On the Scene: Affirmative Inaction

Washington, D.C.

‘IF WE oppose set-asides and quotas,” the memo began, “we must be willing to support policies that will achieve equal opportunity for all, as opportunity has not been equal and is not currently equal for blacks, women, and others.” No, the memo wasn’t part of the Clinton Administration’s internal review of affirmative action. Representative Nancy Johnson (Conn.) sent it to her Republican colleagues, whom she urged to adopt a “clear, positive message on affirmative action.” Specifically, she wanted them “to offer women significant opportunities to compete in sports”; to let universities and employers take race and sex into account; to treat “evidence of affirmative hiring processes” as “presumptive evidence of non-discrimination, encouraging employers to develop these processes”; and to favor “socially and economically disadvantaged contractors plus women-owned companies” in federal contracting. Her conclusion: “Just as quotas are bad, so outlawing any consideration of difference is wrong.” In other words, scrap preferences—but keep preferences.

About the Author

Ramesh Ponnuru

Ramesh Ponnuru is the editor of National Review, a columnist for the Washington Post, and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Featured Tags

Washington, D.C.

‘IF WE oppose set-asides and quotas,” the memo began, “we must be willing to support policies that will achieve equal opportunity for all, as opportunity has not been equal and is not currently equal for blacks, women, and others.” No, the memo wasn’t part of the Clinton Administration’s internal review of affirmative action. Representative Nancy Johnson (Conn.) sent it to her Republican colleagues, whom she urged to adopt a “clear, positive message on affirmative action.” Specifically, she wanted them “to offer women significant opportunities to compete in sports”; to let universities and employers take race and sex into account; to treat “evidence of affirmative hiring processes” as “presumptive evidence of non-discrimination, encouraging employers to develop these processes”; and to favor “socially and economically disadvantaged contractors plus women-owned companies” in federal contracting. Her conclusion: “Just as quotas are bad, so outlawing any consideration of difference is wrong.” In other words, scrap preferences—but keep preferences.