affirmative action and local governments: the views of city council and school board members

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: THE

VIEWS OF CITY COUNCIL AND SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS

Paul Schumaker University of Kansas

Marisa Kelly Universiw of the Pa@

This paper explores the attitudes regarding affirmative action of I12 members of city councils and school boar& in twelve American cities. In-depth interviews with these officials reveal widespread support for affirmative action policies generally and for more moderate approaches to affirmative action in particular. Our analysis suggests that more aggressive forms of affirmative action-establishing quotas in hiring and setasides when awarding contracts--are especially opposed by conservatives and those in high prestige occupations and by school board members who are wary of giving priority to social justice over securing highly qualified teachers. Our analysis also suggests that extensive support for more moderate forms of affirmative action-iving preference to qua1 fled minority candidates, requiring minority participation by companies that do business with the city# training and mentoring persons from disadvantaged groups, and taking extraordinary steps to recruit blacks and women into public offices-is rooted in concerns about morality und justice.

S i n c e the 1960s affirmative action programs of various types have been implemented by both private and public entities in the United States in an attempt to achieve equal economic opportunities for minorities, women, and other disadvantaged categories ofcitizens. While such policies originated at the national level of government, many city governments adopted and implemented affirmative action policies during the 1970s and early 1980s. By the end of the 1980s, about 75 percent of American city governments had affirmative action policies concerning municipal employment and about 50 percent had such programs concerning contracting (Nay and Jones 1989); affirmative action was sufficiently institutionalized that even its opponents conceded that existing programs were protected by

~~

Southeastern Political Review Volume 26 No. 4 December 1998

756 Southeastern Political Review VoL 26 No. 4

“stalemate” on the issue (Glazer 1988). However, such programs have again come under attack in recent years. For example, many members of Congress have called for an end to all federal affirmative action programs (Healy and Richter 1995). In 1995, the University of California Board of Regents voted to end race-based admissions preferences on all its campuses (Kershaw 1996), and the affirmative action program of the law school at the University of Texas was banned (Stout 1996). In November 1996, California residents approved Proposition 109, curtailing affirmative action programs in that state’s government. Are the affirmative action policies of American cities under similar attack? What kinds of affirmative action programs do city officials still support and to what degree? What is the basis for opposition (and support) for affirmative action policies? And what kinds of officials are most supportive and opposed to affirmative action?

Given the importance and controversial nature of these questions, it is surprising that urban scholars have given them almost no attention. There are large literatures concerning the merits of affirmative action (see, for example, Greene 1989; Sowell 1990; Steele 1990; Rosenfeld 1991 ; Carter I99 1 ; Cohen 1995; Kennedy I997), the attitudes of the American public toward affirmative action (see, for example, Jacobson 1985; Kinder 1986; Sniderman and Piazza 1993; Alverez and Brehm 1997), and changes in minority and female municipal employment during the years in which affirmative action policies have been enacted and implemented at the local level (see, for example, Eisinger 1982; Browning, Marshall, and Tabb 1984; Saltzstein 1986; Mladenka 1989; MacManus 1990). Nay and Jones ( 1989) have conducted a useful survey of the affirmative action policies of local governments, and their data enabled Santoro ( 1 995) to conduct an important analysis of some of the factors associated with the comprehensiveness of affirmative action policies at the local level. However, none of these analyses describe or analyze the views of elected urban officials regarding affirmative action. Since the judgments of such officials are key determinants ofthe policy outcomes of local governments (Eulau and Prewitt 1973; Schumaker 1991), it is important to address this gap in the existing literature. This paper will explore the views of urban officials regarding affirmative action by analyzing the relevant data taken from a larger study on urban justice.’

For purposes of this paper, affirmative action can be regarded as a range of policies to enhance the prospects of historically disadvantaged subpopu- lations for attaining such goods as positions and contracts distributed by city governments and school systems. Several aspects of affirmative action are intentionally left open or unspecified in this definition: (a) How extensive should be the policy efforts to enhance the prospects of the

Affirmative Action and Local Governments 757

disadvantaged groups? (b) Who constitutes “the disadvantaged” to be targeted for favorable treatment? and (3) What goods should be distributed in a manner effected by affirmative action policies? The research strategy employed here called for city council and school board members to offer their own understandings of these matters, and this paper reports the variance in such understandings.

A STUDY OF OFFICLALS’ ATTITUDES CONCERNING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

To study urban justice, 120 elected officials were interviewed between March and August 1993. These interviews focused on understanding officials’ conceptions of justice and how they have applied various principles ofjustice to policy decisions. The interviews were conducted in twelve cities: Atlanta, Austin, Baltimore, Green Bay, Kansas City (MO), Minnea- polis, Orlando, Pasadena, Providence, Salt Lake City, San Jose, and Seattle. The cities are generally in the 100,000 to one million population range- large enough to comprise major urban centers yet small enough to allow travel from one interview to another in a reasonable amount of time. These cities were also selected to try to capture the diversity of urban life in America. Beyond obvious regional variations, these cities differ greatly in their racial and ethnic composition-ranging from largely white communities (Green Bay and Salt Lake City) to cities that have strong black majorities (Baltimore and Atlanta), substantial Hispanic populations (Pasadena, San Jose and Austin), and a large number of Asian-Americans (Seattle). Even the “white communities” have significant numbers of Mungs, Native Americans and other non-black minorities to make affirmative action issues salient to them. Some of the social and political characteristics of these cities are listed in Table I. Of course, no claim is made that these cities constitute a random sample of American cities, but they are sufficiently diverse to capture the range and general tendencies of how urban officials think about affirmative action.

Interviews were sought with five or six city council members and another five or six school board members in each city. Persons who had served in these capacities since 1980 were randomly called and asked if they would be willing to participate in two-hour long interviews concerning the distributive aspects of policy making. Depending on the availability of potential interviewees and the logistics of getting from one interview to another, ten to twelve interviews were scheduled in each city. Thus the sample is composed of the first ten to twelve people in each city who agreed to the interviews.2 The resulting sample was evenly split between members of the city council and the school board: fifty-nine persons had served on

7S8 Southeastern Political Review Vol. 26 No. 4

Table 1 Selected Characteristics of Cities in Sample

Po ulatipn Perceat Percent Mean Form of City (f9W) Black Hispanicb IncomeC Governmentd Constituency‘

Atlanta 395 67. I 1.9 15.3 MC 4 Austin Baltimore Green Bay Kansas City Minneapolis Orlando Pasadena Providence Salt Lake City San Jose Seattle

492 726 100 43 1 368 174 132 I55 165 80 I 520

12.4 23.2 14.2 59.2 I .5 12.0 0.5 1.1 12.9

30.0 3.9 13.8 12.4 2.1 14.8 26.9 8.7 13.9 19.0 27.3 19.6 14.8 15.5 11.8 1.7 9.7 13.5 4.7 26.6 16.9

10. I 3.6 18.3

CM MC MC CM MC MC CM MC MC CM MC

3 2 2 5 2 2 2 2 1 1 3

. N u m b M in thourmdr. u reported in 1993 (bwtymd( ’ i tyh tm bFrom 1993 ( ’ o w u y d C i t y Fxtm ‘For 1989. n reported in I993 (buntymd( ’ i ty tmm ‘CM signilia Council-Manage3 plan. MC signifia Mayor-Council plan Data arc fmm 7he Municiprl Yrar-

book 1993 h a t 8 regarding the wnslihlencies of council and board members arc dcnved from the interviews Except for

the school board manben from Baltimore and Providence who me mayoral appointments. all officials arc elected The following code summanza the nature of their wnslitwncin I Both city council and school board members elected from dimcts 2 City council members elected from distnas. school bopd members rlected r-largc 3 City council members elected r-large. school board m e m h elected horn dISlnds 4 Half of the city council members and wc-thirds of the school bord m a n b elected f m distncrr.

othm elected at-large 5 Half of city council members elected from distncts. other half of council and all school board members

wlected at-large

city councils, fifty-six had served on school boards, and five had served in both capacities. Ninety-four persons (78 percent) were white, twenty-one were black, two Hispanic, and three Asian-American. Women comprised 47 percent of the sample. More participants identified themselves as liberals (3 1 percent) than as conservatives (23 percent), and many respondents preferred to give themselves other labels, such as “moderates” (19 percent), “fiscal conservatives and social liberals” (13 percent), and “radicals” or “socialists” (8 percent).

