We still need affirmative action (as long as there's sin)
Political Pulpit
A significant number of the assigned biblical texts for these summer months are about
inclusivity. Of course, the Pentecost Sunday theme of May 27 (especially the first lesson
from Acts 2:1-21) affirms that differences in ethnicity do not get in the way of the unity
of God's people. The same theme is just as evident in the second lesson for June 24
(Galatians 3:23-29), as Paul proclaims that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave
nor free, male nor female. The theme of unity, that God's kingdom is for all people, is
evident in the second lesson for May 13 (Revelation 21:10--22:5) and the gospel for May
20 (John 17:20-26). Add to these the assigned pericopes' preoccupation with uplifting
those who have been marginalized. The first lesson for May 20 (Acts 16:16-34) tells the
story of Paul paying some consequences for undermining the exploitation of a slave. The
first lesson for June 17 (1 Kings 21:1-10 [11-14] 15-21a) testifies to God's displeasure
with the dishonest business practices of Ahab and Jezebel. And the gospel for that
Sunday (Luke 7:36--8:3) indicates Jesus' special compassion for women, who were
victims of patriarchy in the Roman Empire. (Don't forget, the first lesson for Trinity
Sunday, June 3 [Proverbs 8:1-4, 22-31] even identifies Wisdom, the second person of the
Trinity as female.)
The testimony of God's commitment of including everyone and taking measures to ensure that this is the case, is unambiguous. The liberal Democrat in me can only hear these texts as indications of support for affirmative action. But that is hardly a popular position today. In fact, in view of the upcoming Supreme Court verdict on whether a school district in Washington may use race as a basis for admission to certain schools in order to achieve racial balance, affirmative action may well be a hot topic in these summer months.
Of course, affirmative action has been under fire for some time. Exit polls indicate that (white) Christians (especially Protestants) have been key players in making this retreat from the gains of the Civil Rights Movement possible. Even in the 2006 Democratic victory, statistics from the National Election Poll for all the major networks indicate that 62% of regular worshipers voted Republican, just as 64% and 58% of that constituency had voted for the Republican presidential candidate in 2004 and 2000. To put these candidates in office is a vote against affirmative action. A party committed to the free market and small government is not going to help anybody who can't compete. After all, its proponents contend, the playing field is level. We can all compete. Maybe in heaven, but on this side of the Fall into sin, is the field really level? Don't those in power do all they can to keep power? That's what Augustine and James Madison taught (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, 2:283; The Federalist Papers, No. 51).
Since Ronald Reagan, the Republican strategy has been to overlook these biblical and constitutional insights about human nature. One way to implement this, dating back to Reagan's 1980 victory, has been to get the public to identify all forms of affirmative action with quotas. It has been an effective strategy, continued with the Bush administration and Republican state governments in California, Washington, and Michigan banning affirmative action in state-financed institutions. Meanwhile, the Bush administration's Justice Department has prosecuted cases to end affirmative action, finding support from some federal court decisions offered by Reagan and Bush Sr.'s appointments.
Is the playing field really level? The median household income for whites in 2005 was $50,784. For Hispanics, it was $35,967 and for blacks $30,858. The unemployment rate has something to do with this. It's 10% among blacks and only 4.4% among whites. While an unacceptably high 12% of the US population lives in poverty, 26% of Native Americans are impoverished. Nearly 23% of the Hispanic population is in poverty, and just over 25% of the African-American population (US Census Bureau, at http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income- wealth/007419.html; Stella Ogunwole, "We the People: American Indians and Alaskan Natives in the United States. Census 2000 Special Reports). We have cut back on welfare, to get the "chiselers," but isn't it interesting who has gotten hurt? While only 18% of the white households are receiving welfare, 47% of black and 50% of Hispanic households depend on these programs for food and shelter. Precisely who is being hurt by the welfare reductions and tax cuts to benefit (mostly white) business owners and the upper middle class? (Recall in a previous column I noted that 70% of the Bush tax benefits went to the wealthiest 20% of Americans.) I'd call that kind of government tax relief affirmative action for the privileged. Why don't we give such breaks to the poor? The texts cited above invite sermons on that topic.
