North Carolina Newspapers

4A EDITORIALS/The CharloHe Post January 2,1997 Cljarlotte Published weekly by the Charlotte Post Publishing Co. 1531 Camden Road Charlotte, N.C. 28203 Gerald O. Johnson CEO/PUBLISHER Robert Johnson CO-PUBLISHER/ GENERAL MANAGER Herbert L. White EDITOR IN CHIEF Just the tip of discrimination iceberg Companies’ public statements are different from their reality By Earl Ofari Hutchinson NATIONAL NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION Representation is about to change GERALD O. JOHNSON As I See It Following the well-publicized multi-million dollar settlement of a black employees lawsuit, Texaco CEO Peter Bijur said that his com pany's racial practices were only the “tip of the iceberg” in corporate America. He should know. He meets with other corporate officials in social and business situations and almost certainly compares notes on their respective companies’ practices and pohcies. He also must know that the private racial practices of his corporation and of many others, are often far different from their pubhc pronouncements. White males hold the majority of senior management and executive positions at major corporations. White males are 97 percent of the senior managers at Fortune 1,000 industrial corporations. Government and private surveys show that blacks make less, are promoted more slowly and are downsized out corporate doors faster than white males. CEOs of major corporations duck for cover fast when the press asks their opinion on affirmative action. It is easier to spot a Dodo Bird than to find a CEO of a major corporation dis cussing the issue on a TV talk show. This is especially puzzling since corporations have been on the alhr- mative action firing line for more than 30 years. Executive Order 11246, signed by Lyndon Johnson in 1965 and officially ushered in the affirmative action era, was not aimed at pubhc agencies, universi ties, poHce and fire departments, state and local governments, or small or medium-sized businesses. It was aimed at private contrac tors that had 50 or more employees and did more than $50,000 in business with the federal government. The government then regard ed major corporations as the biggest offenders in promoting racial discrimination in hiring and promotion. 'They were required to develop and submit plans to the federal gov ernment that insured their employees reflected “diversity” in the labor force. Thirty years later they stiU are required to teU the gov ernment what they’re doing to hire and promote more women and minorities. While affirmative action opponents rail against this as unnecessary government intrusion, many corporate executives don’t agree. 'The first major sign that many corporations had cautiously accom modated themselves to affirmative action came during the battle over the Civil Rights Act of 1991. 'The act was designed to reverse a series of Supreme Court rulings that weakened employment discrimination and affirmative action laws. A loose coalition of 200 companies formed the Fair Employment Coalition to oppose the Act. A number of major corporatioiis 1^ by AT&T and Mobil CHI quickly bolted from the coahtion when they got wind of the group’s intent. The business roundtable, made up of the chief executive officers of many leading corporations, also refused to support the campaign against the Act. Congress eventually psissed it, and President Bush backed away fi'om his threat to veto it and signed it into law. Many Repubhcans pubhcly and privately have made it clear that the rush by conservatives to wipe out affirmative action is ill-timed £md ill-advised. 'The corporations that refused to oppose the Civil Rights Act or sup port the assault by conservative Repubhcans on affirmative action do it not because of altruism, but because it’s good business. 'The Hudson Institute study for the U.S. Labor Department, “Workforce 2000,” noted that 25 million people are expected to enter the labor force by the year 2000. Some 85 percent of ffiem will be women, immigrants, and minorities. 'These aren’t just new workers, they are also con sumers. They wiU spend billions on corporate goods and services. ’Their dollars will heavily impact on the bottom line for many corpora tions. This is the “diversity pay-ofi” that many corporations talk about and affirmative action opponents ignore. Greater workforce diversify is an effective way for corporations to secure contracts, develop new products, generate new marketing ideas and broaden the employee talent pool. 'This gives them a competitive edge in the fierce battle to expand corporate sales in domestic and global markets. Here’s what some companies have done and other companies should do to make equal opportunity a reahty: •DuPont developed a special marketing campaign to sell its agricul tural products to black farmers. •McDonald’s instituted career development seminars for minority and women employees. •Honeywell established a management feedback committee to advise on problems and issues Many corporations have not only learned to five with federal equal opportunity guidelines and regulations that critics brand “tiresome” and “burdensome,” but have found them useful tools in recruiting and screening the most qualified minorities and women for positions. Still, the list of major corporations that resist or do httle to end racial discrimination still reads like a who’s who of corporate America. They include: Monsanto, Giant Foods, AT&T, Hertz, Avis, Smith and Barney, Shell Oil, McDonnell Douglas, the SEC Corp, Canon Copiers, Northwest Airlines, Edison, Wendys, and Miller Brewing. 