by Mikel Kwaku Osei Holt
One of the most frustrating aspects of my job is standing on the sidelines as people debate an important issue without understanding the various nuisances of it.

All too often, important debates are framed by overly simplistic sound bites and political rhetoric. Or worse, true dialogue and discussion is limited by a rudimentary understanding of the issue, and confusion or ignorance of the intricacies of the debate.

Such is the scenario looming in the debate over affirmative action.

Obviously, affirmative action continues to be a hot button topic, one that under girds race relations, and is used to gauge the thickness of the apartheid wall that defines America. The recent testimony of anti-affirmative action zealot Ward Connelly at a "hearing" by a state senate committee exploring the merits of the program has sparked a new round of public pandemonium.

People on both sides of the socio-political aisle are again fired up, engaging in racially charged diatribes, accessing the print and broadcast media to articulate their views.

Given the outcome of the recent local and national elections, I had every intention of ignoring the debate, believing it to be a waste of energy and effort given the transference of political leadership. I was far more concerned two months ago when Republicans controlled both houses of our state legislature. Black lawmakers were relegated--as former Democratic leader Chuck Chlava assessed--to "token status," and the country was under the shadow of conservatism.

But things have since changed.

The November 7 state elections not only shifted the state senate to Democratic Party control, but also thrust key Black senators to leadership positions from which they are poised to deflate any anti-affirmative action balloon. And even if they were unsuccessful, I assumed Governor Jim Doyle would extinguish any fire.

In that regard, the election was a Godsend, because given the rhetoric from both sides, it was obvious that most actors in this political soap opera were ignorant, confused or worse.

I found myself frequently amazed at the comments and conclusions of callers to radio talk shows, on occasion shaking my head in disgust and reflecting on the old adage: "a little knowledge is a dangerous commodity."

Folks calling in to radio stations WMCS and WTMJ, correspondence to the "Community Journal" and discussions at social events illuminated the depth of misunderstanding and false historical references about affirmative action.

Listen carefully and you’ll learn that far too many folks don’t know the difference between affirmative action and the Emancipation Proclamation (I heard one brother make reference to affirmative action and the so-called promise of forty acres and a mule).

Many people confuse racism with prejudice, goals and quotas, and racial preferences and set-asides. Someone recently told me bigotry and White privilege are one in the same.

Most folks are shocked to learn (or have strangely forgotten) that the "Black President," Bill Clinton, took most of the teeth out of affirmative action as a parting gift for his moderate friends prior to the end of his presidency. Clinton, responding to heat from the right and seeking concessions for other initiatives, took "race" out of the equation and made economics and education the criteria for affirmative action programs.

And what teeth Clinton didn’t extract, the dentists known as the U.S. Supreme Court, pulled without benefit of Novocain.

For point of clarification--and in case I’m off base in my assessment of the affirmative action committee’s future--allow me a few paragraphs to define some of the basic terms people--including politicians--keep espousing in this debate, often without a clear understanding of what they mean.

Affirmative action is a 40-year-old policy initiative created to level the playing field (and atone for four centuries of racial exclusion) by establishing set asides specifically for Black Americans in education and contractual opportunities.

President Richard Nixon was said to have coined the phrase through an executive order. His expressed intent was to insure inclusion with quotas; a percentage of all federal contracts would go to qualified minority vendors.

Even Nixon understood that unless and until the walls of apartheid were breached, minorities would forever remain at the bottom of the economic and educational ladder. His executive order, thus, was not only an admission that Black Americans were the victims of racial discrimination and exclusion, but moreover, corporations and even the "government by and for the people" had to be forced to adhere to the tenets of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Affirmative action has expanded to include all aspects of life, from education to employment. The federal and circuit courts have consistently used affirmative action as a remedy for proven cases of discrimination. The courts used a basic form of affirmative action to address past discrimination in the hiring and promotion of African Americans on the Milwaukee police and fire departments, mandating that a specific number of slots would be set aside for "qualified" Black applicants until parity was reached.

While many African Americans, including myself, view affirmative action through the prism of reparations, for a period, it was also used as a primary methodology to diversify industry, colleges and government. Few can argue with the value of diversity in American society, although you can question whether it should supercede personal freedoms. Or to put it another way, since you can’t legislate attitudes, programs like desegregation frequently carry the false promise of integration, when in fact they are different wings on the same bird.

