same day and deemed ``equally'' 
     qualified, the school board justified retaining Williams on 
     the basis of ``diversity.''
       Faster than she could spell diverse, Taxman was filing a 
     lawsuit. Her quest for ``equality'' was affirmed by every 
     court up to the Supreme Court, which had agreed to hear her 
     case. Civil rights activists thought this was the wrong one 
     to take to the nation's highest court, so they bought Taxman 
     out.
       I'm not sure how I feel about the buy-out. It's like 
     postponing something tragic--in this case, the apathy that 
     comes from a Supreme Court which appears to be indifferent to 
     diversity as well as equality. But I am convinced that there 
     are at least two villains in this story--and one of them is 
     the Piscataway School Board.
       Come again? To some, these guys seem like the good guys. 
     They retained an African American teacher and laid off a 
     White one, upholding diversity. At the same time, though, 
     they tragically argued that two workers were ``equally'' 
     qualified when one held a master's degree while the other had 
     a lesser education.
       If we were Debra Williams I'd be fuming through the ears. 
     The myth that hard work and the quest for education would 
     give you a leg up was busted in her case. Rather than the 
     school board affirming her superior education, they told her 
     that her master's degree was not worth enough for her to be 
     considered more than equally qualified over a colleague with 
     less education. (I almost typed inferior for less, but that 
     is the oppressor's game.)
       A careful examination of what happened in Piscataway 
     explains why affirmative action has become America's whipping 
     post. Instead of White employers telling White employees that 
     they aren't competitive, the White employees are told that a 
     position was assigned or retained because of affirmative 
     action. That is the kind of lazy dishonesty that fuels the 
     myth of White superiority.
       Consider Proposition 209. We all know that it was 
     championed by Republicans Pete Wilson and Ward Connerly, but 
     the early poster boys were two White men who presented 
     themselves as academics and said they could not find jobs in 
     the California State University system, despite their 
     ``qualifications.''
       To be sure, these men both had Ph.D. degrees. However, 
     neither had earned academic distinction. They were not 
     published, nor had they ever actually applied for jobs in the 
     California state system--a fact uncovered in a blistering 
     report by investigative journalists.
       Nonetheless, one of these men said he could not find a job 
     as a philosophy teacher in California. In the year he said he 
     looked, five philosophers were hired, and three were White 
     men. But he didn't challenge their status. There was an 
     eminently qualified White woman hired, and he didn't 
     challenge her status either. And an African American woman, 
     also hired, was not the target of his ire.
       Where was this undistinguished, unpublished, nonapplying 
     product of our nation's system of higher education supposed 
     to get a job? It didn't matter. In his warped mind, some 
     mythical Black person was out there holding his job--and by 
     golly, he was going to make affirmative action beneficiaries 
     pay. Thus, Proposition 209.
       Enter the second villain of this New Jersey-spawned affair. 
     Taxman must have her head in the sand. Hasn't she ever heard 
     that people lose their jobs. Spit happens, and the best thing 
     to do with spit is to wash it off and move on.
       Instead, she put her life on hold, apparently because she 
     could not stand the notion that some Black woman should get a 
     job she thought she should have. Never mind that the Black 
     woman, her colleague, had more education. Never mind that her 
     colleague was the better teacher. Taxman is White and she has 
     wrapped herself in the privilege of Whiteness. Thus, her 
     lawsuit.
       The Supreme Court wouldn't see that because they are mostly 
     White, too. Those who opposed Taxman would have had to 
     overcome both the Court's distaste for affirmative action--
     and its pejorative description of such policies as ``race-
     based preferences''--as well as a fealty to Whiteness.
       The civil rights community bought Taxman off because they 
     understood that the Piscataway school board improperly 
     packaged this case, choosing affirmative action and diversity 
     as the wrong reasons to let an inferior teacher go. If the 
     school board had looked more carefully at the two women and 
     their qualifications, this case may not have gone to court.
       There's the rub. Spit happens. Downsizing takes place. What 
     the Taxman case has said so far is that when downsizing 
     doesn't fall on the shoulders of Black people, White people 
     are ready to go to court. Or when all else is supposedly 
     equal, White folks are supposed to prevail.
       This is a premise that deserves challenge. But then there 
     are others, such as the premise that a White woman's 
     bachelor's degree is the equivalent of a Black woman's 
     master's. That is only the case in a racist society.

     

                          ____________________