The Attack on Affirmative Action: Is this our Selma Opportunity?

For over fifty years, public policy has influenced the behavior of procurement programs in both the public and private sectors. Historically, debates over affirmative action have concentrated on the relative success of minorities in three principal areas: employment, education, and economics. Of the three, minority business economics is perhaps the least studied, despite its importance for minority business progress and the nation’s economic success.

Across the country, we see evidence regarding the systematic attack on programs created to support affirmative action and the inclusion of minorities. From what we witness, it has gone beyond philosophical debates to legal action.

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Harvard are two consequential Supreme Court cases focused on race-conscious admissions and diversity in higher education. In both cases, the petitioner asks the Court to change the law to prohibit the consideration of race in admissions.

It is widely anticipated that the Court will eliminate race as a consideration in college admissions. Given what has historically happened, minority businesses must brace themselves for the anticipated domino effect of such a decision on race-conscious programs nationwide.

We are already witnessing a systematic attack on local minority business public policy. In Texas, HB 5140 is a “prohibition against considering race or ethnicity as a factor in governmental employment or contracting, in other governmental functions, and higher education admissions.” By removing references to race and ethnicity, Texas’ state programs will become female preferential programs.

We see other lawsuits as well. On the federal level, the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) was established in 1972 to help level the playing field for minority businesses. In March, three white business owners filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination because MBDA’s focus is ethnic minority businesses. While this case has little merit in “ordinary times,” it will be used to try to dismantle the little support offered to minority or socially economically disadvantaged individuals (SEDI) businesses.

We’ve seen this all play out before. In 1995 with the Adarand vs. Pena case, a white contractor sued DOT because a contract was awarded to a disadvantaged business with a higher bid. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found the case in favor of Adarand.

We must refrain from sitting idly by and watching it play out. We must bring awareness to this issue. We must support vanguard organizations such as the Minority Business Enterprise Legal Defense & Education Fund (MBELDEF).

Programs and policies exist to assist those businesses that continue to be underutilized. Increasing contracting opportunities with underserved businesses narrows persistent wealth disparities among groups that have long faced economic barriers. The value proposition of using diverse suppliers has not changed, but it is incumbent upon us to ensure that we continue to provide an environment in which minority businesses can succeed and thrive.