Page 4-The Chronicle, Saturday, April II, 1981
Wiqston-Salem Clir\niicle
Founded 1974
Economics Of Discriminati
Member North Carolina
Black Publisher's Association
Ndubisi Egemonye
Co-Founder
.NCPA ’
Ernest H. Pill
Fdiior Puhlisher
Donna E. Oldham
Ciiy Editor
N.C. Press Association
Robert Eller
Sports Editor
Elaine L. Pill
Office Manafier
Minorities Cut Out-Off
While President Ronald Reagan is
recouperating from an assassination at
tempt last week, his cabinet members and
advisors are busy cutting blacks and other
minorities to the quick with their budget
proposals.
Every single program that benefits
blacks, minorities and women is being
either eliminated totally or cut so that
they most certainly could not survive
from one fiscal year to the next and would
perish from lack of funding.
Reagan and his Director of the Office
of Management and Budget, David
Stockman, want the elimination of
300,000 to 400,000 public service employ
ment jobs; elimination of over 400,000
employment and training slots in the
elimination of the YETP/YCCIP and the
consolidation of youth programs with Ti
tle IIBC training programs.
They are calling for the elimination of
over 12,000 employment and training slots
in the Welfare Reform Demonstration
Programs; the elimination of over 45,000
employment and training slots in the
Young Adult Conservation Corps and the
Youth Conservation Corps, and the
reduction of Title 111 discretionary and
support funds.
Other cuts proposed by Stockman for
fiscal years 81-82 include the termination
of the Urban Development Action Grant
(UDAG); termination of Section 312
Rehabilitation Loan Fund; termination of
Economic Development Administration
programs and major reductions in Urban
Mass Transportation Grants and elimina
tion of all Title II and Title VI public ser
vice jobs.
No funding for the EPA water treat
ment projects. A $2.2 billion cut in funds
for unemployment benefits the elimina
tion of two to three million poor people
from food stamps; a cut of $1.2 million in
child nutrition programs and the elimina
tion of grants for state and local energy
conservation programs.
Stockman’s proposals, which many feel
will pass through congress and the house
on the tide of conservatism that its
members were elected in, are just the
beginning.
The reduction of funding to agencies is
fairly acceptable, but the elimination of
programs that provide jobs, housing and
assistance in buying groceries for
children, poor people and others who are
deprived in some way is inexcusable.
Perhaps more startling than the direc
tion our country is headed is that someone
forgot to ask the American people what
“they” wanted.
Although Reagan and Stockman have
made many recommendations about how
to put people out of work, they haven’t
decided how to let people feed their
families, pay their bills and maintain a
scant existence without taking to the
streets in desperation because they have
no hope of work.
Perhaps one way to save this country
would be for its elected officials to take a
cut in pay, cabinet members included.
That ought to be good for a billion or so.
Another way that might bring in quite a
cash flow would be the elimination of tax
shelters for millionaires.
President Reagan must realize that he
represents us all, not just the few who
could afford to live regardless of what
happens to the economy.
He must also realize that the economy
didn’t just get bad, it took time, as will
the solution. Butchering is not the answer
fVashington-H was bill
ed as a debate on the
“economics of discrimina
tion.” But as soon as 1 saw
that one of the debaters was
Prof. Walter Williams, I
knew it would be less a
debate than an entertain
ment,
I wasn’t disappointed.
Dr. Williams, who along
with Thomas Sowell, has
been outraging black
America with his con
secutive economics, went
first and spent nearly all of
his allotted time question
ing the very implication of
the debate’s title.
Discrimination? What
discrimination? And even if
it exists, what’s wrong with
it?
“When 1 married my
wife, I discriminated
against other women; that
is, I didn’t give all women
equal opportunity. I didn’t
give white women a chance,
/o
William
Raspberry
fessor wouij.
blent with the
judice n
damages the
qualified
listen to hin,;
Chinese women a chance,
fat women a chance, ugly
women a chance. Women
that don’t bathe regularly, 1
didn’t give them a chance.”
Well, if the Temple
University professor (now
at George Mason University
in Virginia) doesn’t object
to discrimination, perhaps
he’ll accept that prejudice
might not be a good thing.
Don’t kid yourself. Pre
judice is nothing more than
resort to stereotypes, and
“stereotypes, many times,
turn out to be very useful
because they allow us to
economize on
information...Suppose as
you are leaving the Capitol
Hill Club (where the debate
was held late last month)
you saw a great big tiger
standing there? What
would most of you do?
