|
 n May 8, the U.S.
Department of Transportation proposed "substantive changes" to its
Disadvantaged
Business
Enterprise program. The DBE initiative grants a bidding preference
in the award of government contracts to companies that are owned
by "socially and economically disadvantaged" individuals. And it
presumes that people belonging to certain racial and ethnic groups
meet this criterion. None of this is new.
What is new in this week's proposals is one that DOT has
labeled "Proof of Ethnicity." "There have been a few documented
instances of individuals attempting to fraudulently participate
in the DBE program by falsely asserting to be a member of one of
the [favored] groups," says the administration, and so it proposes
that "a signed and notarized statement of group membership" be required.
Additional proof of ethnicity should not be necessary, the government
adds reassuringly — unless, of course, there is "a well founded
reason to doubt the veracity of the owner."
"We emphasize that great care must be taken in looking behind the
individual's assertion of membership in one of the groups," but
"if you have reason to believe that the owner of a firm seeking
certification has misrepresented his/her group membership, then
further information can and must be collected." (My italics.)
The federal government helpfully sets out the kinds of documentation
that might be appropriate. "A driver's license or a birth certificate
may be adequate types of proof of ethnicity," it says. "However,
in cases where the required proof does not indicate specific races,
such as Hispanic or Native American," then some other "single piece
of evidence may be required." Examples include "naturalization papers,
Indian tribal roll, tribal voter registration certificate, a letter
from a community group, educational institution, religious leader,
or government agency stating that the individual is a member of
the claimed group, or a letter from the individual setting forth
specific reasons for believing himself/herself to be a member of
the designated group."
This is an excellent start. But, as a Supreme Court justice pointed
out some years ago, "If the National Government is to make a serious
effort to define racial classes by criteria that can be administered
objectively, it must study precedents such as the First Regulation
to the Reichs Citizenship Law of November 14, 1935," which set out
just who should and should not be considered a Jew.
The Small Business Administration is another long-time user of racial
and ethnic preferences. A forthcoming book by Professor Jonathan
J. Bean,
Big Government and Affirmative Action: The Scandalous History
of the Small Business Administration, quotes the SBA's own
professed misgivings about such criteria: "There might be administrative
problems in applying a purely racial or ethnic standard," said that
agency in the mid-1970s. "Would a person who is one-quarter Indian
be eligible? One-sixteenth? How is racial background proven? Who
is a Spanish-speaking American?" Professor Bean concludes: "All
of these were good questions that the agency, in practice, ignored
on a daily basis."
It has only gotten worse since then, and the new DOT regulations
promise to take us much further down an already very scary road.
Likewise, the education bill now pending before Congress will, in
all likelihood, soon include within it the "Native Hawaiian Education
Act," which takes up three full pages in the Congressional Record
and is chock-full of preferences for those who can prove their blood
descent from the state's "aboriginal people" by "(i) genealogical
records; (ii) Kupuna (elders) or Kama'aina (long-term community
residents) verification; or (iii) certified birth records."
No doubt it is perfectly reasonable to require proof of blood lineage
if the government is going to grant preferential treatment based
on race and ethnicity. But this simply proves what a bad idea it
is to have such preferential treatment in the first place.
Instead, Ward Connerly
has the right idea. Not only should the government get out of the
business of granting preferences on the basis of race and ethnicity,
it should remove the temptation to do so. Thus, Connerly's "Racial
Privacy Initiative," which he hopes to place on California's March
2002 ballot, would provide: "The state should not classify any individual
by race, ethnicity, color or national origin in the operation of
public education, public contracting or public employment."
Get rid of those silly little boxes. Then you won't have to worry
about making sure that each American can show by "proof of ethnicity"
that he checked the right one.
|
