I wouldn’t want my business to be described as “disadvantaged” because I’m black or a woman. But according to the government, that’s exactly what it is.
Disadvantaged means an unfavorable condition or circumstance. A disadvantaged business is one owned by a racial minority who’s been the victim of racial prejudice or cultural bias because of group membership. In practice, however, a black business is presumably disadvantaged because the owner is black, whether or not he’s a “victim of racial prejudice or cultural bias.”
That’s the way skin color preferences have evolved over the last 30 years. In a country most favorable to entrepreneurial ventures, any black-owned business, no matter how well-funded it is or how superior the product, is labeled “disadvantaged” because the owner is black.
Regular readers could probably predict what I’m going to say. It’s unfair. It’s offensive. In general, any new small business is disadvantaged. Building a client base takes time. Some businesses require a lot of start up funding; others don’t. Risk is inherent and doesn’t depend on race. But according to preference apologists, a black entrepreneur should get special treatment because he’s a member of a “disadvantaged” group.
The “disadvantaged” advantage may be on the wane in California. A state project is being held up until the government can figure out how to select contractors without considering race:
Will Kempton, director of Caltrans, announced in a May 1 letter that the agency must implement a “wholly race-neutral Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program” effective immediately throughout the state.
The change in Caltrans policy is the result of recent court cases that found there was not enough evidence demonstrating race discrimination in the transportation construction industry. In one notable case, a white contractor sued the state of Washington after submitting the lowest bid for a government road project but losing the bid to a minority-owned business. A court ruled in his favor last year. (Source)
In that “notable” case — Western States Paving Co., Inc. v DOT, FHWA, etc. (PDF) — a white contractor challenged race preference policies, and the government made the usual preference arguments: It has a “compelling interest” in eliminating discrimination and, ironically, its policy of reverse discrimination was “narrowly tailored” to that end. Finding in favor of the contactor, the Ninth Circuit said there wasn’t enough evidence to prove “underutilization.” For background on underutilization, see Repeating History. For more information on the case, see Adversity.net.
In other words, reverse discrimination isn’t wrong. The government may discriminate if minority contractors aren’t represented in adequate numbers. Quotas. Well, it’s a start.
Incidentally, California already has a race-neutral policy in place. Proposition 209 made race and sex discrimination in government hiring and admissions illegal. (The governor tried to work around that pesky law. Read all about it.) Why the state is still using skin color preferences, which are illegal, is a mystery.
The only way to end race preferences is through erosion — one court case at a time. Permission to discriminate is derived not from the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — the people — but from the Supreme Court. Voters clearly don’t want race preference policies, but since a majority of appointed-for-life justices do, the point is moot.
So much for the Constitution. It was a nice idea anyway.
(Hat tip: Discriminations)
Addendum: I read that some companies pretend to be “black-owned” to gain access to set-asides. I can’t remember the exact source, but I’ll hunt down a few links.
Related posts:
Update: Commenter Cassandra says:
Heh..I do proposals for a company that bids on government jobs all over the country, and this affirmative action/MBA/DBE crap is a real headache. Talk about red tape. My company IS a minority-owned business–legitimately–owned by a Vietnamese mathematician–but he was hardly disadvantaged. He was educated in Paris and at MIT. I don’t think we’ve never gotten a bid award based on being an MBE, but we try anyway. We have a good product so it’s really rather demeaning.
I think the pols realized that Asians had an advantage and so tried to screw it around to favor blacks more and that’s why this DBE thing came along. The feds use it too.
If you’ve got a minority set-aside story to tell, do tell!
{ 8 comments }
I am in NC, and alot of public bids (construction projects) use mandatory minority involvement. I really think this is a good idea. But i see a growing trend of sub contractors selling the company to their wives, or taking on a minority partner to fall into that category. But at the same time, there are minority owned businesses that refuse to use the categorization as means to an end.
I love Dean as the head of the DNC!!!
In Chicago, there has been more than one case of businesses posing as black/minority/woman owned to get city contracts.
The real nightmare is that the State is buying up private property in droves(with my tax dollars)….
….in order to turn whole blocks, miles, —whole Cities, into “Disadvantaged Entrprise Zones”.
