Jewish World Review March 12, 2002 / 28 Adar 5762

Clarence Page

Clarence Page
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Army race and gender policies on trial | IN a sign of how much things have changed on America's racial scene, retired Lt. Col. Raymond Saunders charges that the Army denied him a promotion to full colonel in 1996 and 1997 because he is a white male.

America's military was legally segregated until the late 1940s and aggressive equal-opportunity policies did not come along until the 1960s. Now, according to Saunders' lawyers, there are a number of disgruntled white officers who say the service has stacked the deck against them because their race and gender are politically incorrect.

Well, whatever you think of their accusation, they deserve their day in court and it looks as though Saunders is going to get his. U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth ruled last Monday that Saunders' case can proceed to trial. The judge agreed with the retired officer that the Army's written directions to promotion boards unconstitutionally give preference to one race or gender over another - specifically nonwhites and women over white men like Saunders.

Although the instructions urged the promotion boards to consider past discrimination faced by female and nonwhite candidates, the judge ruled, it did not order the boards to also consider whether there had been discrimination against white men.

Oops! Was that an oversight or what? The language of the policy in question has since been changed, Army lawyers point out.

Besides, the Army argues, Saunders probably would not have been promoted even if the equal-opportunity policy had not been in place.

Whether that's true or not, the case moves on. As it does, it puts in peril a series of equal-opportunity policies that, until now, have provided a model for civilian corporations and others who want to open opportunities to women and nonwhites without lowering standards or committing "reverse discrimination" against white men.

As with all arguments over affirmative action, a little knowledge of history is helpful here. Today's equal-opportunity policy in the Army largely evolved after President Jimmy Carter made Clifford Alexander the first black secretary of the Army.

As Alexander later described it to me, he was dissatisfied with the absence of women and nonwhites on the first list of colonels he received who were candidates for promotion to general. He sent the list back and asked for it to be expanded, with an eye on including a more racially and gender-diverse pool of applicants.

One of the colonels on the new list was Colin Powell, later the nation's first black chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and currently its first black secretary of state.

The story is significant because so many Americans think of Powell as an example of someone who never needed affirmative action. In fact, affirmative action does not have to mean lowered standards or double standards. It means simply trying harder to reach out and expand the pool of available candidates for various positions.

By whatever means, about a third of all first sergeants and sergeant majors in the Army were black by the end of the 1990s, along with 11 percent of the Army's officer corps and 9 percent of its generals. As Charles C. Moskos, a sociology professor and military personnel expert at Northwestern University, liked to say, the Army became "the only place in the American work force where whites are routinely bossed around by blacks."

But the officer promotion boards are not "color blind." Sometimes their instructions mention affirmative action goals, but not hard quotas. There are no timetables, in other words, for achieving the goals.

The policy also warns that the guidelines "shall not be interpreted as requiring or authorizing you to extend any preference of any sort to any officer or group of officers solely on the basis of race, ethnicity or gender."

In other words, take questions of race, gender and prejudice into account, but don't make them your main criteria.

Still, the boards do have to justify their shortfalls and they frequently fall short, particularly in promotions from captain to major, according to Moskos and John S. Butler of the University of Texas at Austin in their 1996 book "All That We Can Be: Black Leadership and Racial Integration the Army Way." In all other ranks, including colonel through general officers, the authors found little racial difference.

So, does that constitute pressure on the boards to discriminate against white men? Or is it merely a strong incentive for them to give a fair shake to nonwhites and women?

Either way, it is murky enough to keep everyone on their toes about the importance of fairness.

There is no perfect way to weed out all forms of racism or sexism, but there are many ways to level a playing field that was tilted for far too long. By putting its emphasis on performance, not perfection, the Army has become a laboratory for the rest of us in the most agreeable affirmative action of all: Make an honest effort to be fair and you won't have to worry about finding enough qualified minorities and women. A world of talent will beat a path to your door.

Comment on JWR contributor Clarence Page's column by clicking here.


