Jack Salzman, Cornel West Struggles in the Promised

Affirmative Action: Action: Jewish Ideals, Jewish Interests \\ 301
benefits. Later, however, [the program] was more than a claim for valuable
benefit.... [S]uch programs acknowledged that minority groups were an
integral part of society, that no aspect of society was complete without
their presence, and that, unless encouraged to do so, minorities and women
would not seek employment or attendance at institutions where they
would be alone. The failure to grasp these broader applications was a serious
shortcoming [in the NJCRAC position]. 21
benefits. Later, however, [the program] was more than a claim for valuable
benefit....[S]uch programs acknowledged that minority groups were an
integral part of society, that no aspect of society was complete without
their presence, and that, unless encouraged to do so, minorities and women
would not seek employment or attendance at institutions where they
would be alone. The failure to grasp these broader applications was a serious
shortcoming [in the NJCRAC position]. 21
In fact the position masked several areas of disagreement, some clear, some
murky. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an early critic of many forms of
affirmative action, 22 viewed affirmative action as a gateway, and opposed goals and
timetables as being tantamount to quotas, and, in fact, objected to all departures
from "merit" selection. 23 The American Jewish Committee (AJC) also opposed
quotas, but supported "flexible" goals and timetables. 24 The American Jewish
Congress (AJCongress) went through a tortuous debate that resulted in opposing
quotas but supporting the use of goals and timetables if ordered by a court or
administrative agency following a proof or finding of discrimination. 25 Among
the religious bodies, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America,
representing the mainstream "centrist" traditionally observant religious community,
opposed anything that suggested "group privileges," including goals and
timetables. 26 The Union of American Hebrew Congregations (Reform) expressed
a blanket support of goals and timetables. The National Council of Jewish
Women did not address specifically the question of goals and timetables, but
asserted a blanket support oi affirmative action and a blanket opposition to "quota
systems in the public and private sector." 27 Women's American ORT, a membership
organization, appeared to be the only agency to support quotas, and not
merely goals and timetables, noting [we] "support quotas under very narrowlydefined
circumstances, approving the use of court-ordered quotas in cases of
proven, prior discrimination." 28
In fact the position masked several areas of disagreement, some clear, some
murky. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an early critic of many forms of
affirmative action, 22 viewed affirmative action as a gateway, and opposed goals and
timetables as being tantamount to quotas, and, in fact, objected to all departures
from "merit" selection. 23 The American Jewish Committee (AJC) also opposed
quotas, but supported "flexible" goals and timetables. 24 The American Jewish
Congress (AJCongress) went through a tortuous debate that resulted in opposing
quotas but supporting the use of goals and timetables if ordered by a court or
administrative agency following a proof or finding of discrimination. 25 Among
the religious bodies, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America,
representing the mainstream "centrist" traditionally observant religious community,
opposed anything that suggested "group privileges," including goals and
timetables. 26 The Union of American Hebrew Congregations (Reform) expressed
a blanket support of goals and timetables. The National Council of Jewish
Women did not address specifically the question of goals and timetables, but
asserted a blanket support oi affirmative action and a blanket opposition to "quota
systems in the public and private sector." 27 Women's American ORT, a membership
organization, appeared to be the only agency to support quotas, and not
merely goals and timetables, noting [we] "support quotas under very narrowlydefined
circumstances, approving the use of court-ordered quotas in cases of
proven, prior discrimination." 28
//
There were a number of affirmative-action situations — sometimes crystallized in
federal-court activity — that engaged the Jewish community's attention, with
implications for intergroup relations. Contrary to conventional wisdom, 29 There were a number of affirmative-action situations—sometimes crystallized in
federal-court activity—that engaged the Jewish community's attention, with
implications for intergroup relations. Contrary to conventional wisdom, Jewish
groups, including the three influential "defense" agencies — the American Jewish
Congress, the American Jewish Committee, and the Anti-Defamation League —
and Jewish community-relations councils around the United States, diverged in
their stances on affirmative action, notwithstanding the fact that they joined on
single briefs in a number of cases. A quick review of the early landmark United
States Supreme Court cases in this area demonstrates where Jewish groups were —
and were not.
One event highlighted Jewish sensitivities to affirmative action in academia,
29 Jewish
groups, including the three influential "defense" agencies—the American Jewish
Congress, the American Jewish Committee, and the Anti-Defamation League—
and Jewish community-relations councils around the United States, diverged in
their stances on affirmative action, notwithstanding the fact that they joined on
single briefs in a number of cases. A quick review of the early landmark United
States Supreme Court cases in this area demonstrates where Jewish groups were—
and were not.
One event highlighted Jewish sensitivities to affirmative action in academia,