Data concerning officials’ attitudes about affirmative action were at- tained by reading those portions of the interview transcripts dealing with affirmative action issues and coding their degree of support for affirmative action generally and for specific affirmative action policies. The methodological appendix at the end of the paper describes the qualitative data that were examined and the procedures used for generating the quantitative


scores reported below. The sample size for analyzing urban officials’ attitudes regarding affirmative action generally is 112, rather than 120, because eight officials failed to address affirmative action throughout the interview. The sample sizes for analyzing attitudes regarding specific affirmative action policies-such as adopting quotas in hiring and establishing setasides for minority contractors-are considerably smaller, depending on the number of officials who mentioned these policies in the interviews, and are reported below.

OVERALL SUPPORT FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION Table 2 presents an ordinal scale of support for affirmative action

generally. Respondents were coded on a seven-point scale that focused on the extent of protections and preferences given targeted groups. Because there was little variance among respondents regarding who they believed should be the groups targeted for protections and preferences, this aspect of support for affirmative action is not included in this scale.-’

According to Nay and Jones ( 1 989), affirmative action begins with equal opportunity programs that make it illegal for the city to discriminate against certain types of people in various employment or contracting decisions. None of the interviewed officials expressed opposition to ordinances ban- ning such discrimination.

Four officials were coded as being moderately opposed to affirmative action. Such people supported the principle of equal opportunity to some degree, but were not generally among the principle’s highest supporters.* Typically, these officials argued that government should prohibit overt discrimination in order to give people of all races and both genders opportunities, but that affirmative action is not the way to do so. Defining affirmative action as reverse discrimination, they stressed its problems. For example, a school board member from Seattle typified opposition among urban oficials to affirmative action:

Everyone should have absolutely equal access to jobs and other opportunities, and usually the market is the best way to do this. In terms ofaffirmative action, to go back and try to reconstruct the score card is counter-productive and tears society apart. Special privileges for certain groups generally only help those individuals who weren’t disadvantaged historically anyway. Quotas only cause tremendous turmoil and provide no social benefit.

Sixteen of our respondents were coded as being weakly opposed to affirmative action. These officials strongly supported equal opportunity but defined that concept as “a level playing field in which people can operate

760 Southeastern Political Review Vol. 26 No. 4

Table 2 Overall Support for Affirmative Action Among 112 Urban Officials’

Levels of Support Indications Number of officials 1. Strong opposition opposes anti-discrimination laws and 0 ( O.O%)b

2. Moderate opposition supports anti-discrimination laws but 4 ( 3.6%) affirmative action programs

expresses no interest i n enhancing economic omortunities of minorities or

4. Neutral

5 ( 4.5%)

women; strtkses problems of affirmative action

equal opportuni ty; acknowledges difficulties confronting minorities and women but believes that qualifications are more important than providing preferences sees posi t ives and negatives of 6 ( 5.4%) preferential policies; seeks to balance achieving more diversity and retaining sufficient qualifications supports weaker affirmative action policies such as efforts to increase the pool of minority candidates and guarding against subtle biases in selection processes

minority participation and voluntary programs encouraging achieving diversity; supports giving preferences for minorities and/or women, if everything else is equal

historically disadvantaged groups, such as job quotas or contract setasidesthat ensure that minorities and women get proportionate share of economic benefits

3. Weak opposition stresses the importance of “color-blind” 16 (14.3%)

5 . Weaksupport

6. Moderate support supports establishing goals for greater 57 (50.9?6)

7. Strong support supports greater opportunities for 24 (21.4%)

%ght of the I20 officials who wcrc interviewed provtded insufficient commen(lry on flirtnative action/equal opportunity matters in either thar stones about fameu or in their reactions to the equal opporhmily pnnci- ple to codc their degree of support for atlirmstivc mion

%e raw n u m b (N) indicate the number of officials who were coded as opposlng or supporting flirtnative action generally. based on the stones thy prondcd and on their reactions to the statement thsl “public officials should pursue equal opportunity policies to eliminak bamcn that prevent minontia. women. and other histmcally didadvantaged groups fmm competing farly with whita. men. and other histmcally advantaged p u p s ” Oflicials wcrc asked to m m m t on whr this statement meant to them. why they supported or opposed it, and when thy thought this pnnciplc applied (or w u misapplied) in policymaking The percentages are mmply the number of officials having the coded level of support Lvided by the e l k - live sample llzc of I I 2

Aflrmafive Acfion and Local Covernmenfs 761

according to their abilities.” They held that legal barriers should be eliminated, but preferences for minorities and women should not exist. They stressed the importance of qualifications over race or gender. Some ofthese officials acknowledged that minorities and women had encountered discrimination in the past and that affirmative action may have once been necessary, but they argued that preferential policies were no longer needed. In the words ofone respondent, the city should now be “colorblind in hiring and giving contracts; minorities no longer need the extra advantage^."^ Indeed, some officials rationalized a go-slow approach to affirmative action by insisting that “we shouldn’t push people into positions that they are not ready for.” Such officials often showed some support for diversity in government, but again, qualifications must be the priority. Largely absent from these responses were both comments stressing the negatives of affirmative action and comments about how to improve the prospects of minorities and women in attaining public positions and municipal contracts.

Six officials were coded as being neutral. While supporting anti-discrimination laws, these officials appeared genuinely conflicted over stronger affirmative action measures. They presented arguments on both sides of the issue, for example, by indicating their support for both “the most qualified person,” and “greater diversity.”

According to Bron Taylor, affirmative action measures lie on a contin- uum ranging from relatively weak “protective policies” to relatively strong “preferential policies’’ ( I99 I , 12). Accordingly, five officials were coded as supporting weaker protective policies. They favored recruiting job candidates from underrepresented groups and sought reforms that protected such candidates from subtle forms of discrimination. For example, they wanted to eliminate aspects of the hiring process allowing for cultural biases. They wanted committees that conduct interviews among finalists for city jobs to be representative of the larger community and not be comprised of just “six good old boys.” They wanted tests to address only those skills that are related to job performance. And they questioned the inclusion as qualifications of some credentials that are difficult for minorities to attain. (For example, A Hispanic school board member argued that “it is unclear that a Ph.D. should be required for upper-level administrative positions, especially because Hispanics have few opportunities to earn a Ph.D., though many are potentially excellent administrators.”) Neverthe- less, weakly supportive officials stressed that minorities hired through such processes must be qualified.6 They suggested, for example, that hiring unqualified individuals to f i l l goals or quotas may lead to problems when such individuals prove incapable of handling the tasks required of them, or when white backlash occurs as a result.