Well the fairly safe predic
tion would be that you
would leave the area in
great dispatch. Is the reason
that you would run or seek
safety based on any detailed
information about that par
ticular tiger, or are you say
ing, ‘All 1 need to know is
that it is a tiger and it pro
bably acts like other
tigers’?”
Okay, so marriage part
ners are personal decisions,
not societal ones, and your
reaction to uncaged tigers is
not exactly crucial to the
economics of discrimina
tion. Surely the clever pro-
“Supposc
employer anj
mg for an ''
might
the-job traininji
""''“yeuw;
Prok,
SAT test. No, |,
a "'ousand,
enipL,
'^ay,thehiji«
(me ghetto)?” j
youwouid„.,^
your an.,,
sensible.
And
it Wtll
Leon Keyserling^
economist, |’|,j
chairman of j.
Council of Ecok
visers, cametotkt,
was clearly pe,|„
came here with n,j
a discussion on j,
tion would
Pills
whether thet,
discrimination,
what to do aboil,
there would be IjJ
of the pros and
various practical
practical
dealing
discrimination.”
It
Clifton Graves
Attack On Lawyers
Last week in Philadelphia, this writer
attended the annual Basic Skills Training
workshop sponsored by the Reginald
Heber Smith Legal Fellowship Program.
The “Reggie” program, presently based
at Howard University, was founded in
1967 by its namesake out of a sincere
desire to provide more lawyers to serve
the poor communities of this land; in ef
fect, to train advocates for the poor...
The honor of being selected as a “Reg
gie!’ iS| partly determined by one’s
academic performance in law school. But,
given the nature of the program, more
emphasis is correctly placed on the appli
cant’s demonstrated commitment to make
the heretofore elusive phrase, “equal
justice for all,” a concrete reality. Once
chosen, the “Reggie” is assigned to a
legal services office (e.g. the Legal Aid
society of Winston-Salem) to serve out
his/her fellowship. Since its inception 14
years ago, the “Reggie” program has
trained over 1,CKX) lawyers dedicated to
representing the interests of residents of
the various ghettos, barrios, reservations
and farmlands of this country...
While the primary purpose of the Philly
gathering was to hone up on legal skills
(e.g. techniques, etc.), many of the
participants had another agenda; an agen
da whose thrust centered around the sur
vival of legal services and to wit, the
“Reggie” program.
For, as you all know by now, the
Ronald (Robin Hood for the Rich)
Reagan administration has targeted the
Legal Services Corporation (LSC) for ex
tinction. LSC - created by congress in 1974
is an outgrowth of the “Great Society’s”
office of Economic Opportunity pro
gram. A target of conservative forces
since its inception, LSC currently pro
vides grants to 325 legal services programs
operating 1400 offices across the country
serving some 3 million poor folk of all
races. The “Reggie” program is among
that number of LSC-funded programs.
But let me be clear on this, the
“Reggie” fellows in Philly were not so
much concerned about our jobs, or the
mere survival of our program. Rather,
there was anger expressed over the conser
vative forces’ determination to go for the
“jugular”; anger that the attack on legal
services for the poor is an integral part of
the right-wing master plan to cutback
vitally needed social programs such as
medicaid, food stamps, CETA, etc. For
clearly, the conservatives’ plan is simple,
if not demonic; first, severely cut pro
grams like food stamps, then, eliminate
the lawyers. Thus, those hurt by these cut
backs have no legal recourse to challenge
the system. Real cute, Reagan...
But, this plan, if executed, may well
backfire. For despite its inherent biases
and inequities, America’s legal system
represents the only forum where alleged
wrongs can be righted by one’s own peers;
a forum where at least poor folk have a
shot at some justice. Thus, 1 concur with
F. William McCalpin, corporate lawyer
and chairman of the LSC Board of Direc
tors, who testified before Congress that
Reagan’s budget cuts affecting the poor
will “raise feelings of alienation and
frustration to a level we have not seen in
15 years...we need equal access to justice
to keep the controversies in balance,
within the system. That’s what legal ser
vices is all about...”
Though a major lobbying effort to save
LSC is underway, spearheaded by the
American Bar Association, as well as a
non-partisan group called the Coalition to
Save Legal Services, much more support
See page 5
To Be Equal
Vernon E. Jordan, Jr.
