In his recent column Harold Meyerson leaps from his premise to his conclusion, apparently without a casual glance at the facts in the course of the process:
Teaching, at least in major cities, is also a profession in which minorities are heavily represented; when reformers argue that we need to take down teachers unions to give more opportunity to minority youth, the argument veers perilously close to “We need to destroy the black middle class in order to save it.â€
The premises appears to be that a large proportion of teachers “in major cities” are members of racial and ethnic minorities and that unions are champions of minorities. The implication is that opposition to public employees’ unions is motivated by racism. The truth seems to be somewhat more complicated. In Chicago:
Today, just 19 percent of the teaching force in Chicago is African American, down from 45 percent in 1995, the union says; organizers fear that shift means fewer teachers have deep roots in and passion for the communities where they work.
About 42 percent of the city’s 400,000 public school students are black and 87 percent are low-income, according to district figures.
The statistic that I’ve heard cited by representatives of the CTU is that about one-third of Chicago’s public school teachers are members of racial and ethnic minorities while more than two-thirds of the students in Chicago public schools are members of racial and ethnic minorities. Here’s a piece that cites 29% African American teachers, 47% white teachers. Whatever the actual numbers it appears pretty clear that the percentage of African American teachers has declined over the past 20 years.
The Chicago Teachers Union has been the exclusive representative of Chicago teachers since 1966. The reason for the decline in the percentage of African American teachers cannot, therefore, be lack of union representation and I also note that I saw no reports that inadequate minority membership was among the CTU’s grievances on which they struck.
In this post I’m not taking a position on whether more minority teachers would improve educational outcomes (the evidence appears to be inconclusive) or whether the schools should be instruments for affirmative action.
I’m just pointing out that Harold Meyerson’s “playing the race card” is not supported by the facts in Chicago which is the context of his column.
Most of the white liberals tossing out (or implying) the racism charge have no idea of race. They know their “black friend” and have seen a few movies about black folks. Racism does exist, and it is vile and disgusting. If everything is racist, then nothing is.
I believe unions, by their very nature as restraints on labor competition, are bad for historically disadvantaged minorities. Davis-Bacon was either intentionally or effectively racist legislation. I don’t think these outcomes are predetermined, just that unionism need to take affirmative steps to avoid these problems.
Yeah, that would be my take, too. I think it also bears mentioning that the conventional union emphasis on seniority tends to reduce minority membership or, at least, “last-in” minority membership when the total number of available positions declines.
@PD Shaw
… Davis-Bacon was either intentionally or effectively racist legislation. …
Racism is intentional. Unless Davis-Bacon was intentionally designed with race as a factor to enable a negative racial outcome, this is not racism. Much of what is tagged as racist is ignorance, and many people can be educated. Once ignorance is eliminated, racism can be assumed, but the ignorance is deep.
The War on Poverty has caused more to destroy black communities than anything a racist could have designed, but the policies are not racist.
@TastyBits, its a bit complicated with the Davis-Bacon Act, since the legislative history indicates that at least some of the supporters expressly wanted to cut out migratory-colored labor that was taking federal jobs away from favored local workers. The opposing view is that the racist comments of some advocates should not be attributed to all the suporters, and that law remains in place because it serves valueable purpose independent of issues of race.
Reminds me that I visited the Mother Jones burrial site a couple of years ago. Next to it was a bulletin board, encased in glass, that contained a number of union stickers and slogans. It also contained a print-out of a news story from 100 years ago, complaing about the coal companies brining black labor from Alabama to work the mines. The language of the news story was racist by today’s standards and the racial connotations unpleasant. (It was probably in reference to the Battle of Virden ) I was shocked it was posted today (print-out showed use of AOL software). But it certainly an example of union activity that could have taken place without reference to race (scabs), but race appears to make a big difference in the violence of the reaction, the subsequent segregation of the mines, and the racial discrimination that continued long afterward.
@PD Shaw
I am not familiar with the origins of the Davis-Bacon Act, and I can see and agree with your point. I think that there are a lot of history that should be taught in order for people to understand how vile and disgusting racism is, but it never is. My purpose would be education not accusation. I hate racism.
I have known, worked with, lived among, eaten with, drank with, and gone out with the targets of racism. The vilest of the racists always want to touch you in a display of solidarity. The police have always agreed my reaction was self-defense against an assault.