762 Southeastern Political Review Vol26 No. 4

About half of the respondents (N = 57) were moderately supportive of affirmative action. While respondents at level 5 sought a genuinely level playing field, those at level 6 called for a playing field that was tilted toward the historically disadvantaged. Most officials in this category believed in the principle that “everyone deserves a fair or unbiased opportunity,” but they observed a history of racial and sexual discrimination that has created disadvantages that persist into the present (see Walters 1996). These officials expressed strong support for such “voluntary” affirmative action policies as establishing goals for the employment of minorities and women, developing training and mentoring programs for members of minority groups, or awarding extra points in the contracting process to companies having minority ownership, utilizing minority subcontractors, andor employing more minority workers. Voluntary programs involve offering rewards and opportunities that encourage minority (and female) participation, but they de-emphasize compulsory requirements that punish those who fail to meet affirmative action goals and timetables (Nay and Jones 1989). Perhaps the most common principle of persons at level 6 is that “if all other things are equal, the minority or woman should be given the job or the contract.” This is necessary because, in the words of one respondent, “people of color automatically have a handicap the minute they walk out the door.” However, more compulsory programs-involving quotas and setasides-were not supported by this group.

Finally, twenty-four of our participants were strongly supportive of affirmative action. These individuals generally expressed support for establishing quotas and setting aside a particular percentage of municipal contracts for minority firms (Nay and Jones 1989). They not only wanted to give preferences to minorities and women “if everything else is equal” but they wanted to ensure that minorities (and women) get proportionate shares of the benefits, even if that meant hiring less qualified minorities, and extending contracts to minority contractors submitting higher bids than their competitors. Perhaps the most vociferous proponent of this idea was a black council member from Pasadena:

My agenda is empowerment of my people. I want parity in power and resources. We are 70 percent of the citizens and taxpayers. We should get 70 percent of the contracts, 70 percent of the department heads, 70 percent of the employment. We are miles and miles away.’ Such efforts are justified, according to one official, because “we must

take extraordinary steps to fix the unfairness of the past.” Indeed, some officials recognize that the unfairness persists today; strong supporters of affirmative action stressed that “generally there is a tremendous amount of


discrimination out there.” For these officials, the benefits of comprehen- sive affirmative action policies were often seen as extending beyond those accruing to the specific individuals involved. For example, as one school board member noted, using quotas to increase the number of female math teachers can help to encourage young girls to pursue math and science. And several officials noted the importance of hiring black male teachers to serve as role models and father figures for many young black men.

SUPPORT FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICIES

Each participant’s attitude toward a variety of specific affirmative action policies that were discussed (unprompted) in an open-ended manner by various officials were also coded on a five-point scale, ranging from strong opposition to strong support. Table 3 lists the policies, the number of times they were mentioned by officials, and the percentage of those officials who moderately or strongly support each policy.

The first type of policy listed, reforms to enhance minority representation on governing boards, was mentioned by seven individuals, with all but two expressing support for such an approach. For example, one official argued that simple equal opportunity in jobs and contracting is not enough: “We must ensure that blacks get political representation because historically this has been blocked.” None of these supporters, however, suggested that representation on political bodies be set up according to strict ratios reflecting the various groups in the local population, and one woman specifically rejected such an idea.*

Seven respondents mentioned the similar practice of increasing the racial and gender diversity on appointed commissions, and all seven were in support of such practices. In San Jose, a program called “project diversity” gave priority to minority applicants over white applicants for positions on various citizen committees and commissions. In other cities, officials said that they seek to ensure that citizen committees and task forces reflect the “racial diversity of the city.”

Thirty-three officials discussed quotas in the hiring and promotion processes, but only 2 1 percent of those officials expressed support for such policies. The 79 percent who specifically opposed the use of quotas generally expressed concern that quotas lead to hiring or promoting unqualified individuals over qualified ones. Qualifications are important and, for most of our respondents, affirmative action policies must be set up to ensure that qualifications do not take a back seat to racial or gender considerations. But not all officials thought that the use of quotas means that qualifications will be ignored. One individual opposed quotas because he believed they


Table 3 Attitudes of Urban OMcials Toward Specific AMrmative Action Policies

Policies Mentions’ % suppod Enhance minority representation on governing 7 78

Increase racial and gender diversity on appointed 7 I00

Adopt QUOTAS in hiring and promotions 33 21

boards

commissions

Establish hiring GOALS that give preferences to the sa 90

Establish SETasides for minority or female 25 52 disadvantaged if everything else is equal

contractors

POINTS or advantages to bidders opfims that are minority (or female) owned, use minority subcontractors and/or have larger percentages of minority workers

choosing a minority firm that is within 5% of lower bid by a white-owned firm)

to help meet bonding and/or credit requirements

qualifications of disadvantaged applicants)

minorities or women

Establish bidding procedures that rovide extra 38 a2

Allow LEEWAY for minority contractors (such as 7 71

Provide extra AID to minority or female contractors 5 80

Provide special TRAlNing programs (to enhance 5 100

Make extra efforts to notify and RECRUIT I I 100

CThc numbers in this column refer to the number of respondents (from the total of I20 urban ofticialr who were inlaviewed) who discussed the listed policies in citha the Ifones they told about JUS~ICC or in their open-ended reactions to the qual oppMtunity pnnciplc

policies among those who discussed such policies Thus. of the m e n officials mentioning the idea of enhancing minonty representation on governing boards. five (or 78%) supported Be idea

%e numben in this cnlumn refa to the percent of respondents supporting the spceified nffinnative action

are often used as ceilings or upper limits on the number of minorities and women who are hired and promoted. Several respondents who supported quotas argued that quotas should be, and could be, filled with qualified minorities.

Fifty-eight officials discussed establishing goals regarding the employment of minorities and women. Under this approach, a city or agency that underutilized minorities or women will give preference to target group applicants “if all else is equal”-meaning that their levels of training, credentials, skills, and experience are roughly equivalent to those of white


males. Ninety percent of these officials support hiring goals. As noted above, the most frequent argument against quotas is that qualifications are ignored. The use of hiring goals helps avoid this problem by putting qualifications first and racial or gender considerations second. Many respondents expressed the view that “ifall else is equal and a minority group is underrepresented, you should hire the minority.”

What was the reasoning of the 10 percent that opposed hiring goals? Most of this group were morally opposed to the idea of giving any preference to members of any group defined by ascriptive traits; for them, establishing goals violated their notion of equal opportunity as involving “colorblind” processes where selections were based solely on talents and job-related qualifications. Such preferences amount to making us a more rather than less colodgender conscious society.

In the contracting process, setasides-providing that a certain percentage of all city or school board contracts will go to minority or female contractors-are the equivalent of quotas. Twenty-five officials mentioned setasides and they were fairly evenly divided on this issue. Generally, supporters believe that discrimination in the past and in the present justify such strong measures, and that awarding governmental contracts to minority businesses is a very effective method of helping disadvantaged groups, especially blacks, get established. According to a black council member in Atlanta, “a million dollars doesn’t come from salaries, it comes from contracts. Suppose blacks had been given contracts to distribute and sell Coca Cola in proportion to the number of blacks here, then all of the millionaires would not be concentrated in north Atlanta. They would be distributed all over the city, and they would have given jobs to blacks.”

Opponents usually see setasides as “reverse discrimination” against more qualified vendors in the contracting process. For some, setasides may have once been necessary but are no longer. As one opponent suggested, the “statute of limitations on affirmative action in this country is up.” All that is now required, in the words of one council member, is an “equal playing field where companies compete simply on the basis of their qualifications.” Some opponents also expressed concerns about the costs and the potential abuse of setasides (for example, when a business has a female or minority figurehead owner simply to benefit in the city contracting process). In addition, two officials suggested affirmative action sometimes allowed minority or female owned enterprises from outside of the city to benefit at the expense of indigenous businesses employing city residents.