States To
Administer
Social
Programs?
never goi
because William
described himsdti
duct of the ghtii
never bring liini,||
mit, even for iki
argument, that t
any part of the pul)
nicting black Aii«
did acknowledged
are unfair and iil(
disparities in tin;
situation of blij
whites. Bui
disparities, heinisit
almost entirely Hill
governmental pq
that have “cut Ike!
rungs off the
While public attention is diverted to the heavy budget
cuts in social programs, the next stage of the current
counter-revolution in domestic policy is quietly pro
ceeding.
That is the packaging of existing federal social pro
grams into block grants which the states would ad
minister with a minimum of federal supervision; in ef
fect, turning over key social functions like health care
and welfare to the states.
This new policy of shifting federal dollars, federal
responsibilities, and federal powers to the fifty states
amounts to a resurrection of the discredited concept of
“states’ rights.”
Black people could teach the nation a bit about states’
rights. We know states’ rights meant separate drinking
fountains, separate schools, separate and unequal lives.
We know that today, state administration of federal
programs such as welfare, Medicaid, and others is ineffi
cient and often discriminatory. We know that state and
local administration is a large part of the reason why
eligibility rules are ignored to the extent that nearly half
of black welfare families are excluded from Medicaid.
Federal aid to education monies are often spent in
violation of federal regulations by local school districts
THE GREAT AMERICAN MINI)1.E.SS GAME
that use funds targeted for schools in poor
neighborhoods for other purposes. Many school districts
have had to return such misspent federal funds after
they’ve been caught.
Yet, even with this record of inefficiency and
misallocation of funds, lawmakers now propose remov
ing federal restrictions from federal tax dollars and turn
ing money over to state and local governments to do what
they have proven many times over they are incapable of
doing - targeting money and programs for the benefit of
the disadvantaged.
So while we must oppose budget cuts in programs that
do work, we must prepare for the even tougher battle
against block grants and the surrender of federal pro
grams to the states.
Some states can be relied upon to institute and ad
minister programs for the benefit of the disadvantaged.
But the historical record, and the record of the current
urban block grant programs, clearly demonstrates that
'many would abuse the rights of the poor.
Some state and local authorities make a persuasive
argument for putting control of programs closer to the
people they serve. But local authorities are far more
vulnerable to local power structures and voting blocs that
would end those programs.
Many states would treat the poor equitably. But rights
embedded by law in federal entitlement programs would
go by the boards. Twenty years of federal court decisions
protecting the basic civil and human rights of program
recipients would be wiped out by changing the ground
rules of those programs.
The search for local solutions to social problems must
be encouraged. But localizing solutions to national pro
blems tends to compound those problems.
Federal social programs should meet clear criteria;
They should be national in scope, accountable, efficient,
and equitable. The block grant system violates every one
of those criteria.
It would make about as much sense to turn national
defense into a block grant program and rely on state Na
tional Guards for our security. Absurd, isn’t it? Yet that
is what we propose to do with programs essential for our
domestic national security and well-being.
Those of us who have a vision of an open, pluralistic,
integrated society, have the duty to resist an increase in
the misery inflicted on poor people and the increase in the
ranks of America’s deprived.
We must question not only specific buget cuts, but the
revival of states’ rights doctrines that would push the
poor deeper into the pit of poverty.
Williams miglil
■have made soimm
(among the now
vatives in the raoslljii
vative audience gatta
the Heritage Foni
for his contention h
government polids
opportunities for
for example, thertgili
of the Interstate Oii
Commission thal
difficult for
newcomers to breal
the interstate ii«
business. But he In
chance by refiiia
acknowledge that
nongovernmental fad
racism were any pari i
problem.
Perhaps Williana'
line was thezingerhd
at me. HesaidlhaJo
ed him and Sowell foi
failure to put
positive progra#
replace the existing iat
tual ones desii
crease black opporii
He said such
minimum wage ani
ing requirements consi
an economic cancer,
“If a doctor
patient with cancer, ii
say to the doctor, “
after you take the
out, what are yon (Oil
put in its place?
The trouble
analogy is that it *•
postulate some
cancerous slate to
black America conlil
if the government go"
the way.
Unfortunately,
out all governmeiiia"i
on behalf of bla*
return to those
days of
called slavery.
full employe