Ask yourself honestly: Why are African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans so far behind? If you insist that we all start on a level playing field, it will be hard to avoid conclusions about racial superiority. But our assigned texts for these months won't allow that conclusion, or leave us comfortable with these statistics. What else is left for biblically oriented and compassionate Americans, but the conclusion that we still need affirmative action?
Need more data to convince you? Consider the imbalance in the prison population. Hispanics are 3.3 times as likely as whites to be in prison. While only 1.7% of white men aged 25-29 are in jail, 3.9% of Hispanic men of that age are incarcerated and 11.9% of black men. Isn't it odd that communities which are more religious than the white community by the measure of church attendance are more inclined to crime? Does that not suggest that the imbalance is either about lack of equal opportunity or injustice in the judicial system? How else can such imbalances be explained? It sure isn't level in buying a home. A study of The Center for Responsible Lending found that African-American and Hispanic borrowers are 30% more likely to be charged higher rates for home loans. Something has to be done to level a clearly unequal playing field.
Education is what impoverished minorities need, we say. But that is increasingly unbalanced too, and more so if the Republican-appointed justices on our courts do it Reagan's, Bush's, and the Religious Right's way. Public schools are less integrated today than they were in 1970. According to the Harvard Civil Rights Project, the percentage of black children attending schools in which minorities are in the majority rose from 66% in 1991 to 73% in 2003. During the 1990s the proportion of black students in majority white schools has decreased 13%, to a level lower than any year since 1968. Hispanic students are likewise being segregated. And yet, Republican-appointed courts and Republican politicians keep trying to curtail programs to buck these trends. Ask yourself and your parishioners why this is so, since a lot of the folks you know in predominantly white churches are supporting this. In such a context, the Bush and Religious Right support of government subsidies for private education (vouchers) makes perfect diabolic sense. We can get our (white) kids away from those "disreputable bad influences." That was the strategy used in the South when Jim Crow started to die in the 1960s.
"Oh, but affirmative action is not American; it's socialist," the critics might say. The eminent American historian, John Hope Franklin, an African-American scholar, has pointed out that affirmative action was practiced long before the 1960s, and has continued unchallenged by Conservatives in some forms. We've already talked about the (affirmative-action) tax breaks a lot of rich white folks and many in the middle class have been getting. Let's also not forget that in days of legal segregation, whites were the recipients of affirmative action, getting into schools sometimes with lower qualifications than blacks who were barred. That system was in place for several centuries. Affirmative action was also practiced and still is today in universities which grant athletic scholarships (as students with lower academic qualifications may be prioritized if they can run fast, jump high, or throw hard) or show "legacy" preferences to children of alumni. How come we don't say that that is un-American?
In fact, affirmative action is the American way. It's been part of our tax structure since 1913 with the introduction of a progressive income tax (higher rates for higher levels of income). And don't forget to remind your parishioners that our present tax structure is in line with what the America's founders hypothesized. I've previously shared with you how Benjamin Franklin (Writings, pp. 1081-1082) and Thomas Jefferson (Writings, pp. 841-842) both advocated a role for the federal government in redistributing excessive wealth and property for the sake of the welfare of the public and to create jobs for the unemployed poor. (Also see the quotation from James Madison's writings in my January-February column.) Sure seems like the advocacy of affirmative action to me. (Republican readers note: Nothing said about quotas here.)
All the assigned lectionary texts cited above make it clear that such a concern to protect the opportunities for the most vulnerable is God's way. Put this data before the faithful who show up this summer for worship. Exit polls suggest that they may not want to hear this word at first. But I think that folks who show up regularly for church in the summer have good hearts and care. Introduce them to the hard data about inequalities in America, help them to see how our present structures reflect our sinful condition and tend to favor those who already "have." Open their eyes to the social implications of the assigned biblical texts, point out how these insights accord with the founders' intentions, and maybe American Christianity can begin to make a contribution to eking out more equality for all of God's people.
