(Continued from Part I)
In the first part of this essay, we discussed the various options available to Barack Obama on affirmative action and why they all had weaknesses, so that a fresh new option might be wise. The option put forward here is a time limit on affirmative action by affirmative action supporters, the kind of Nixon-in-China move that few people might expect, but that might be highly effective anyway.
(Quoting from Part I,
...Why not support putting a time limit on affirmative action and phasing it out gradually? That way no one can say Obama wants it permanently, nor can they say that he’s completely throwing affirmative action under the bus....
A template for that "time limit" exists already, fortuitously: Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s saying in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) that affirmative action should be gone 25 years from now. Why not announce that that should be a valid legislative or other-political (referenda, etc.) goal, a 20-year legal limit on affirmative action....
)
(more)
II. About the "compromise plan" time-limiting affirmative action
Of course, the time limit could be 25 years instead, or 15, or what-have-you. The convenience of the ready-made "20-year" template, though, with a Republican Supreme Court justice putting forward a reason to keep affirmative action going for several more decades, is hard to discount.
At this point, a look at these simple matrixes or visuals below may help explain why the opponents of affirmative action do so well in referenda like those in Washington, California, and Michigan:
Willing to time-limit affirmative action in some way:
Connerly & conservatives, aff. action opponents: YES
Liberal/progressive groups, aff. action supporters: NO
Successful in winning on their side of anti-affirmative action propositions/referenda:
Connerly & conservatives, aff. action opponents: YES
Liberal/progressive groups, aff. action supporters: NO
There's a correlation, as we can see; but is there causation? One suspects so. That is, the public seems to want affirmative action gone at SOME point. If the pro-affirmative action people do not offer any kind of limit or compromise, e.g., "Okay, it has to go, but let's leave it in place another decade or two to phase it out graciously", it is easy to see why voters will go for the only people offering a time limit: i.e., the rabidly anti-affirmative action forces who want aff. action destroyed immediately.
Therefore, the only hope of saving affirmative action (save for some "Hail Mary" such as getting the federal government to require educational institutions to have affirmative action programs as a condition of getting federal funds, cf. the wording of the Michigan "MCRI" consitutional amendment, clause 4), in the states where there is a ballot initiative to destroy aff. action, may be to offer a "compromise" alternative: an alternative which may, just possibly, satisfy the majority enough to convince them not to terminate affirmative action immediately.
(The first part of the first diagram above, by the way, may seem self-evident, i.e., "OF COURSE aff. action opponents want to time-limit affirmative action"; but the other part, about aff. action advocates refusing to time-limit affirmative action brings up the question of whether, possibly, they could keep supporting affirmative action but in a limited way that makes them appear moderate rather than extreme?
What prohibits affirmative action from being continued until the year 3000, after all, if supporters refuse any time limits? And how would that look to the majority of voters, especially since not all of the majority may be minorities?)
It may be too late to implement this idea in Colorado and Nebraska, where Connerly inititatives are on the ballot right now, but a gradual phase-out plan for aff. action could be of use in other states in the future, and of course useful for Obama if someone presses him on the issue of affirmative action.
Although this author has proposed pretty much the same idea before, some others are coming to similar ideas: see Richard D. Kahlenberg in the Guardian, A touch of class,
...Just to be sure, however, Obama could call for a transition period from race-based to class-based affirmative action, during which time minority representation would be held harmless. And he could require conservatives to give a guarantee of support for more federal college aid before any switch occurs. ...
Ward Connerly, oddly enough, may have left the door open for legislatures (if not popular referenda) to craft a "20-year solution", see the Ann Arbor News, Ward Connerly to speak at U-M,
..."I think that in every instance where we've pursued ballot initiatives, it's because the legislature has not acted," Connerly said. "They will not act when it comes to race.
They're intimidated by the subject."
, and Connerly: Colorblindness is the goal of Proposal 2,
..."Name one legislative body in America that's willing to tackle the issue of race," he
challenged the audience. ...
Connerly...responded by saying that he supported socioeconomic affirmative action....
Connerly, like Dinesh D'Souza, may support "need-based" affirmative action, and so might most Americans if polled. But even if need-based affirmative action eventually comes to be the norm--and it had already been implemented in places that also had race-and gender-preferential affirmative action programs at the same time--, that does not mean that race- and gender-conscious affirmative action need be immediately scrapped, if it can be given a reasonable window or "sunset period" before its cessation.
And since Obama is in something of a dilemma of race- vs. class-based affirmative action, see, e.g., the New York Times, "If Elected ...", Delicate Obama Path on Class and Race Preferences, he may need some kind of groundbreaking new idea as soon as possible, which can bridge gaps of race and classs, and the yawing gap between instant annihilation of affirmative action, versus endless, unceasing affirmative action. One hopes the idea presented here may be of use, and your comments and criticisms are welcome.