03/08/02: A short list of losers to be left behind
03/05/02: Revenge of the 'mediasaurus'
02/26/02: Jihads aren't just for Muslims
02/26/02: It's hard to be 'objective' during wartime
02/19/02: Hollywood's new villain: Your HMO
02/12/02: Father of 'Manchild' leaves lasting message
02/08/02: $nookering the reparations crowd
01/31/02: Prisoners of a War of Words
01/29/02: One more Enron woe: Al Sharpton & company
01/25/02: Searching for slaves in bin Laden's attic
01/22/02: Andrew Young's newest 'friend'
01/08/02: Hard-earned lessons from 9-11
12/18/01: Whatever happened to questions about the birds and the bees?
12/14/01: The "White Negro" Taliban?
12/07/01: Jackson's turn to gloat
11/27/01: Friendly warning from a lover of liberty
11/21/01: The face of hunger is changing
11/15/01: Our troubled sense of trust
11/08/01: Lessons about terror from the 'hood
11/06/01: Getting used to the 'new normal'
11/02/01: Wicked ways to make them talk
10/30/01: It's not just about bin Laden
10/26/01: More than mail fell between the cracks
10/23/01: Terrorists threaten urban recovery, too
10/18/01: Sometimes, assassination warranted
10/15/01: Self-censorship rises again
10/12/01: Contradictions illustrate the complicated nature of the new terrorism
10/05/01: Look who's 'profiling' now
10/01/01: Don't trash liberty to save it
09/28/01: Life, love and cell phones during wartime
09/24/01: How to catch an elusive terrorist
09/21/01: The war I was waiting for
09/17/01: When rage turns to hate
09/13/01: Terror attack tests US, let's give right response
09/06/01: U.S. should have stayed and argued
09/04/01: Columbine killer's parents get upclose and personal
08/31/01: Virtual kids? Log me out
08/28/01: Two Africans, one black, one white, same fight
08/23/01: Sharpton for president
08/20/01: Shaking up the rules on keeping secrets
08/16/01: Bush's u-turn on racial goals
08/09/01: Outsider Bubba comes 'in' again
08/06/01: Not ready for 'color-blindness' yet
08/02/01: Immigration timing couldn't be better
07/26/01: Summer of Chandra: An international traveler's perspective
07/17/01: Overthrowing a régime is only the beginning
07/10/01: Big Brother is watching you, fining you
07/05/01: Can blacks be patriotic? Should they be?
06/19/01: Get 'real' about marriage
06/12/01: Amos, Andy and Tony Soprano
06/07/01: Getting tough with the Bush Twins
06/05/01: Bringing marriage back into fashion
05/31/01: "Ken" and "Johnnie": The odd-couple legal team
05/24/01: Sharpton's challenge to Jackson
05/22/01: Test scores equal (a) MERIT? (b) MENACE? (c) ALL OF ABOVE?
05/17/01: Anti-pot politics squeeze the ill
05/15/01: Was Babe Ruth black?
05/10/01: U.N.'s torture caucus slaps Uncle Sam
05/08/01: 'The Sopranos' a reflection of our times
05/03/01: 'Free-fire' zones, then and now
05/01/01: War on drugs misfires against students
04/26/01: Another athlete gets foot-in-mouth disease
04/23/01: 'Slave' boat mystery reveals real tragedy
04/19/01: McVeigh's execution show
04/12/01: Not this time, Jesse
04/05/01: Dubya is DEFINITELY his own man, you fools!
04/02/01: Milking MLK
03/29/01: The candidate who censored himself?
03/22/01: "Will Hispanics elbow blacks out of the way as the nation's most prominent minority group?"
03/19/01: Blacks and the SATs
03/15/01: The census: How much race still matters in the everyday life of America
03/12/01: Jesse is a victim!
03/08/01: Saving kids from becoming killers
03/01/01: Parents owe "Puffy" and Eminem our thanks

© 2001 TMS