|  |
Civil-Rights Debate: Where Do We Go from Here?
Contributing teacher:
Andrew Meyers
Time period: 1990s
Overview
This simulation centers on a fictitious debate held in the recent past in which three groups of civil-rights activists and policy makers—integrationists, separatists, and conservatives—have come to the University of California at Berkeley. The year is 1997, and the meeting has been called to discuss the UC system's proposal to end affirmative action in their admissions process. This proposal surfaced in response to a call by Governor Pete Wilson (b. 1933) to end "racial preferences" in 1995, as well as to Proposition 209, a referendum that the state's voters approved in 1997 to end affirmative-action programs in state government and higher education.
The conservatives back Wilson, and will argue that the federal government has no business legislating racial equality through quotas, and that while affirmative action was once necessary, it now stigmatizes the achievements of African Americans by implying that they cannot compete with other Americans.
The integrationists will argue that because racial discrimination still exists, mandated affirmative-action policies are still required since they ensure diversity on campus and an open door to higher education for minority students.
The separatists reject the notion of racial preference altogether, advocating instead that African Americans self-segregate for the purposes of strengthening unity and cultural awareness within the black community, as well as organizing politics based on group identity.
The outcome of this debate could not only determine California's admissions policy, but also shape the course of African American activism.
The Assignment
The students will each select the role of a historical character (see Historical Characters and Readings, below) from one of these three groups and argue the case from the viewpoint of that person. It is important to push students to use their historical imagination to occupy the point of view of the character they have chosen. For example, ask the conservatives to justify their opposition to affirmative action in general. Ask the integrationists to justify their faith in state action through quotas or other means. Push the separatists to justify their faith in segregation as the path toward a better future.
Remind the students of the following:
- Use language appropriate to the task.
- Use humor, irony, hypothetical situations, rhetorical questions, sarcasm, hyperbole, analogy, and other rhetorical devices when appropriate.
- Support your arguments with factual material and quotes when possible.
- Do not allow your opponent to establish the grounds for debate.
- Do not repeat previous arguments unless you can support them in a novel way or elaborate on them.
- Coordinate your team to use each member most effectively.
- Stay in character (the Dictionary of American Biography provides details).
- Be gracious to your opponents.
- Watch the clock.
- Consider your audience.
- Stress that participation will be considered in assigning their final grade.
Each group is a mixture of activists and policy makers, black and white, from past and present. They have at their disposal a list of historical witnesses. The debate is so important that some of the activists and witnesses have returned from the Great Beyond to participate. Each side may choose which of the characters' statements will be used to make their arguments. Remember, characters may have contradicted themselves at some point in their careers; opposing groups may use these writings and opinions as a rebuttal. (Indeed, a single document may be interpreted to support opposing arguments.) Note that many characters are on teams and also listed as witnesses. Different students, acting as activist and witness, will play the same character.
A Brief History of Affirmative Action
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 declares: "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance." Within a year, President Lyndon B. Johnson (1908–73) argued that fairness required more than a commitment to impartial treatment. In his 1965 commencement address at Howard University in Washington, D.C., he said:
You do not take a person who for years has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, "You're free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe that you have been completely fair. Thus it is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates. . . . We seek not . . . just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.
Several months later, President Johnson issued Executive Order 11246, in which the actual phrase "affirmative action" first appeared. Executive Order 11246 required federal contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."
In 1971, the U.S. Department of Labor acted on this mandate in Revised Order No. 4, which required that all contractors doing business with the federal government develop "an acceptable affirmative-action program," including "an analysis of areas within which the contractor is deficient in the utilization of minority groups and women, and further, goals and timetables to which the contractor's good-faith efforts must be directed to correct the deficiencies." Contractors were instructed to interpret "minority groups" as "Negroes, American Indians, Orientals, and Spanish-surnamed Americans." Goals were not to be "rigid and inflexible quotas" but "targets reasonably attainable by means of applying every good-faith effort to make all aspects of the entire affirmative-action program work." Many affirmative-action mandates in other areas, including education, were based on this model.