A weaker form of affirmative action in the contracting process is the practice of “awarding extra points” to vendors that are either minority (or female) owned, use minority subcontractors, or have large percentages of

766 Southeastern Political Review Vol. 26 No. 4

minority workers. Thirty-eight officials mentioned such practices and of those, 82 percent supported such practices. In some cities “awarding points” can take the form of a mandatory affirmative action policy, as it requires some minority/female participation before a vendor can do business with the city. In other cities, “awarding points” takes a more voluntary approach as the points added to enhance the merit of a bid by a minority contractor may be small and seldom decisive compared to other considerations in evaluating competing bids. Most officials viewed “awarding points” but not requiring minority/female participation as a compromise measure between those who wanted setasides and those who viewed any preferences as unjust.

Generally, support for such policies was accompanied (just as in the case of setasides) by concern over potential abuses. Some of these officials thus also supported city programs aimed at reducing these abuses. In one case, the city hired an overseer to make sure that smaller minority/female owned companies were not being “arm twisted” into agreeing to do subcontracting work for large majority owned companies at ridiculously low prices, thus benefiting the large firm in allowing them to receive a city contract and save money in the process. In another case, the city set up a new department to ensure that companies doing business with the city show good faith in hiring minority and female subcontractors. The department checks to see that a company doing business with the city has advertised to minority and female subcontractors and employees and investigates to make sure that front organizations have not been set up.

Those opposed to giving minority firms extra points in the bidding process tended to support the level playing field concept. The qualified vendor with the lowest bid should receive the contract. This is fair not only to the contractor with the lowest bid, but also is best for the city. For example, one Kansas City official, while concerned with the problems facing minority contractors, wanted the school district to “maintain some semblance of a business operation, and not just run some type ofentitlement program. ”

Two other contracting procedures were discussed by small numbers of our officials and support for such policies was strong. The first of these policies, which is practiced in Pasadena, involves giving minority or female contractors extra leeway in the bidding process. In this case, a minority- owned firm can be five percent higher in its bid than the lowest bid by a white firm and still receive the contract. Only seven officials mentioned such a policy, and five of these officials (71 percent) supported it. The second such policy involves giving extra aid to minority or female contractors, such as helping them to meet the city’s bonding requirements. Five

A ffimative Action and Local Governments 767

individuals discussed such policies and four supported them. The basic rationale here is that minority-owned businesses tend to be smaller and newer. As a result, they have fewer cash reserves and less well-established track records, and these characteristics make it difficult for them to meet bonding or credit requirements. To help these businesses to flourish, extra aid is needed. It should be noted, however, that such programs do not mean that the quality of these assisted businesses is overlooked. Generally, supporters for these programs (and other non-setaside forms of affirmative action in the contracting process) also believe that contractors must be of high quality. As one supporter of extra aid stated, “You don’t set people up for failure, especially not members of minority groups (including women) that are representatives of entire groups rather than just individuals.”

Five people discussed training programs designed to enhance the qualifications of members from disadvantaged groups. Each of these officials was in support of such programs. In Orlando, for example, the school board has a “grow their own” policy whereby they locate and train individuals from disadvantaged groups who might want to go back to school to become teachers. Supporters of such policies are in favor of diversification, but want to ensure that quality is maintained.

Finally, eleven officials mentioned making extra effort to notify and recruit persons and/or companies from minority (and female) groups. Again, each of these individuals supported such policies. One school board member, for example, noted that her district often does more than one job search in an effort to recruit qualified minority or female candidates. Furthermore. recruiters have a limited number of special contracts they can offer on the spot (without clearance from the board) for “diamond” minority or female candidates, a process which does circumvent the district’s normal hiring system. As the word “diamond” illustrates, supporters of such recruitment efforts generally emphasize that those being recruited must be qualified as well as being members of underrepresented groups.

FACTORS RELATED TO SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION TO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Theory and Hypotheses A revised pluralist perspective was adopted to examine factors that

might influence support and opposition to affirmative action. Orthodox pluralism suggests that public officials are primarily influenced by the interests and power of various groups within their constituencies (Alford and Friedland 1985). While acknowledging the importance of self-interest


groups in the policy process, a revised pluralist perspective also recognizes the importance of a variety of political and moral principles in that process (Walzer 1983; Stoker 1992). In its most general form, a revised pluralist theory of urban politics maintains that citizens, and especially activists and policymakers, hold and apply political principles (or abstract beliefs about the general policy directions of the communities), that urban political cultures are defined by the dominance of particular principles, and that policymakers are sometimes influenced by their cultures (Schumaker 1991 ). Numerous political principles-such as those to promote economic growth, to protect neighborhoods from unregulated market exchanges, and to provide quality education-can dominate local cultures. One subset of principles that define urban culture and influence policymakers are justice principles (or abstract ideas addressing issues of fair distribution of goods and opportunities). Such justice principles are based on moral considerations of fair treatment of all persons. There are many justice principles, though Walzer (1983) stresses four basic kinds of principles. The principle of equality seeks non-differentiated treatment and similar shares. The principle of free exchange says fairness is achieved when distributions of goods and opportunities are based on agreements that are freely made by the various parties to them. The principle of desert claims that greater goods and opportunities should be available to those who have earned more, perhaps because they have contributed most to the community or because they have qualifications leading to the expectation that they will make the greatest contribution in the future. The principle of need claims that greater goods and opportunities should be available to those who will be most benefitted by their receipt. A revised pluralist perspective does not claim that a particular justice principle should or does most influence decision makers. Instead, it holds that officials will be influenced by the principles of justice they hold and/or that are dominant in their communities. Thus, local officials who oppose and support affirmative action can be equally influenced by justice principles, but opponents and supporters would likely invoke different justice principles in forming their opinions about affirmative action. Based on this revised pluralist perspective, we examine the following general and specific hypotheses:

H 1 : Support for affirmative action will be influenced by the particular interests of urban officials and the interests of those persons they represent or with whom they identify.

Hla: Minorities and women will be more supportive of afftrmative action policies than whites and men.


H2: Support for affirmative action will be influenced by principles of justice and morality.

H2a: Officials committed to more individualistic and libertarian ideologies will be relatively opposed to affirmative action, while officials committed to more egalitarian ideologies will be relatively supportive of affirmative action.

H2b: Officials will be most supportive of affirmative action where egalitarian principles are dominant in their local political culture.

H3: Support for more aggressive forms of affirmative action will be attenuated by competing political principles, even among officials having more egalitarian ideological orientations.

H3a: School board members will be less supportive of quotas than city council members, because they often believe that the principle of ensuring quality education should take precedence over concerns for social justice.

Findings Table 4 examines hypothesized determinants of overall support for

affirmative action and of the four specific affirmative action policies most frequently mentioned: adopting quotas, establishing hiring goals, establishing setasides, and providing minority contractors with extra points in the bidding process.' These data are based on bivariate correlation and multivariate regression analyses examining the effects of individual characteristics on afirmative action attitudes.

