160 PART TWO INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS CHAPTER 7*EQUAL RIGHTS:STRUGGLING TOWARD EAIRNESS 161 TABLE 7-1 Attitudes toward Women Bosses The philosophy underlying these policies was that past discrimination is never a justification for current discrimination If women and minorities are IF YOU WERE TAKING A NEW JOB AND HAD YOUR CHOICE OF A NEW BOSS, WOULD YOU PREFER TO WORK FOR A MAN OR A WOMAN? given preference for jobs and other opportunities because of past injustices to Charectens'ics Prtfer Prefer No others of their background,then they are being advanced by discriminatory Male Boss Femaie Boss Difference Opinion practices that are unjust to the white males with whom they are competing. All respondents 46% 12% 38% 4% Sex The Supreme Court's Position on Affirmative Action Male 40 9 5 Female 57 15 30 3 The Reagan administration began in 1981 to press its view that racial prefer- Education ences were rarely,if ever,justified.It won a legal victory in 1984 when the 2 4 Supreme Court ruled that the city of Memphis couid lay off members of its fire ligh school gradate 3 department on a "last hired,first fired"basis and did not have to retain black Less than high school 51 7 7 firefighters who had low seniority.Their jobs,the Court said,could not be saved Age group at the expense of white firefighters who had more seniority.Then,in a 1986 18-24 33 21 case,the Court invalidated a layoff plan of Jackson,Michigan,which kept some 25-29 38 5 30-45 black schoolteachers on the job while white teachers with more seniority were 50 plas 3 released. The Reagan administration interpreted the Court's ruling in these cases as Gelap Pall,1982,196-197. invalidating ay affirmative action program that favored minority-group mem- bers who had not been individually victimized by discrimination.However,the Memphis and Jackson cases validated this "victim-specific"concept only in regard to job layoffs,leaving open the question of whether it also applied to job university,fire department,or other organization hasnrelativey few female hirings and promotions.In two rulings announced at the close of its 1986 or minortty employees or members,then it should be ordered by government to session,the Supreme Court rejected the Reagan administration's contention give them preferential treatment in hiring or admission.In such cases,some that civil rights remedies should benefit only specific,identifiable victims of innocent white males may lose out,but this cost is an unavoidable necessity if discrimination. discrimination against women and minontes is to be curtailed. In one case,as we saw in Chapter 6,the Court upheld by a 5-4 vote a This perspective on affirmative action was held by the administration of lower-court order that required New York City's Sheet Metal Workers Local No. President Jimmy Carter.In Carter's view,affirmative action was a tool not only for ensuring that women and minorities recelved fair treatment in specific cases 28 to develop a program that would give 29 percent of its memberships to blacks and Hispanics.The formerly all-white union local had disobeyed two earlier but for eventually enabling them,as groups,to attain a fair share of society's lower-court orders to open its ranks to minorities.In such cases of "longstand- benefits.Thus the Carter administration initiated exclusive contracts on public ing or egregious discrimination,"Justice Brennan wrote,"requiring recalcitrant projects for minority-owned businesses,imposed heavy "back pay"penalties employees in unions to hire and to admit qualified minorities in the work place on businesses with inadequate affirmative action programs,relaxed the testing may be the only effective way to ensure the full enjoyment of the rights standards for minority-group members applying for government employment, protected by Title VIl [of the Civil Rights Act of 19641."In the second case,the and developed a long-term plan to hire members of five "designated" Court upheld by a 6-3 vote a consent decree'in which the city of Cleveland minorities-the same five we discussed earlier:blacks,women,Native Ameri- agreed to reserve half of all promotions for four years for minority firefighters cans,Hispanics,and Asians-for government jobs in proportion to their who were not necessarily themselves the victims of past discrimination.The numbers in the U.S.population. Ronald Reagan brought a different view of affirmative action to the presiden- Court's majority concluded that racial quetas were an appropriate remedy for the Cleveland fire department's histery of discriminating against minorities in cy.He fired the chairman and two other members of the Civil Rights promotions,4 Commission who believed that aggressive affirmative action programs were necessary to protect the rights of women and minorities.He replaced them with appointees who thought that remedial action should be limited to women and minority-group members who had individually experienced direct discrimina- "In this context"decree"plan developed with the consent of tion.Moreover,the Reagan administration eased the affirmative action regula- tions for employers doing business with government,and the Justice Depart- Alan Goldman. Press. ment supported suits brought by white workers who claimed to have been 19781:Nathan Glaz 459U.s.96911980. imtio (New York:Bas Books,197句 victimized by affirmative action quotas or other preference systems. 476 R M.Ne Dicn D(o:ndian