Missouri, you will recall, is the state where obstructionism by the Democratic Secretary of State and Attorney General, later declared illegal, and thuggish intimidation of petition signers succeeded in keeping the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative off the ballot this year.
It is easy to understand why supporters of racial preferences were so afraid to give citizens the opportunity to enshrine the “without regard” principle of colorblind equality into their state constitution. Racial preferences are so unpopular that there is no doubt about how citizens would vote, if allowed to by their Democratic office-holders.
Indeed, as I have commented before, racial preferences are so unpopular thats the term “affirmative action,” usually thought to be more appealing (because it obscures the actual nature of preference policies) is itself rapidly coming into disrepute. As I noted (here) last month:
The Kansas City, Kansas, Community College (KCKCC) is launching a new program to hire minorities, but for some reason it is reluctant to call this program “affirmative action.”
Kansas City Kansas Community College announced this week they would actively seek qualified minorities to fill open positions at the college….
However, college staff stopped short of referring to the plan as “affirmative action.”
“We can only hire individuals for these jobs if vacancies are available,” said Leota Marks, dean of human resources at the college. “We are not setting quotas and we’re not planning to hire someone who is qualified just because they are a minority or female. But we know we have to take some affirmative steps and develop a diversified workforce.”
Dean Marks, it seems, defines “affirmative action” as a program that sets quotas to hire people “just because they are a minority or female” for openings that do not exist.
And people wonder why it’s unpopular….
Lest you think the above view of affirmative action (by someone who both practices and supports it) is unique, note than now another official at another Missouri college has taken great pains to deny that his affirmative action policies are … affirmative action policies. In doing so he once again unwittingly reveals the growing perception of what “affirmative action” entails.
Lincoln Scott, Assistant to the President for Diversity and Equal Opportunity at Southeast Missouri State University, has been in charge of recruiting more minority faculty.
At conferences and through existing faculty, Scott identified people who would be good fits. He spent hours on the phone. Eventually the university paid to fly in five people. They were shown the community and introduced to faculty members.
“I don’t want to use the expression ‘wine and dine,’ but I gave them a good time,” Scott said.
The participants were encouraged to apply. Four out of five were hired….
Scott is quick to point out the none of the filled faculty positions were affirmative action positions. “We had jobs, we needed them filled, and we hired qualified people,” he said.
Scott thus lets slip that an “affirmative action position” is one where no real vacancy exists; it is created in order to allow the hiring of a minority. Another reason Southeast Missouri’s new faculty were not “affirmative action” hires is that they were all “qualified.”
That says volumes about how “affirmative action” is now understood, even by its supporters.