These data suggest that the racial characteristics and gender of officials are only weakly associated with their attitudes regarding affirmative action, and thus provide only weak support for the first hypotheses (H 1 and H 1 a). Women are slightly more supportive of affirmative action than men, but none of the relationships involving gender in Table 4 are statistically significant. Minorities are somewhat more supportive of affirmative action than whites, but these relationships are usually weak. Because many blacks and women had reservations about affirmative action and because many white men were moderately and strongly committed to it, support for affirmative action appears to be less a matter of self-interest than of morality and justice. Clearly the comments of the officials indicate that their attitudes about affirmative action are primarily rooted in moral sentiments about what is right and wrong, fair and unfair in the distribution of offices and contracts. The number of officials who evaluated affirmative action from the point of view of whether such policies increased or reduced their

Table 4

Respondent is a minority Respondent is female

Serve minorityAow income district Served on city council Years served in ofice

Social class Ycan of formal schooling Employed in public Kctor Occupation (social prestige scale)

Identification with Democratic Party Leftism in ideological orientation

Adjusted R squared

.29*

. I I

.03

.I7

.05

-.I0 .02 .29*

-.I7

.37*

.46*

.18* .20 - .03

- .34 - .20 - - .I5

- -.33 - -.08

.10 .04 - -.46*

.I8 .I8

.38* .49'

.26

(.12)2 .22 - .09

(.30) .I4 - . I 1 - .06

- -.I8 - -.04 - . I I

-.39* -.26

- .44* .34* .3 1

.35

.23

.I9

. I5

.I9

.I0

-. 19 -. I6 .23

-.48*

.20

.58*

.35*

.26

.08

.05

.25

- . I 1 - . I 1 .08

-.27

.37*

.35*

Hypothesized Determinants of Support for Affirmative Action

OVERALL QUOTAS GOALS SETasides POINTS r Beta

.30* r Beta r Beta' r B a a r Beta

Aflrmative Acfion and Local Governments 771

personal prospects was very small, and the number of officials who evaluated affirmative action from the point of view of what it did for people having the same racial and gender characteristics as themselves was only somewhat more common. The rationales officials gave for their positions reflected much more often their moral understandings and intuitions about the nature of justice. The one instance where race or gender remains a significant independent contributor to support for specific affirmative action policies involves minority support for giving extra points to minority groups in the awarding of contracts. And here the arguments for such policies among black officials reflected the moral judgement that historical discrimination against blacks economically requires some policies that begin to rectify past injustices. Minority officials suggested that it is unjust to award with municipal business those firms that continue to exclude or m in im ize black participation.

Factors regarding the positions held by officials had generally weak but suggestive relationships with regard to support for affirmative action. Table 4 shows only weak correlations between the racial and class composition of the districts that officials serve and their support for affirmative action. These findings may reinforce our interpretation regarding the minor significance of race and gender; support for affirmative action seems more rooted in conceptions of morality and justice than in whether or not affirmative action policies serve the interests of political constituencies.IO

Data in Table 4 illustrate the effects of certain individual characteristics of urban officials that are interesting but not particularly salient to the modified pluralist perspective that informs our specific hypotheses. I t shows that there is no significant relationship between years served in office and support for affirmative action. One possible interpretation here is that longer service on the council has no effect in terms of socializing officials to particular justice norms. But an interpretation that reverses the causal linkages among these variables is perhaps more provocative; there is no evidence that stronger supporters of affirmative action have encountered electoral resistance limiting their terms of office.

Two broad measures of socioeconomic statusnocial class" and years of formal education-were also examined and it was found that they are only weakly related to support for affirmative action. Better predictors of support for affirmative action were the social prestige of the occupations of the officials'* and the sector in which these elected officials are employed. In general, persons employed in the public and service sectors are more supportive of affirmative action than persons employed in the private (competitive and corporate) sectors, but sector of employment does not have a significant direct relationship with support for specific affirmative

772 Southeastern Political Review VOI! 26 No. 4

action policies. More important is the occupation of officials, as opposition to quotas and setasides is particularly high among persons from high prestige fields (e.g. upper management and the professions). It is not clear from our data whether this opposition reflects self-interest (that they would personally be disadvantaged by strong affirmative action policies), personal experiences (problems occurring in their organizations arising from establishing quotas and setasides), or ideology (the belief that rising to the top should-and does-reflect nothing other than competence).

The final set of factors examined in Table 4 deals with ideological orientation and party identifi~ation.’~ The data indicate that these factors are the best predictor of attitudes toward affirmative action of any of the variables we have examined. Ideological orientation is the strongest predictor of overall support for affirmative action, giving support to our second set of hypotheses (H2 and H2a in particular) regarding the importance of the role of moral principles. Ideology is also revealed as the key factor influencing officials’ support for the most extensive affirmative action policies: quotas and setasides. Because of their commitment to free exchange and desert-based principles of justice (Schumaker, Kiel and Heilke 1996), conservatives are most opposed to these policies. Because of their commitment to egalitarian and need-based principles of justice (Schumaker, Kiel and Heilke 1996), liberals (and radicals) are most supportive of these more aggressive forms of affirmative action. While ideological orientation is strongly associated with support or opposition to goals and setasides, ideology is less related to support for establishing hiring goals and for awarding points to minority firms in the contracting process. These results suggest that opposition to affirmative action is rooted in distaste for quotas and setasides that violate the principles of just deserts that are important to conservatives, but milder forms of affirmative action are less likely to engender strong principled opposition from conservatives.

Political party affiliation may play an important moderating role in the pursuit of affirmative action. Table 4 shows that Democrats are more supportive than Republicans of affirmative action in general, but partisan identification has no strong direct causal impact on such support. Table 4 also shows that Democrats are not much more supportive than Republicans of either quotas or setasides. But Democrats are significantly more supportive than Republicans of establishing hiring goals and (perhaps) taking minority participation into account when awarding municipal contracts. In short, Democrats seem to be able to pursue their commitments to racial and gender justice through these more moderate approaches to affirmative action.


Table 5 provides some support for the hypothesis (2b) that the political culture of a community affects receptivity to affirmative action programs (Button 1989). The cities in our sample that are most supportive of affirmative action are Atlanta and Minneapolis, cities whose officials frequently discussed the egalitarian justice principles that prevailed in their local cultures. In Atlanta, egalitarian principles are racially-defined, reflecting its history as a place where the civil rights movement was born. In Minneapolis, egalitarian principles are more economically-based, reflecting its long tradition of Scandinavian-style social liberalism. Nevertheless, Table 5 also shows that there is support for affirmative action throughout the sample, even in cities that have relatively conservative political cultures (such as Salt Lake City and Green Bay).

Table 5

Cross-Community Variations in Support for Affirmative Action Policies

CIIICP AFFIRM^

Atlanta 6 6 Austin 5 5 Baltimore 5 8 Green Bay 4 9

Minneapolis 6 0 Orlando 5 5 Pasadena 5 6 Providence 5 4 Salt 1,ahe 4 I San Jose 5 6 Seattle 5 5

KansasC'lty 5 3

QUOTAd CiA1.S SETasidc POINTS LEEWAY

3.1 4.4 3.7 4.5 4.3 2.7 4.1 2.5 3.9 - - - 3.2 2.0 -

2.5 4.4 - 3.8 - 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.8 - 2.8 4.4 3.8 4.5 - 1.5 4.5 4.0 4.2 - 2.4 3.4 2.2 3.2 3.0 1.9 4.5 3.7 2.0 - 2.0 3.5 - 3.0 - 1.5 3.5 2.0 3.2 2.3 2.7 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.5

AID - 4.0 3.2

TRAIN RECRUIT

- - - 4.7

4.5 4.0 4.5 - 5.0 - 5.0 5.0 - 4.0 - 4.5 - 5.0

5.0 4.7

- -

'Recauw 01 the small number of citations of policies to enhance the representativeness of governing bodies and to increase the diversity of appointed commissions and because of a lack of vanation in crossammu- nity support for such policies thew areas of allinnatire action are omitted from this table

nificant as indicated by ANOVA I--tests

the 7-point scale dcrnbcd in rablc I lhus sores greater than 4 0 indicate more support than opposition. and the hiyher the %core the greater the %uppofl for aNirmativc action generally