Mark Ellingsen is a tenured associate professor on the faculty of the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta and the author of hundreds of articles and thirteen books, including "Blessed Are the Cynical: How Original Sin Can Make America a Better Place," "The Integrity of Biblical Narrative: Story in Theology and Proclamation," and "The Richness of Augustine: His Contextual & Pastoral Theology" (Westminster/John Knox Press).
The testimony of God's commitment of including everyone and taking measures to ensure that this is the case, is unambiguous. The liberal Democrat in me can only hear these texts as indications of support for affirmative action. But that is hardly a popular position today. In fact, in view of the upcoming Supreme Court verdict on whether a school district in Washington may use race as a basis for admission to certain schools in order to achieve racial balance, affirmative action may well be a hot topic in these summer months.
Of course, affirmative action has been under fire for some time. Exit polls indicate that (white) Christians (especially Protestants) have been key players in making this retreat from the gains of the Civil Rights Movement possible. Even in the 2006 Democratic victory, statistics from the National Election Poll for all the major networks indicate that 62% of regular worshipers voted Republican, just as 64% and 58% of that constituency had voted for the Republican presidential candidate in 2004 and 2000. To put these candidates in office is a vote against affirmative action. A party committed to the free market and small government is not going to help anybody who can't compete. After all, its proponents contend, the playing field is level. We can all compete. Maybe in heaven, but on this side of the Fall into sin, is the field really level? Don't those in power do all they can to keep power? That's what Augustine and James Madison taught (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, 2:283; The Federalist Papers, No. 51).
Since Ronald Reagan, the Republican strategy has been to overlook these biblical and constitutional insights about human nature. One way to implement this, dating back to Reagan's 1980 victory, has been to get the public to identify all forms of affirmative action with quotas. It has been an effective strategy, continued with the Bush administration and Republican state governments in California, Washington, and Michigan banning affirmative action in state-financed institutions. Meanwhile, the Bush administration's Justice Department has prosecuted cases to end affirmative action, finding support from some federal court decisions offered by Reagan and Bush Sr.'s appointments.
Is the playing field really level? The median household income for whites in 2005 was $50,784. For Hispanics, it was $35,967 and for blacks $30,858. The unemployment rate has something to do with this. It's 10% among blacks and only 4.4% among whites. While an unacceptably high 12% of the US population lives in poverty, 26% of Native Americans are impoverished. Nearly 23% of the Hispanic population is in poverty, and just over 25% of the African-American population (US Census Bureau, at http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income- wealth/007419.html; Stella Ogunwole, "We the People: American Indians and Alaskan Natives in the United States. Census 2000 Special Reports). We have cut back on welfare, to get the "chiselers," but isn't it interesting who has gotten hurt? While only 18% of the white households are receiving welfare, 47% of black and 50% of Hispanic households depend on these programs for food and shelter. Precisely who is being hurt by the welfare reductions and tax cuts to benefit (mostly white) business owners and the upper middle class? (Recall in a previous column I noted that 70% of the Bush tax benefits went to the wealthiest 20% of Americans.) I'd call that kind of government tax relief affirmative action for the privileged. Why don't we give such breaks to the poor? The texts cited above invite sermons on that topic.
Ask yourself honestly: Why are African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans so far behind? If you insist that we all start on a level playing field, it will be hard to avoid conclusions about racial superiority. But our assigned texts for these months won't allow that conclusion, or leave us comfortable with these statistics. What else is left for biblically oriented and compassionate Americans, but the conclusion that we still need affirmative action?