In other words, what they are trying to do is a sort of social engineering with private consumers.
They are trying to get private consumers to shop only “Disadvantaged” businesses.
…by remaking whole City blocks, with nothing but those types of businesses.
It’s that whole turning private-property-into public-enterprise-zones….thing. The only thing it really does is create more blight and more entrenched inner-cities as the public flees to practice commercial consumption (free-choice) at such business that aren’t calling themselves “disadvantaged”.
Anywhere you’ve got a CRA (Community Re-development Agency), you know you’ve got social engineering going on….destined for failure, and more blight.
The Government cannot engineer and force a “free market”. That’s why we call it free.
The Feds can do certain things like raise and lower interest rates……but to buy up whole city blocks and hand them over to “disadvantaged”….uh-oh !!!
Heh..I do proposals for a company that bids on government jobs all over the country, and this affirmative action/MBA/DBE crap is a real headache. Talk about red tape. My company IS a minority-owned business–legitimately–owned by a Vietnamese mathematician–but he was hardly disadvantaged. He was educated in Paris and at MIT. I don’t think we’ve never gotten a bid award based on being an MBE, but we try anyway. We have a good product so it’s really rather demeaning.
I think the pols realized that Asians had an advantage and so tried to screw it around to favor blacks more and that’s why this DBE thing came along. The feds use it too.
Anyway, the paperwork they give ALWAYS assumes that as prime contractor you are NOT a minority but are hustling to find a minority sub somewhere, and if you can’t you have to certify your good-faith effort to find one.
What a crock.
I have two things to say on this Lashawn, our people are ethically challenged and that is one reason why many of our businesses don’t succeed. They try and take the easy way out of everything, it never fails,depending on the business. For instance if you have a nightclub, or Elks lodge even,they will spend the money they make off of people who rent their places for special events and pocket it and the place winds up attracting a bunch of riff raff who won’t spend any money while there,or they want to stand outside even though they came to this place to have a good time,this instant gratification type of thinking has ruined us!You will not be a success if you try and hook and crook people all the time and that is what many of them do. Second,I wish our people would learn how to get out of the box business wise and start opening some diffferent businesses other than a greasy spoon and a barber shop! We have enough of them!
In 2002 I put in a bid on a HUD contract for settlement work for foreclosed properties in the Buffalo/Rochester, NY area. The HUD rep in NYC called me and asked me if I was minority owned or any percentage minority owned. I said no so she suggested I “find someone” or use my wife’s name, or I wouldn’t be considered.
I’m wary of such shenanigans, even when the officials give them the old wink and nod.
I thought I still had a crack at it, too. The bid was limited to law firms with under a million dollars in annual revenues who could perform at least five hundred real estate closings per year. A small group, most of whom I knew, and none of whom were minority owned.
A few weeks later I got a call from another bidder (Hispanic) offering to join forces and bid it under his name, with me doing the work and him skimming some cash for nothing (except using his name). I looked closely at the bid guidelines and that sort of scheme was officially, at least, forbidden. No deal.
Anyway, the bid ended up going to a nominally woman owned enterprise which is still doing the work. Interestingly, that enterprise is non-lawyer entity and forbidden by NY Judicial Law from preparing closing documents in real estate transactions. Apparently the thinking was that the Feds can violate New York laws. That bidder has since gotten a lawyer to front “her” operation, deflecting challenges from the State bar. Just goes to show ya.
Part of the original basis of such laws lies with the fact that most Govt entities were dominated by whites who tended to refuse to accept bids from black businesses. On the local level this pattern ended as more blacks were elected to political positions, but on the national level, the situation took a lot longer to change.
It is also true that businesses have attempted to shortcut the law by hiring minority front-people. Someone offered such a position to my wife shortly after the “end of combat operations” in Iraq, but she turned it down, since she recognized that she knew nothing about construction, and realized that such an offer was immoral, even if legal.
Regarding the larger picture, I believe that blacks and whites tend to have a different picture when each talks about a “color blind” society. Blacks want a society where they no longer have to prove that they have a right to be where they are, and whites want a place where they no longer have to prove that they no longer view blacks as domesticated animals who can talk.
Comments on this entry are closed.