'\cores in this column and t h o x io the nght indicate the degree o f support within each city for spccilic affirmative action policies a labeled inore fully in rabk 1 I f a respondent diwuswd any o f thne specific poli- c i a . their degree of support for that pil ic) was estimated on a 5-point scale where I indicates strong opposition 7 indicates neutralit). and 5 indicates strong support Thus. the higher the score. the greater the wpporc for the indicated affirmati\c action p i l i c ) in the city Dashes indicate that no ollicial from this c ih mentioned this aNinnati\e action pohcv

bWhil~ the dillcrcnccs among cities are often suggestive. these differences are not in general statistically sig-

'Scores in this column indicate the degree of support within each city for allinnative action generally using

774 Southeastern Political Review Yo& 26 No.4

Table 6 shows that persons who have served on the city council seem a bit more supportive than school board members of affirmative action generally, as suggested by our third set of hypotheses. The qualitative data from our interviews suggest why this is so: school board members stressed their commitment to the principle of hiring qualified teachers, since teach- ing the young is seen as too important to be compromised by social goals. This notion is supported by data in Table 6 showing that school board members were especially opposed to quotas. However, these data indicate that in three policy areas, school board members were substantially more supportive of affirmative action than city council members: allowing extra leeway for minority/female contractors, providing extra aid with bonding or credit requirements for minority/female contractors, and making extra recruitment efforts. All three of these policies have in common that qualifications are not sacrificed in favor of racial or sexual characteristics. For example, Orlando has an aggressive program to recruit minority teachers from out-of-state; while this program involves extra “wining and dining” expenses for the district, it seeks to attract well-qualified minorities to the school system.

Table 6 Differences Between Members 01 City Council

and School Boards in Support lor Affirmative Actiona ~~

Members of Support for City Council School Board

Overall AFFlRMative actionb 5.7 5.2 Enhancing representativeness of governing bodyc 5.0 4.5 Increasing diversity of appointed commissions 4.4 5.0 Adopting QUOTAS 2.6 2.2 tstablishing GOALS 4.2 4.0 Establishing SETasidcs 3.5 2.9 Providing POINTS 3.8 3.7

Providing extra AID 3.2 4.3

Making extra efforts to RECRUIT 4.3 4.7

Allowing I.IXWAY 3.0 3.7

Providing special TRAINING 5.0 4.8

T h e support scores reported here arc for 56 city muncil members and 59 school board m e m h i n t e t v i m d in the I 2 sample cities. The five persons who had served on both the city council n d the school board arc included in both columns The six city council members and hvo school board members who failed to inention a~innat ive action issucs arc excluded from these tabulations While the dilTercnfa between city council members and school board members are oncn suggestive. thev dilTerences are not in general statistically significant. as indicated by ANOVA F-tesls

the SEOIC. the greater the overall nipport of affirmative action

action policics listed below are baxd on the 5-point scale uud in Table 4 The higher the score. the greater the support for the specific a%rmativc action p~l ic ies

blhev overall allinnative action support scores arc b a d on the 7 - p i n t scale rcported in Table I The highn

‘The suppon scorcs for enhancing the reprcvntativcncss of the governing bodies and other specific allinnative

Aflrmative Action and Local Governments 775

CONCLUSION: AFFIRMATIW ACTION IN THE FUTURE Local government is seldom seen as an arena where policies to secure

social justice can be pursued effectively. According to Peterson (198 I ) , the economic interests of the city preclude their adoption of redistributive policies. However, this study of 12 American cities reveals widespread adoption of affirmative action policies and extensive support of these policies by local elected officials. While some officials continue to endorse the “level playing field” of formal equal opportunity, most officials endorse moderate or strong affirmative action policies that give preferences to historically disadvantaged groups and that thus promote fair equal opportunity. While aggressive affirmative action policies such as establishing quotas and setasides have supporters among urban officials, they have more detractors. More moderate approaches-such as establishing hiring goals and taking minority participation into account when awarding contracts- have much more support and relatively little opposition. Officials see these as preferential policies that recognize historical injustices and continuing discrimination and as policies that can be pursued without overlooking the qualifications of those who seek governmental positions and contracts.

As state and federal governments limit affirmative action programs, local officials may be prompted to reassess their own commitments to such programs. However, it is questionable that policies adopted at the state and federal levels will determine their attitudes toward affirmative action. Instead, local officials are more likely to follow the guidelines dictated by their own moral perceptions and the moral principles that dominate their local culture. While the idea of colorblind competition on a level playing field appeals to some officials, others see moral justification in having local government play a proactive role in ensuring that subtle forms of discrimination no longer tilt the playing field against the disadvantaged and in giving some preferences to minorities and women in order to rectify historical injustices. Because local affirmative action policies seem affected by the justice principles that dominate urban cultures, these later moral sentiments must come to dominate such cultures, if the affirmation action is to sur- vive.I4

The data here suggest that local officials can support affirmative action without incurring the opposition of voters, especially if they steer clear of the more aggressive forms of affirmative action. Ideological divisions can be minimized by restricting affirmative action to various programs that ensure that the qualifications ofjob applicants and contractors are taken into account. Democratic officials can further affirmative action by stressing a “politics of inclusion” that pursues policies that increase opportunities for historically disadvantaged citizens without incurring white backlash

~~

776 Southeastern Political Review Yo& 26 No. 4

against “quotas.” Giving preference to minority candidates but only when “everything else is equal,” rewarding minority participation in companies that do business with the city, training and mentoring disadvantaged groups, and taking extraordinary actions to recruit blacks and women into public offices are among the obvious approaches that remain in an era of declining federal and public support for affirmative action.

METHODOLOGICAL APPENDIX This study employs both qualitative and quantitative research method-

ologies. The relatively open-ended format of the interviews yielded extensive qualitative information regarding understandings of justice principles and affirmative action among urban elected officials, in a way that was minimally guided by the preconceptions of the researchers. The quantitative data that was derived from such interviews does not meet all of the criteria that are ideal for statistical analysis-for example, neither the cities in our survey nor the officials interviewed in each city constitute true random samples and our scales are ordinal rather than interval. Thus, the results must be considered exploratory rather than scientifically verified generalizations about the attitudes of all urban officials regarding affirmative action. However, this combined qualitative-quantitative methodol- ogy yields important information that is not available from standard sources and that has been collected in a manner to enhance its representativeness and validity. Its 12-city data base improves on the single-city case studies that dominate the field, and the quantitative statistics summarize the tendencies in the data in a manner that complements the perceptions and judgments offered by particular officials.

To attain measures of urban officials’ support for affirmative action, the transcripts of two parts of the interviews were inspected and coded. One source of information was the stories officials provided at the beginning of the interview about issues, policy areas, or cases that arose while they were in office that exemplified ideas about “fairness,” as they understood that term. Such stories were requested because they provide rich research material reflective of human cognitive abilities. Research suggests that memory and knowledge are story-based, and that humans constantly (though usually unconsciously) process information by placing it in a story form to be accessed as needed (Martin 1982; Schank 1990). Collecting information through stories also reduces a recurring problem when re- searching the attitudes of individuals-that participants may be tempted to tell the researcher what he or she deems socially acceptable rather than revealing information that reflects the participants’ actual beliefs. When an individual recounts an actual event, his or her beliefs and actions are less

Aflrmative Action and Local Governments 777

likely to be significantly distorted, thus reducing the problem of discrepancies between presentational and operational data (Van Maanen 1979). Thus, by examining the stories people tell, researchers can thus learn a great deal about people’s understanding of the world (Kelly 1994).