Despite the obvious benefits of affirmative action, the past two decades have witnessed dozens of court decisions that have weakened the initiative, and a shift in public (make that White) attitudes that reflected its growing threat to White privilege.

The most far-reaching impact of these challenges has been the replacement of race-based remedies for past and present racism and exclusion with nonracial criteria. Thus, quotas have been replaced with goals, and racial criteria have been usurped with economic and educational criteria. As it currently stands, affirmative action is so diluted that many of the beneficiaries of past racial bias benefit from the current processes more so than the true victims, us.

Definition number two: "Racism" is an attitude rooted in prejudices or a sense of unsubstantiated superiority. Racism is grounded in religious beliefs, White supremacy, culture and custom.

"Prejudice" is the byproduct of stereotypes and fears. It simply means to prejudge, frequently based on an oversimplified image or idea. Prejudice is supported by culture, assumptions, ignorance and custom.

Whites don’t hold a copywrite on prejudice. In fact, most people harbor some prejudices, and that doesn’t mean they are racists. For example, Black folks believe Whites can’t dance, or have rhythm. It doesn’t make us racist to believe White men can’t jump. Let’s be honest, some of us fall for some of the same prejudices held by many Whites that all teenagers wearing their pants around their ankles are gang bangers, most Black girls will get pregnant, all Black teens are deaf--that’s why they play their music so loud--and all crime is a byproduct of poverty.

"Quotas" are predetermined numerical solutions to past bias and institutional racism. The fire and police discrimination settlements utilized quotas, as did the 1976 school desegregation settlement and the on-going chapter 220 program, although the quota in that program is a set aside for White suburban kids attending the best Milwaukee Public Schools. In fact, until recently, there was a quota provision of the Milwaukee teachers’ contract, one that set a figure on the number of Black teachers who could be located at any public school.

And for point of clarification, Jews who oppose affirmative action say they do so because quotas were used against them in the past.

A governmental business set aside is a quota of sorts, a specific percentage earmarked for a specific group.

Goals are essentially good will gestures.

Different governmental bodies employ programs supposedly to provide opportunities for so-called disadvantaged to promote inclusion and secure contracts. But only the state Department of Commerce has a program geared specifically for minorities (MBE program). The city has an "emerging" business program and the county has a disadvantaged program. The fallacy, from a racial perspective, is that women, Whites and high school drop-outs and other "economically" deprived individuals can meet the criteria, which ultimately means Black folks, the true victims of racial bias, are relegated to the bottom of the affirmative action totem pole (no pun intended).

One last definition.

"White privilege" isn’t frequently talked about, but it is, in truth, where the battle is being waged. Some suggest that affirmative action discriminates against more qualified Whites, or is counter to Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream of a colorblind society. But in reality, the battle is between the haves and the have nots; the unstated philosophy that effectuates a culture where Whites believe they are entitled to the cream.

White privilege isn’t White supremacy, but it has the same effect on those not allowed to participate in the game.

And that’s all we’re talking about. The fight over whether race should be "one" of many considerations in the UW system enrollment criteria is about nothing more than maintaining the system of White preference/privilege that has been in place since the founding of this country:

As the saying goes, "If you’re White, you’re alright (and privileged); if you’re yellow, you’re mellow; if you’re brown, stick around; but if you’re Black, get back."

One final note, while we can expect the Democratic Party and most missionaries to support the weakened version of affirmative action, a breakdown of votes in Michigan, and the current conservative agenda to ban affirmative action, reveals that this is not a partisan issue. It’s color coded, because racial preference and privilege is not political in a partisan sense.

In truth, affirmative action is no cure-all for all that ails us. There is a place for it, since racism, prejudice and institutional bias are alive and well in America. But in truth, the program only impacts on a small percentage of African Americans, and has been weakened to the point where it is but a shadow of its original self.

When America realizes Dr. King’s dream of a truly colorblind society, there will no longer be a need for affirmative action. But unfortunately, no one reading this will live long enough to see that day.

Happy Kwanzaa.