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!