Respondents usually offered one or two stories at the beginning of the interview, although some told as many as five. The 22 1 stories that were told here dealt with many types of issues other than affirmative action: stories regarding school desegregation, service distribution, and economic (re)development were more prominent than those regarding affirmative action. Some stories dealt with affirmative action in a peripheral manner. For example, five stories dealt with increasing racial diversity on city councils and boards as the key to increasing minority opportunities in other areas, and eight stories dealt with increasing educational opportunities for minorities in order to improve minority qualifications for municipal jobs and contracts. Only ten stories dealt directly with preferential policies in municipal employment and contracting. Overall, we deemed 3 I stories relevant to assessing officials’ attitudes regarding affirmative action.

Anticipating that the stories would leave gaps in our ability to code officials on a variety of areas relevant to a study of urban justice, including affirmative action, the second part of the interview was designed to provide information on specified justice issues. Here, respondents were presented with 2 1 cards, each containing a “principle of justice” distilled from the relevant theoretical literature (Schumaker and Kelly 1994). Officials were asked to react to each card by: (a) indicating their degree of support for (or opposition to) the principle; (b) interpreting and defining the principle in their own words; (c) indicating the reasons for their support or opposition to the principle; and (d) indicating the kinds of cases where they thought the principle might be appropriately (or inappropriately) applied.

For this study, we examined the reactions of each official to the card labeled “equal opportunity” that read “public officials should pursue equal opportunity policies to eliminate barriers that prevent minorities, women, and other historically disadvantaged groups from competing fairly with whites, men, and other historically advantaged groups for the most desired positions in society.” All but two officials (who professed neutrality) indicated moderate or strong support for this principle, but the principle was interpreted in different ways. This is not surprising because political philosophers such as John Rawls (197 1) and Douglas Rae ( 1 98 1 ) have analyzed the diverse meanings ofequal opportunity, stressing the difference between “formal equal opportunity” (i.e., the removal of discriminatory barriers) and “fair equal opportunity” (i.e., providing all applicants with equal prospects for attaining desirable goods and offices). Many officials

778 Southeastern Polirical Review Yo1 26 No. 4

used a sports analogy to capture such differences in interpretation, as some claimed that the principle called for them to create “a level playing field” for everyone, while just as many claimed that it called for them to “tilt the playing field” in favor of the disadvantaged to rectify historical and social injustices. The vast majority of officials said that affirmative action was the primary area of application or misapplication of the equal opportunity principle, and they provided a diverse number of reasons for supporting and opposing affirmative action. When reacting to the equal opportunity principle, officials also offered some additional concrete stories about affirmative action policies.

The responses from both components of the interview were used to assess participants’ views of affirmative action. After reading the relevant stories offered by each respondent and that respondent’s reactions to the equal opportunity principle, both authors coded each participant’s attitudes towards affirmative action generally and toward particular affirmative action policies, using the seven-point and five-point scales described in the text and tables. The scores assigned by each researcher were then compared and any discrepancies were discussed. In some cases, the scores were reconciled, in others not. When discrepancies remained, the coders’ esti- mates were averaged and rounded toward the extreme values. Thus, if one researcher coded a respondent at 7 (“strongly supportive”) and the other researcher coded her as 6 (“moderately supportive”), she was scored as a 7. Such averaging and rounding were seldom required, however,as the coders normally agreed in their assessments of officials’ attitudes toward affirmative action. The overall level of intercoder reliability was .96.

NOTES The authors express their gratitude to various programs at the University

of Kansas for funding portions of this research. Schumaker was provided a sabbatical leave, enabling him to conduct the interviews in the 12 cities studied here. The Hall Center for the Humanities provided funds for travel to some of these cities. The General Research Fund provided a grant enabling Kelly to transcribe, code, and analyze much of the interview data.

’See Schumaker and Kelly ( 1 994) for an overview of this larger project, including a review of the relevant literature on normative theories ofjustice and on the degree to which various conceptions ofjustice are supported by urban officials.

2This procedure may have contributed to an unrepresentative sample in two ways. First, possible participants often asked for additional information about the purposes ofthe interview, and they were told that the concern


was to understand how urban officials thought about “fairness” when confronted with distributive decisions and how they applied their ideas of fairness in concrete cases: this topic may have intrigued some types of people more than others. Second, requesting two-hour long interviews may have deterred participation among some with hectic schedules. White males who currently held governmental positions were most likely to decline interviews. However, difficulties in reaching and scheduling possible participants was far more frequent than persons refusing to participate. Typical of such difficulties was the fact that ten interviews had to be canceled because of conflicts that developed in the schedules of those who had earlier agreed to participate in the study.

-‘Most officials referred to women, minorities, blacks, and “the disadvantaged” generally as the appropriate beneficiaries of more extensive affirmative policies. Occasionally, officials singled out Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian Americans and other ethnic minorities that were prominent in their communities for inclusion. And eight officials called for inclusion of the physically handicapped. While no officials argued against extending affirmative action coverage to Hispanics and other ethnic minorities or to the physically handicapped, a couple of officials did question the inclusion of women. They viewed preferential policies in employment and contracting as zero-sum, with the inclusion of women reducing the opportunities for minorities. Such inclusion was wrong-headed, they argued, because color has been a far greater hindrance to economic opportunity than gender. Five officials called for extending protections to gays and lesbians, but they did not seek to include them in preferential policies.

40verall, support for the equal opportunity principle, as defined on a card presented to them during the interview (see Methodological Appen- dix), was moderately related to support for affirmative action (r = . 3 l ) . Thus, while opposition to affirmative action seemed generally to temper support for equal opportunity, some opponents of affirmative action maintained that they were nevertheless strong supporters of equal opportunity. They strongly supported “eliminating barriers” for historically disadvantaged groups, but they strongly opposed preferential policies favoring such groups.

%ee Abigail Thernstrom ( 1 996) for a discussion of recent progress in the economic and social conditions of blacks.

61n his discussion ofjustice in the distribution of office, Michael Walzer (1983) stresses the idea of qualification, and having fair tests and fair procedures for determining those who are qualified. According to Walzer,

780 Southeartern Political Review Vol. 26 No. 4

the idea is not to locate those persons most meritorious in terms of some previous performances but to locate people who have the qualifications to predict future success. In certain circumstances, ethnicity or gender may thus be a preferred quality for selection committees. Walzer’s views seem reflected by urban oficials who are weakly supportiveofaffirmativeaction.

’In the context of this quote, this councilman was clearly referring to all minorities, not just blacks, as “his people.” Even so, he exaggerated the size of his minority constituency, as whites constitute 57 percent of the population of Pasadena.

“The other individual opposing this policy was concerned with the effects of racial gerrymandering on existing neighborhoods, In her case, the city’s redistricting plan took a community that had worked “for twenty years towards some cohesiveness and some common plan,” and divided it up into three districts. She feared that redistricting to ensure black representation would reduce interracial mixing and have an adverse effect on her constituents’ sense of social equality.

9While I 12 officials provided us with enough information to code their overall attitude toward affirmative action, much smaller numbers of officials could be coded for their attitudes on specific affirmative action policies. The number of cases for the regression models dealing with specific affirmative action policies are the number of officials “mentioning” each policy, as indicated in Table 3. Because of the small N in these analysis, the adjusted coefficients of determination are quite small. To maximize the degrees of freedom, we included in the multiple regression models only those variables significantly related to the specific aflirrnative policies in the bivariate (Pearson correlation) analyses. Because of the importance of race, we included a racial dummy variable (whether or not the official was any type of minority) in additional regression models for those policies in which race was not significant in the bivariate analysis; in such cases, the effects of race are estimated by the beta (standardized regression) coefficients placed within parentheses.