'These companies took action only after lawsuits, boycott threats, selective buying caunpaigns, and calls for stock divestment forced them to. Corporate officials rail against these tactics, but as the Texaco case proved, they are still effective weapons that blacks can and must use to melt the iceberg of corporate apartheid. EARL OFARI HUTCHINSON is the author of The Assassination of the Black Male Image and Beyond O. J.: Race, Sex, and Lessons for America. Responses may be sent e-mail to Earl Ofari Hutchinson: ehutchi344 @aol.com One msgor event that wiU hap pen in 1997 is the subtle shift of power in our fair dty. In late January the dty coun cil will vote on making those underserved areas in our north, southeast, and southwest a part of the dty. 'That’s right, some of those areas have been anointed to become a part of Charlotte. 'They wUl continue to be under served, but they wUl now have to pay taxes for it. What a dty. But imderlying aU of this talk about annexation is the neces sary redistricting that wUl fol low. Once the city council approves the annexation, they wUl then have to redraw district lines, which wQl probably occur in June. With the redrawn lines the annexation can be imple mented. Here are some of the facts associated with this annexa tion. It will bring: 29652 citi zens into Charlotte. That's roughly a 6.5 percent popula tion increase. Out of the 29652 newcomers, 27369 are white, 1638 are black and the rest are others. 'This annexation will drop Charlotte's black popula tion from just under 29 per cent to just over 27 percent. This subtle decline in black population could possibly restilt in a loss of black repre sentation on the dty council. The redistricting committee chaired by city councilman Don Reid has three redistrict ing options under review (option 1, option lA, and option 2). They developed these options faying to make sure each district had roughly the same population as well as keeping district partisanship, and radal balance. Under the current district structure based on ^pulation districts 6, and 7 are districts with 90-plus percent of the population white. Districts 1,4 and 5 are 78 percent, 59 per cent and 63 percent respective ly white. District 2 is the only black majority district with 54 per cent. District 3 has the next highest black population with 44 percent. Under option 1 district 2, dis trict 3, and district 4 would become split for all practical purposes down racial lines. District 1 would increase to 25 percent black, while district 5 would fall to 13 percent black. Districts 6 and 7 would change insignificantly as it relates to race. Option lA is not significantly different from option 1 as it relates to racial breakdown. 'The biggest difference is some of the border precincts were moved to different districts. With both options 1 and lA, it appears the redistricting com mittee tried to logically align the annexed areas with the dis trict based on location with min imum overall change. Option 2 however was a stab at re-draw ing the lines. Option 2 makes district 2 an overwhelming minority district boosting its percent to 65. 'This is done at the expense of mak ing district 4 a 62 percent white district. Some black precincts; were taken from district 1 as; well to boost district 2. District 3; would remain a racially split' district. AU other districts would; become white with more than) 80 percent of the population. 'The bottom line is this: with option 2, the black community wiU be guaremteed at least one black representative from dis trict 2. Black representation is likely in district 3, but not guar anteed. District 4 in all likeli hood would be lost. Options 1 and lA would increase the possibility of three black representatives from dis tricts 1, 2, and 3 with no guar antees. AU of this, of course, is based on the fact that blacks can not get elected in this city by a white majority population. Regardless, I suspect this issue wiU be hotly debated over the coming months. It wUl tam per -with the current voting base that a lot of the elected officials were chosen fi-om. Expect a lot of turf battles to start surfacing. Peace. GERALD O. JOHNSON is publisher of The Charlotte Post. Keep ATMs in black communities By Celes King SPECIAL TO THE POST In the African American busi ness community, history always repeats itself Whenever there is a problem, the powers that ulti mately be never venture to cor rect it, they just simply elimi nate the service in question. Such, unfortunately, is the case in South Central Los Angeles - and I daresay - in black and other minority com munities all across America. Automatic teller services are being curtailed once the sun goes down because of a few reported robberies and -violence around some ATM machines. ATM services are already few and far between in black com munities due to the dearth of bank branches that exist there. Also, supermarkets who do pro- ■vide the machines are also dos ing earher. Now inner dty resi dents must travel miles and miles away just to get a few bucks in an emergency after 7 p.m. The question now arises: What service is next to be elimi nated in predominantly black and brown communities? Will pubhc telephone booths be pad locked after 7 p.m.? WiU taxicab services be halted at night? Better