Changing Times

"I'M NOT SO SURE there needs to be a civil rights lobby. The struggle for civil rights has been won under the law," Clarence A. Pendleton asserts.

One would hardly believe he is chairman of the Civil Rights Commission, which stated in a 1981 report--before Reagan could stack the committee--that "Race, sex, and national origin discrimination are not relies of the past existing solely as isolated acts of prejudice in an almost colorblind and gender-neutral society. The discrimination that minorities and women experience is far more pervasive, entrenched, and varied than many of the critics of affirmative action assume."

That statement typified the 26-year-old, agency's traditionally adamant support for affirmative action approaches to discrimination and denial of equal protection. Established by the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the Commission serves primarily to investigate and study alleged civil rights violations on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap, or national origin and to monitor and evaluate Federal laws and policies on civil rights. Although the Commission does not have powers of enforcement, it was instrumental in shaping federal attitudes toward discrimination. It also evaluates and criticizes federal programs and recommends changes to Congress and the President. In such a capacity, the Commission's independence--from public, congressional, and executive political pressure--is crucial.

The current composition of the eight-member Commission--half of whose members were appointed by Reagan--puts it in a precarious position and, more importantly, threatens to undermine its ability to attack civil rights violations. Pendleton readily admits to sharing a political ideology with President Reagan. Indeed, he sees his role as one of reaffirming the Reagan platform. Says Pendleton, "Reagan was elected because he promised civil rights for all Americans, not just traditionally ditreminited regarding success".

Two of the commissioners, Mary France Berry and Blandina Cardness Ramises-both of whom congress blocked Reagan from firing last October-have publicly lambassed for his ties with the Administration. "I am not sure what the relationship is, but the Chairman [Pendleton] mentions Ed Meese's name in every other sentence," Commissioner Ramirez, a three-year veteran on the board, charges.

And the announcement of Meese as replacement for William French Smith as Attorney General simply completes the Administration's calculated gutting of the civil rights division of the Justice Department. Other components of Reagan's civil rights policy--some would say lack of a policy--have been his moves to reduce legal services (whose main recipients are minorities); advocacy of tax-exempt status for discriminatory colleges; opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment; and attempts to block an extension of the Voting Rights Act.

BUT REAGAN has covered his bases well in this election year. His successful drive to dominate the Civil Rights Commission was a calculated attempt to gain more mainstream support and legitimacy for his anti-women, anti-minority, and anti-poor agents.

The proceedings of the newly formed Commission's first meeting last week are a tribute to Reagan's success in molding this nation's 4 most influential civil rights agency. In a succession of 6-2 votes, the Commission 1) criticized the Supreme Court for not reversing a lower court ruling upholding the use of numerical indicators in a Detroit affirmative action program, 2) criticized busing, even as the last available alternative to segregation, 3) expressed an interest in redefining "discrimination," and 4) authorized a study of the "adverse consequences of affirmative action programs on Americans of Eastern and Southern European descent."

The reversal of the Commission's traditional stand on these issues could not have been more complete. Ramirez, who, with Berry, clashed consistently with Pendleton in the two-day meeting, says she discerned a clear pattern in the voting. First, the majority of the commissioners seek to protect Reagan from criticism they "rush to support the Administration without sufficient study and deliberation," Ramirez says. The previous Commission has been unabashed critical of the President. But perhaps the most devasting of the body's tendencies--certainly for women and minorities--is its condemnation of affirmative action as adversely affecting whites.

Contemporary affirmative action programs have long been based on looking back to the historical process of American institutionalized racism and sexism, which are known as "problem-remedy" solutions. In 1981 the Civil Rights Commission defined affirmative action as "active efforts that take race, sex, and national origin into account for the purpose of remedying discrimination." The underlying rationale for affirmative action is that discrimination can be overcome only by an explicit consideration of an individual's background. But such a system, charge critics of affirmative action, only constitute another form of racism or "reverse discrimination."

This indictment ignores two major points. First, the impact of affirmative action programs, most initiated in the early '70s, is only beginning to be felt in this country's elite colleges and lucrative professions. Although the past 20 years have witnessed the arrival of a Black Supreme Court Justice, Black mayors, and a Black astronaut, Black representation in the medical profession has only increased by a paltry half a percentage point since 1950. White backlash in the face of such statistics seems unjustified. Furthermore, a recently released study by the National Urban League confirms beliefs that whites and Blacks have not benefitted equally from the economy's ups and downs. While Reagan takes credit for an overall decrease in unemployment to 11.2 percent, Black unemployment is at 17.8 percent.

Pendictories to play down the significance of statistics: "Figures don't deny equally of opportunity, they deny equal results." But Chairman Pendleton seems unwilling to accept connections between 200 years of systematic discrimination and institutionalized racism and current inequities between white and Black Americans Advocates of affirmative action do not deny the desirability of a "color-blind," "gender-neutral" society, but, rather, realistically accept the limitations of our present society.

The United States Commission on Civil Rights, as it is constituted now, is now moving toward the dismantling of federal protection of minority rights guaranteed by the Constitution. As Ralph Ness, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights--a coalition of 160 minority groups--puts it. "Rather than having effective remedies to eliminate discrimination, we're going to move to "remedies" skin to separate but equal with this Commission."