’OHowever, this interpretation should be viewed with caution. Our interviews did not permit us to clearly differentiate the racial and class compositions of the districts of officials. All our data permit us to say is that officials representing lower class and/or minority districts are only slightly more supportive of affirmative action than officials representing more affluent and/or white districts. I t may be that officials from lower-to- middle class white districts are much less supportive of affirmative action than officials representing minorities (Greenberg 1996).


“Our measure of social class here is highly subjective-the inter- viewer’s perception of whether the official was upper class, upper-middle class, middle class, working class, or lower class, based on such things as their residences, their offices, and their educational and career backgrounds.

IZUsing the U.S. Bureau of Census 3-digit occupation scale, we coded the current occupations of part-time officials or the occupations that officials had prior to assuming full-time electoral positions. Then we sub- tracted these scores from 1000 to achieve a scale of increasing social prestige of occupations.

‘.‘Officials were asked to indicate the party with which they identified and to provide an ideological label that best summarized their overall views. Party identification was coded on a five-point scale ranging from strong republican (coded 1 ) to independent (coded 3) to strong democrat (coded 5 ) . Ideological orientation was coded on a nine-point scale, ranging from strongly conservative (coded 1 ) and moderate (coded 4) to strongly liberal (coded 7) and radical (coded 9).

I4ln related research, Sniderman et al. (1996) argue that support for affirmative action depends on officials justifying affirmative action to their constituents by employing universalistic and egalitarian moral principles rather than by emphasizing the expected benefits to particular interests.

REFERENCES Alford, Robert, and Roger Friedland. 1985. Powers of Theory: Capital-

ism, the State, and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Alverez, R. Michael, and John Brehm. 1997. “Are Americans Ambivalent Toward Racial Policies?” American Journal of Political Science

Browning, Rufus P., Dale Rogers Marshall, and David H. Tabb. 1984.

Button, James W. 1989. Blacks andSocialChunge. Princeton, NJ: Prince-

Carter, Steven. 199 I . Reflections qf An Aflrmative Action Baby. New

Cohen, Carl. 1995. Naked Racial Preference. Lanham, MD: University

41 :345-74.

Protest is Not Enough. Berkeley: University of California Press.

ton University Press.

York: Basic Books.

Press of America.

782 Soufheasfern Polirical Review Vot! 26 No. 4

Eisinger, Peter. 1982. “The Economic Conditions of Black Employment in Municipal Bureaucracies.” American Journal of Political Science

Eulau, Heinz, and Kenneth Prewitt. 1973. Labyrinths of Democracy. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Memill.

Glazer, Nathan. 1988. “Affirmative Action Stalemate.” The Public fn- terest 90:99- 144.

Greenberg, Stanley B. 1996. Middle Class Dreams, rev. ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Greene, Kathanne W. 1989. Aflrmative Action and Principles of Justice. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Healy, Melissa, and Paul Richter. 1995. “GOP Sees Ruling as Charge to End Racial Preferences.” Los Angeles Times June 13:A I .

Jacobson, Cardell K. 1985. “Resistance to Affirmative Action: Self-interest or Racism?” Journal of Conflict Resolution 29:306-29.

Kelly, Marisa. 1994. “Justice-in-Use: Stories From Street-Level Bureau- crats.” Ph.D. diss. University of Kansas.

Kennedy, Randall. 1997. Race, Crime, andthe Law. New York: Random House.

Kershaw, Sarah. 1996. “Regents at Unruly Meeting Vote to Retain Policy on Bias.” New York Times January 19:A12.

Kinder, Donald. 1986. “The Continuing American Dilemma: White Resistance to Racial Change 40 Years After Myrdal.” JournalofSocial Issues 42: I5 1-7 I .

MacManus, Susan A. 1990. “Minority Business Contracting with Local Government. ” Urban Affairs Quarterly 25 : 4 5 5 -73.

Martin, Joanne. 1982. “Stories and Scripts in Organizational Settings,” in Albert H. Hostorf and Alice M. Isen, eds., Cognitive Social Psychology. New York: Elsevier Science Publishers.

Mladenka, Kenneth. 1989. “Blacks and Hispanics in Urban Politics.” American Political Science Review 83 : 165-92.

Municipal Yearbook. 1993. Washington, DC: International City Manage- me nt Association.

Nay, Leslie A., and James E. Jones, Jr. 1989. “Equal Employment and Affirmative Action in Local Governments: A Profile.” Law and fn-

26~754-7 1 .

equdity 8: 103-37.

Af?irmative Action and Local Governmen& 783

Peterson, Paul. 1981. C i y Limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rae, Douglas. 1981. Equalities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rosenfeld, Michel. 199 I . Aflrmative Action and Justice: A Philosophical and Constitutional Inquiry. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Saltzstein, Grace Hall. 1986. “Female Mayors and Women in Municipal Jobs.” American Journal of Political Science 30: 140-64.

Santoro, Wayne A. 1995. “Black Politics and Employment Policies: The Determinants of Local Government Afirmative Action.” Social Sci- ence Quarterly 76:794-806.

Schank, Roger C. 1990. Tell Me A Story: A New Look at Real and Artificial Memory. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Schumaker, Paul. I99 1 . Critical Pluralism, Democratic Performance, and Community Power. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

Schumaker, Paul, and Marisa Kelly. 1994. “Alternative Principles of Justice and Their Applications in American Cities.” Presented at the American Political Science Association, New York.

Schumaker, Paul, Dwight Kiel, and Thomas Heilke. 1996. Great IdeudGrand Schemes: Political Ideologies in the 19th and 20th Cen- turies. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Stater, Courtenay M., and George E. Hall, eds. 1993. 1993 County und City Extra: Annual Metro, C‘iy. and Couny Dutu Book. Lanham, MD: Bernam Press.

Sniderman, Paul, Edward G. Carmines, Geoffrey C. Layman, and Michael Carter. 1996. “Beyond Race: Social Justice as a Neutral Idea.” Americun Journal of Political Science 40:33-55.

Sniderman, Paul, and Thomas Piazza. 1993. The Scur of Race. Cam- bridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University.

Sowel I . Thomas. I 990. Preferential Policies: An International Perspec- tive. New York: Quell.

Steele, Shelby. 1990. The Cbntent qf Our C’huructer. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Stoker, Laura. 1992. “Interests and Ethics in Politics.” American Politi- cal Science Review 86:3 69-80.

784 Southeastern Poliiicd Review Vol. 26 No. 4

Stout, David. 1996. “Appeals Court Overturns Race-Based School Pol-

Taylor, Bron Raymond. I99 I. Aflrmative Action at Work. Pittsburgh:

Themstrom, Abigail. 1996. “The Real Problem.” Harvurd Journal of

Van Maanen, John. 1979. “The Fact of Fiction in Organizational Ethnog-

Walters, Ronale. 1996. “The Criticality of Racism.” The Black Scholar

Walzer, Michael. 1983. Spheres ofJustice. New York: Basic Books.

icy.” New York Times March 20:B9.

University of Pittsburgh Press.

Law and Public Policy 29:767-12.

raphy.” Administrative Science Quarierly 24539-50.

26~2-7.

affirmative action and local governments: the views of city council and school board members

Documents