yet, what about bus ser vice? Should this happen, what wUl be the solution for someone who must work overtime and now can't get home to their fam- Uies. Are they just SOL? Let’s take this absurdity even fiirther. If this trend continues, wUl we begin to see pohce invad ing our communities stopping motorists from traveling through South Central Los Angeles after dusk? Will there be a curfew imposed just in our neighborhood? We have already seen attempts from politicians to eliminate much needed health services for imdocument- ed aliens via the passaee of Proposition 187 (now being chal lenged in the federal courts). So nothing is impossible. In a sluggish economy, theft and violence are an unfortunate by-product of daily existence. ITie solution to those problems is increased security, not the elimination of services. In other communities, private security guards are hired to deter would be ne’er-do-wells from even thinking about separating someone from their hard earned cash. In minority communities, however, business owners just throw in the towel and that's the end of that. As in other communities, con sumers who live in African American, Latino and other minority communities have the right to self determination. They should be consulted on matters that affect their needs, interests and tastes. I am cer tain that if they were asked, most residents wouldn’t mind forking up a few pennies more for banks to hire private secmi- ty guards to stand sentinel over ATM machines in the affected neighborhoods. Again, people who live in minority communities have the rieht to receive the same ser vices that are routinely pro-vided matter-of-factly everywhere else. The ATM service is no exception. CELES KING of Los Angeles is a California State Republican Party leader, business owner and civil rights activist. New leader, old problems at the UN By Farhan Haq NATIONAL NEWSPAPER PUBLISHERS ASSOCIATION UNITED NATIONS - U.N. members will be seeking greater unity in 1997 after a year of bruising power struggles, bitter even by pre-vious standards, in the world body which repre sents 185 fi-actious nations. The new Secretary General, Kofi Annan, of Ghana, the first U.N. career officer to rise to the top post, wiU be in chaise of the healing process. The battle to install Annan, who was sup ported by the United States at the expense of the incumbent Secretary General, Boutros Boutros-Ghali of Egypt, itself will require diplomacy after the fact. “In January, we must embark upon a time for healing, to restore the confidence between governments and this institu tion in order to help replenish its financial strength and its political and moral authority,” Annan acknowledged prior to his confirmation by the U.N. General Assembly. The early weeks of 1997 also ■will, be pay-back time on the debts required to get Annan approved in the face of wide spread support for Boutros- Ghali. African nations, which endorsed Boutros-Ghali last Jime but were forced to accept another Afirican for the top spot by December, are especially adamant that their compromis es not go to waste. “Annan should bring a consen sus among the major countries, and particularly the United States, to come along and sup port the organization,” said Ambassador Roble Olhaye of Djibouti. “That is what we are exp)ecting, and that is what we will encourage.” Ultimately, to alleviate wari ness over its arm-twisting to replace Boutros-Ghali, the United States must contribute more to the financing of the United Nations than it has done. Other nations have gro-wn angry that Washington insists on calling the shots at the world body while remaining its great est debtor, owing the United Nations some $1.5 billion. Some of that money will materi alize soon, U.S. officials promise. They claim that, ■with Boutros-Ghah out of the picture, the conservative U.S. Congress can now be prodded to pay up U.N. dues and may even be encouraged to support an orga nization that had become a hot potato in U.S. politics during the 1996 election year. The officials also point to the fact that the outgoing U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Madeleine Albright, is slated to be the next U.S. Secretary of State. Albright, although viewed with alarm by many U.N. diplomats, is nonetheless a strong behever in the United Nations and has already spent several years lob- b3ring Congress for increased U.N. funding. The Clinton administration, anxious to end the memories of its abrasive lobbying, appointed Congressmeui Bill Richardson of New Mexico, kno-wn for his con ciliatory skills, to replace Albright at the U.N. The price of Annan’s -victory, however, cuts both ways. Just as the United States must prove itself to be a good citizen by paying its dues, so too must Annan please Washington and court Congress for funds by continuing to cut U.N. expenses. With staff at the New York headquarters already reduced hy 10 percent in 1996, further cuts wiU be painful. Beyond the question of finance, the fight over Boutros- Ghali's removal also posed an existential question for the world body: Just whom does the United Nations represent? All these factors add up to what could weU be a quiet, con templative year for the United Nations. Few major changes - from reform of the Security Council to the creation of an international criminal court - are expected to occur in the coming months. FARAN HAQ is a National Newspaper Publishers Association columnist.