Need more data to convince you? Consider the imbalance in the prison population. Hispanics are 3.3 times as likely as whites to be in prison. While only 1.7% of white men aged 25-29 are in jail, 3.9% of Hispanic men of that age are incarcerated and 11.9% of black men. Isn't it odd that communities which are more religious than the white community by the measure of church attendance are more inclined to crime? Does that not suggest that the imbalance is either about lack of equal opportunity or injustice in the judicial system? How else can such imbalances be explained? It sure isn't level in buying a home. A study of The Center for Responsible Lending found that African-American and Hispanic borrowers are 30% more likely to be charged higher rates for home loans. Something has to be done to level a clearly unequal playing field.
Education is what impoverished minorities need, we say. But that is increasingly unbalanced too, and more so if the Republican-appointed justices on our courts do it Reagan's, Bush's, and the Religious Right's way. Public schools are less integrated today than they were in 1970. According to the Harvard Civil Rights Project, the percentage of black children attending schools in which minorities are in the majority rose from 66% in 1991 to 73% in 2003. During the 1990s the proportion of black students in majority white schools has decreased 13%, to a level lower than any year since 1968. Hispanic students are likewise being segregated. And yet, Republican-appointed courts and Republican politicians keep trying to curtail programs to buck these trends. Ask yourself and your parishioners why this is so, since a lot of the folks you know in predominantly white churches are supporting this. In such a context, the Bush and Religious Right support of government subsidies for private education (vouchers) makes perfect diabolic sense. We can get our (white) kids away from those "disreputable bad influences." That was the strategy used in the South when Jim Crow started to die in the 1960s.
"Oh, but affirmative action is not American; it's socialist," the critics might say. The eminent American historian, John Hope Franklin, an African-American scholar, has pointed out that affirmative action was practiced long before the 1960s, and has continued unchallenged by Conservatives in some forms. We've already talked about the (affirmative-action) tax breaks a lot of rich white folks and many in the middle class have been getting. Let's also not forget that in days of legal segregation, whites were the recipients of affirmative action, getting into schools sometimes with lower qualifications than blacks who were barred. That system was in place for several centuries. Affirmative action was also practiced and still is today in universities which grant athletic scholarships (as students with lower academic qualifications may be prioritized if they can run fast, jump high, or throw hard) or show "legacy" preferences to children of alumni. How come we don't say that that is un-American?
In fact, affirmative action is the American way. It's been part of our tax structure since 1913 with the introduction of a progressive income tax (higher rates for higher levels of income). And don't forget to remind your parishioners that our present tax structure is in line with what the America's founders hypothesized. I've previously shared with you how Benjamin Franklin (Writings, pp. 1081-1082) and Thomas Jefferson (Writings, pp. 841-842) both advocated a role for the federal government in redistributing excessive wealth and property for the sake of the welfare of the public and to create jobs for the unemployed poor. (Also see the quotation from James Madison's writings in my January-February column.) Sure seems like the advocacy of affirmative action to me. (Republican readers note: Nothing said about quotas here.)
All the assigned lectionary texts cited above make it clear that such a concern to protect the opportunities for the most vulnerable is God's way. Put this data before the faithful who show up this summer for worship. Exit polls suggest that they may not want to hear this word at first. But I think that folks who show up regularly for church in the summer have good hearts and care. Introduce them to the hard data about inequalities in America, help them to see how our present structures reflect our sinful condition and tend to favor those who already "have." Open their eyes to the social implications of the assigned biblical texts, point out how these insights accord with the founders' intentions, and maybe American Christianity can begin to make a contribution to eking out more equality for all of God's people.
Mark Ellingsen is a tenured associate professor on the faculty of the Interdenominational Theological Center in Atlanta and the author of hundreds of articles and thirteen books, including "Blessed Are the Cynical: How Original Sin Can Make America a Better Place," "The Integrity of Biblical Narrative: Story in Theology and Proclamation," and "The Richness of Augustine: His Contextual & Pastoral Theology" (Westminster/John Knox Press).