On June 1, 1995, Governor Pete Wilson of California issued Executive Order W-124-95 to "End Preferential Treatment and to Promote Individual Opportunity Based on Merit." In response, the Board of Regents of the University of California system began to study its affirmative-action policies as they applied to admissions and hiring. On January 1, 1997, the Regents declared, "The University of California shall not use race, religion, sex, color ethnicity, or national origin as criteria for admission to the University or to any program of study." The Board of Regents acted partly in response to popular support for Proposition 209, a referendum that California voters approved in March 1997 to abolish affirmative-action programs in state government and higher education. Two years later, Washington State followed California's lead, thereby placing the future of affirmative action in doubt.
Guidelines/Conducting the Simulation
In consultation with the teacher, each student will choose and research a character using the textbook, the Web, the civil-rights legislation, and the sources listed below. (The teacher will also recommend sources.) Students will write a descriptive paper about their character and position on affirmative action. The paper should include a very brief autobiography and a succinct statement of the character's point of view, supported with at least one good direct quote from the character. These will be collected and read by the teacher, then returned with comments before the simulation.
Day One
The three groups of activists will meet separately to familiarize themselves with their respective characters, their positions, and evidence to be used in argument. Activists will then conduct a "walk around" to interview witnesses and the activists of the other groups. When not being interviewed or conducting interviews, students may research their character's positions. Before the end of class, the activists should reconvene to discuss strategies for the conference debate.
Days Two and Three: The Activists Debate
1. Opening Remarks
Each group of activists will choose one representative to state the group's overall position (one minute each).
2. First Point
After opening remarks, each group will have a chance to make a point supporting one aspect of its larger position. Each activist should use quotes from his or her character when possible and call one witness to examine or cross-examine to support his or her argument (two minutes each).
3. First Rebuttal
After all three groups have presented their first point, they each have a chance for rebuttal (one minute each).
4. Successive Points
Repeat steps 2 and 3 until everyone has given a presentation.
5. Melee
Anyone who did not get a chance to present an opinion or to rebut fully now gets a chance. Historical figures not called on previously will have the opportunity to make a statement.
6. Conclusion
Each group of activists will choose one representative to restate the group's overall position (one minute each).
After the Simulation
The students are now no longer activists, policy makers, and witnesses but are newspaper columnists for the UC Berkeley student newspaper. The difference between a columnist and a reporter is that the former is permitted to express a point of view. Students should write a two-page column assessing the arguments heard at the conference, then state their own opinion based on what occurred at the conference and from their own knowledge about the issue. In this assignment, students should take a position contrary to the one they defended in the conference.
Historical Characters and Readings
Integrationists
1. Martin Luther King Jr., leader of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC).
2. President Lyndon B. Johnson.
3. Jesse Jackson, leader of Operation PUSH and the Rainbow Coalition.
4. Thurgood Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court justice and previously lawyer for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).
Separatists
1. Booker T. Washington, founder of the Tuskegee Institute, Alabama.
2. Marcus Garvey, founder of the United Negro Improvement Association.
3. Malcolm X, activist and member of the Nation of Islam.
4. Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam.
Conservatives
1. Shelby Steele, author of The Content of Our Character (1991) and A Dream Deferred (1999).
2. Clarence Thomas, U.S. Supreme Court justice and former chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
3. Alan Keyes, 2000 presidential candidate and television talk-show host.
4. Ward Connerly, UC Regent and author of California's Proposition 209.
5–6. Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom, authors of America in Black and White: One Nation, Indivisible (1999).
Historical Witnesses
Martin Luther King Jr.
Lyndon B. Johnson
Harry S. Truman
Robert F. Kennedy
Booker T. Washington
Marcus Garvey
Malcolm X
Thurgood Marshall
Bayard Rustin
Huey Newton
Gunnar Myrdal
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Richard M. Nixon
Kenneth Clark
W. E. B. DuBois
Jackie Robinson
A. Philip Randolph
Walter White
Web Resources
The Affirmative Action and Diversity Project: A Web Page for Research
University of California at Santa Barbara Department of English
Affirmative Action Resource Center
The National Center for Public Policy Research
|
| |
