Jack Salzman, Cornel West Struggles in the Promised

308 // JEROME A. CHANES
The world at the close of 1995 had turned over many times since 1965. In 1995,
ideologically fueled abuses in some programs spurred demands by members of a
Republican-controlled Congress and other political leaders to demand an end to
all affirmative-action programs. 42 In July 1995, President Bill Clinton defended
government affirmative-action initiatives and called for a review of current programs
to guard against abuses, improve effectiveness, and guarantee fairness. In
Adarand v. Pena (1995), the latest Supreme Court ruling to come down the pike,
the Court — itself hardly immune to the Zeitgeist of the 1990s — established strict
scrutiny for all federal programs. 43 Most Jewish groups, whatever their views on
goals and timetables, reaffirmed support for these programs/' 4
The world at the close of 1995 had turned over many times since 1965. In 1995,
ideologically fueled abuses in some programs spurred demands by members of a
Republican-controlled Congress and other political leaders to demand an end to
all affirmative-action programs.
A few local Jewish communities were beset with problems of their own as
affirmative action was under siege in their states or localities. A number of legislative
initiatives were introduced on the state level that sought to eliminate
race-based preference programs. In California, where affirmative action was under
severe attack in the mid-1990s, the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI),
proposed as a ballot initiative for the 1996 elections, asked voters to amend
the state constitution to make it illegal to grant preference on the basis of sex,
color, ethnicity, or national origin — in effect, to eliminate all state-mandated
race-conscious programs in every sphere of life. CCRI spawned comparable efforts
in a number of states. Marching against the tide of public sentiment, local Jewish
communities mobilized in 1995 against these initiatives.
42 In July 1995, President Bill Clinton defended
government affirmative-action initiatives and called for a review of current programs
to guard against abuses, improve effectiveness, and guarantee fairness. In
Adarand v. Pena (1995), the latest Supreme Court ruling to come down the pike,
the Court—itself hardly immune to the Zeitgeist of the 1990s—established strict
scrutiny for all federal programs. 43 Most Jewish groups, whatever their views on
goals and timetables, reaffirmed support for these programs/' 4
A few local Jewish communities were beset with problems of their own as
affirmative action was under siege in their states or localities. A number of legislative
initiatives were introduced on the state level that sought to eliminate
race-based preference programs. In California, where affirmative action was under
severe attack in the mid-1990s, the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI),
proposed as a ballot initiative for the 1996 elections, asked voters to amend
the state constitution to make it illegal to grant preference on the basis of sex,
color, ethnicity, or national origin—in effect, to eliminate all state-mandated
race-conscious programs in every sphere of life. CCRI spawned comparable efforts
in a number of states. Marching against the tide of public sentiment, local Jewish
communities mobilized in 1995 against these initiatives.
A Coda for the Nineties: The Voting Rights Dilemma
//
The issue of districting and reapportionment stemming from the provisions of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the 1982 amendments thereto has presented a
new set of dilemmas for Jews, even though very few Jewish communities have
been affected by reapportionment. The political hot potato of the 1990s, redistricting
is an issue that has been long on rhetoric and very short on understanding,
differing in some key respects from the affirmative-action question, at whose
heart is the quota issue. Central to voting rights in the 1980s and 1990s is the
question of group empowerment. 45 But this factor is precisely what links the two
matters: at the heart of each is the bottom-line question of individual rights versus
group rights. The most dramatic manifestations of this fundamental question
have in recent years been found in voting-rights situations.
The Voting Rights Act of 1.965 had one and only one aim: to remedy Black
disenfranchisement in the South. 46 The issue of districting and reapportionment stemming from the provisions of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the 1982 amendments thereto has presented a
new set of dilemmas for Jews, even though very few Jewish communities have
been affected by reapportionment. The political hot potato of the 1990s, redistricting
is an issue that has been long on rhetoric and very short on understanding,
differing in some key respects from the affirmative-action question, at whose
heart is the quota issue. Central to voting rights in the 1980s and 1990s is the
question of group empowerment.
In that it provided ballots for southern
Blacks, the legislation worked, and worked remarkably well. Yet when it
allegedly enhanced minority-group political power — which, in fact, it did not —
the legislation was viewed by many as flawed.
The two operative provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which together
45 But this factor is precisely what links the two
matters: at the heart of each is the bottom-line question of individual rights versus
group rights. The most dramatic manifestations of this fundamental question
have in recent years been found in voting-rights situations.
The Voting Rights Act of 1.965 had one and only one aim: to remedy Black
disenfranchisement in the South. 46 In that it provided ballots for southern
Blacks, the legislation worked, and worked remarkably well. Yet when it
allegedly enhanced minority-group political power—which, in fact, it did not—
the legislation was viewed by many as flawed.
The two operative provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which together