Posted by Tina
In the last 60 or so years America has attempted to deal with the injustices of a white male dominated society. We have done this with programs, set asides, preferences and litigation. We expanded the designation to include women, veterans, and eventually something of a rainbow designated “people of color”. The policies adopted to accommodate minorities can be confusing and contentious at times. Is it any wonder that a contender for mayor in Chicago is confused about who should get preferences and who should not? You tell me.
Mayoral challenger James Meeks scrambled Thursday to put out a political fire touched off by his suggestion that only African Americans should be eligible for city contracts set aside for minorities and women.
Meeks made the statement on Wednesday during an interview on WVON-AM (1690). It happened during a discussion of why African-American businesses got a 7 percent sliver of Chicago’s $1 billion spending pie through Aug. 31, down from 8 percent a year ago.
“The word ‘minority’ from our standpoint should mean African American. I don’t think women, Asians and Hispanics should be able to use that title,” he said. “That’s why our numbers cannot improve — because we use women, Asians and Hispanics who are not people of color, who are not people who have been discriminated against.”
Hours after making those remarks, Meeks back-tracked by saying he would only exclude white women if elected mayor. The set-aside program currently earmarks 25 percent of all city contracts for minorities and 5 percent for companies owned by women.
“I don’t believe white women should be considered in that count ….You have white women in the category. They receive contracts. Then, white men receive contracts. Where does that leave everybody else?” he told Fox-owned WFLD-Channel 32 news.
I contend that everyone should be given equal opportunity to participate, bidding should be blind, the lowest bid should win the contract, and the courts should take up cases where discrimination believed to have occurred. But the purpose for having set-aside preferences is to MAKE SURE a certain percentage of the work is awarded to…well, that’s where it gets sticky. How do you tell (really) if someone is deserving of a preference? Does the law itself discriminate? For instance, is a white woman just starting out with a fledgling operation more or less deserving than an established black firm that has been very successful for ten years? Is this something bureaucrats should have to try to determine?
The problem with preferences is that they are very subjective. One of these days we are going to have to declare an end to this discriminatory craziness. If the Reverend wants to help the black people in his community there are many ways for him to do that. The first lesson for those he wishes to help should be, stand tall and compete honestly giving it your best shot. That’s all any of us can do.