I-200: Equal Opportunity Will Yield Qualified Applicants

Sunday, July 26, 1998 - Seattle Times

by Aimee DiGiovanni
Special to The Times

AFTER reading several opinion pieces addressing Initiative 200, it is apparent that misconceptions are pervasive. The Washington State Civil Rights Initiative does not repeal anti-discrimination laws. In fact, it strengthens them. Furthermore, the initiative applies only to publicly funded jobs and institutions, not private businesses. Finally, there is a difference between affirmative action, set-asides and double standards.

Newspapers misleadingly refer to the measure as one that would repeal affirmative action. Affirmative action, as a form of outreach, would not be affected. Employers and schools could and should actively recruit promising minority applicants. Institutions could and should affirmatively strive for diversity. I-200 only asks that all applicants be required to meet the same criteria, regardless of race or gender. It further asks that no one be excluded from consideration for a position based on race or gender.

While I don't think white males should face discrimination, I am not losing sleep worrying that they are being denied opportunities in the public sector. That is not what this is all about. Frankly, I think there is entirely too much dependence upon government agencies as a source of jobs. These institutions exist to serve the public, they are not an employment agency. Nor are public-sector jobs to be used as a test lab for social engineering.

I don't care what gender or color a firefighter is. I just want to know that the firefighter - male or female - is capable of pulling an unconscious, 200-pound male out of a burning building.

If my child needs medical care at a university hospital, I don't care what the intern looks like. But I do care that he or she got into medical school having mastered all of the tough pre-med courses. I want to know that the best possible students have been placed in the intern positions. I want to know that the person caring for my child is in medical school because of merit, not entitlement. Incidentally, it is just as unsettling to know that unqualified students are in medical school due to family connections.

I think it is laudable that administrators want teachers who "look like" minority students in order to boost self-esteem. That is great, provided the teachers have mastered the certification requirements. However, if the teacher is not qualified, the children won't adequately learn and their confidence will be undermined. Are we really helping minority students by sending them less-than-qualified teachers as role models?

When I cross a bridge, I want to know that the state hired from among the safest, most competent contractors available at a fair price. I also want to know that my tax dollars are being used efficiently. (I have heard that government contracts may go to minority-owned businesses, even if qualified white contractors will do the same quality work for a lower bid.) I don't mind the contract being awarded to a minority, provided we citizens get the best deal for our money. We shouldn't have to pay more simply to court a minority- or female-owned business.

A private business will succeed or fail based upon the quality of the product, service and employees. If customers are dissatisfied, they can always go elsewhere. If a customer wants to seek out and patronize a minority-owned business, I'm all for it. Unfortunately, our government agencies are not beholden to customer satisfaction. The main function of most bureaucracies seems to be self-preservation. Government agencies will survive, funded with our tax dollars, regardless of the quality of service provided. Still, we citizens have the right to demand excellence and efficiency.

Excellence is a color-blind standard. Some will argue that minorities don't get the same educational opportunities, so they can't compete on a level playing field. I fully support a voucher system, or some other form of outreach, to provide poor or minority children with the educational opportunities and the skills to compete. What better way to level the playing field than to give poor children the right to attend the best schools in the area?

Ironically, many of the same people demanding race preferences are staunchly opposed to school vouchers. They argue that we need to invest more money in inner-city public schools. Washington, D.C., public schools, which are predominantly black, are the most highly funded in the country at more than $9,000 per student, annually, according to most recent available figures. Still, the schools consistently rank among the worst in the nation. Obviously, throwing money into the public-school system is not the answer.

How much longer are we going to gamble with the lives of these young people? Why are we content to let children wallow in failure, out of some blind sense of loyalty to a public institution? Instead of rigging the finish line with quotas to guarantee equality of outcome, we should raise qualifications of applicants through equality of opportunity.

Aimee DiGiovanni is an in-home child-care provider who lives in Mountlake Terrace with her husband and three small children. A frequent Seattle Times letter writer, she is a graduate of the University of Southern California School of International Relations.

Return to the I-200 page.
Return to the Affirmative Action and Diversity Page

Carl Gutiérrez-Jones
Department of English
University of California, Santa Barbara
e-mail: carlgj@humanitas.ucsb.edu