Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Discriminations

Legal Commentary

: Discriminations

California Dreamin (Of Quotas)

Caltrans, the California state transportation agency, remains addicted to quotas, even after the passage of Prop. 209 a number of years ago should have forced it to go cold turkey.

The agency tried to do without quotas for a couple of years but went into a deep funk when a ?disparity study? purported to reveal ?underrepresentation? of, for example, certain subsets of Asian American contractors (actually, it found only an ?inference of disparity,? but that was enough for government work), and it consequently asked the U.S. Dept. of Transportation for permission to resume its quota habit.

I discussed this request about a year ago, here. An excerpt:

With respect to this request, AsianWeek (?The Voice of Asian America?) predictably declares ?CalTrans Needs More APA Contractors.? Let us pass up the almost (but not quite) irresistible urge to ask ?Why?? and move on. (For those of you not completely conversant with the jargon of ?diversity,? ?APA? means Asian-Pacific Americans.) But a closer look, which AsianWeek happily provides, reveals that Caltrans doesn?t need just any APA contractors. Indeed, it already has too many of some and not enough (for whom?) of others. Referring to the ?diversity index? of underrepresentation in a Caltrans study, AsianWeek noted:

Hispanic-owned firms showed great improvement. Some APA firms, those owned by South Asian Americans, were actually overrepresented.

The study used a disparity index, where a score of 100 constitutes parity. Indian- and Pakistani-owned contractors rated 124. Latino firms rated 81. An index below 80 is considered ?substantial disparity.?

Even among those groups underrepresented, the range was huge. African Americans were the most disadvantaged, scoring only 15. Chinese- and Filipino-owned firms fared little better with a score of 31.

Presumably a close look at other categories would reveal similar ?disparities? within groups ? too many Mexicans, not enough Guatemalans; too many Carribean blacks; etc. In short, as AsianWeek astutely observed, simply

[i]nstituting an across-the-board policy to hire more minority contractors would not be an improvement, particularly if the same minority contractors ended up being hired over and over, simply to fill artificial quotas.

Alas, AsianWeek did not inform us how to distinguish ?artificial quotas? from genuine, legitimate quotas.

Now Caltrans is at it again, seeking what it euphemistically calls a ?goal? of 13.5% of Caltrans work being awarded to DBEs (Disadvantaged Business Enterprises). It proposes to meet this ?goal,? in ?equal proportions of 6.75 percent, through race-neutral/conscious measures.? In other words, half of its ?goal? will be met using colorblind, non-discriminatory means and the other half will be met by awarding contracts on the basis of race, ethnicity, and sex.

Caltrans bases it request to be excused from complying with the California constitution, in part, on its fear of losing federal funds if it is not allowed to revert to its quota habit, although, as the Pacific Legal Foundation has pointed out in a devastating critique, there is no basis for this fear. But let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Caltrans actually believes its funding is at risk if it does not award 13.5% of its business to DBEs, and that half of that ?goal? must be met by race-based contracting.

If that is the case, or the belief, could someone explain to me the difference between these ?goals? and a quota? If there is no difference, could someone then point me to the criticism of the Caltrans proposal from all those politicians who loudly proclaim their undying opposition to quotas?

Finally, one other interesting aspect of Caltrans? request for permission to discriminate. As stated in its report cited above, Caltrans announced that

For FFY 2009, Caltrans will limit race-conscious measures to African American, Asian Pacific American, Women, and Native American-owned firms.

This must rank as one of the few government programs designed to discriminate in favor of Asians but not Hispanics (although I suppose female Hispanics might qualify). Have the Hispanic ?civil rights? groups noticed this exclusion?

Full post as published by Discriminations on August 20, 2008 (boomark / email).