Opinion polls show that-a majority of white Americans now oppose positive action to help black people get ahead. That, reports Gemini News Service, spells trouble for the country's affirmative action programmes, already under attack by some African-Americans as counter-productive.

GIVING African-Americans and other historically disadvantaged groups edsier access to employment and education ranks as one of the federal government's, most unpopular undertakings of the past 30 years- But. say its defenders.

affirmative action remains vital in a country permeated with prejudice.

This systematic attempt to compensate for past discrimination has been deeply divisive ever since its Implementation in the mid-1960s.

In fact, a dire political prediction made at that time by then-President Lyndon Johnson has proved generally accurate. The Democratic Party leader said that he and his colleagues had a moral obligation to enact affirmative action, even though it would seriously hurt the party's electoral standing.

No other Democratic initiative has been so useful to the Republican Party tn attracting support from white working cl&A‘males. Ronald Reagan s election in 1980 and two subsequent national victories by conservatives were due largely to racial resentments on the part of white men who had formerly voted Democratic.

Although affirmative action has been particularly beneficial to women, opponents have-focused much more on its racebased aspects. Today, hiring preferences for blanks and other minOrity-group members are widely regarded as unfair and unnecessary. Even some African:American social commentators now argue that af firmative action should be abandoned.

The nomenclature Itself is so widely reviled that alternate expressions., such as "managing for‘diversity." are being used by affirmative ac " tion proponents.

Tile term conjures up the vilest of connotations. ' says Douglas Wilder the African American former governor of the state of Virginia. "It has become like S four-letter word "

This backlash reflects the success of conservatives in equating affirmative action with "quotas." That term,

which refers to the practice ot reserving a specific number of Jobs or classroom places for racial minorities, triggers even greater public revulsion.

There is some truth., however. to the conservative contention that affirmative action amoifnts to imposition of quo-

tas.

Government regulation? require all large companies, as well as most smaller ones, to make efforts to hire women and racial minorities in rough proportion to their numbers in local communities. A similar formula applies to university admissions. Schools and businesses are usually further required to set goals and timetables for achieving race and gender balance.

While denyiijg that this represents a quota system, defenders of affirmative action generally acknowledge that "set-aside" provisions are implicit in many of the hiring plans.

Some advocates of racial preference In employment also concede that the' country should be moving towards "colour-blind” hiring and promotion criteria. But. they add, "colour consciousness" — and affirmative action — will remain essential as long as racism continues to‘be rooted in US society.

For their part, conservatives maintain that affirmative action promotes "reverse racism." Better-qualified whites, they say, are frequently passed over by employers and school admission officers solely on the basis of skin colpur.

The alleged hiring of less-qualified individuals leads in turn to a lessening of US competitiveness In the world economy, add th? foes of affirmative action. The national economy Is further undermined. they say by the high cost to businesses of complying -with racial hiring regulations.

But many large corporations have come to accept affirmative action as socially Just and economically smart. Marketing advantages can be gained, some business executives explain. from assembling a workforce that resembles the In

Continued on page 1I