The Golden State war: Californians have pushed their divisive affirmative-action debate onto the national agenda.

UNTIL THE MID-1960s, WHEN PRESIDENT Johnson initiated affirmative action, the career path of most African Americans was easily defined: janitor or porter, factory worker or cook.

So-called public colleges and universities were virtually closed to African Americans. There was no place in corporate America for those who somehow managed to get an education-or much capital for those African Americans looking to finance a business.

Affirmative action's most ardent supporters fear that, minus such initiatives, the "Land of the Free" will return to an overtly discriminatory atmosphere. The current debate about affirmative action, they say, will decide more than the 1996 presidential election: It will ultimately determine our access to education, jobs and our ability to pursue the American dream.

Opponents argue that affirmative action, by nature, is discriminatory and that education and jobs should be determined by merit alone. Affirmative action, they say, has outlived its usefulness.

The affirmative-action debate has encompassed America, as evidenced by the Supreme Court's ruling in Adarand v. Pena and President Clinton's recent speech dedicated to the subject. But nowhere is the debate more heated and divisive than in California, which has assumed a position on the front lines of the battle.

Affirmative action's defining moment in the Golden State will occur in the November 1996 elections, when residents will probably vote on the controversial California Civil Rights Initiative. That controversial initiative seeks to end all preferences in state employment, education and contracting.

While the debate surrounding affirmative action nears fever pitch, some black business owners in California, such as Barry Baszile, Audrey Rice Oliver and Eugene Bramlett (see "On the Front Lines," this issue), question whether black entrepreneurs will continue to exist in a state whose history of including minorities within the business community is already less than shining. An examination of affirmative-action programs in California reveals a failure to even meet modest goals. Minorities, who make up 42% of California's population, are poorly represented in private and public sector jobs and receive only a minute amount of state contracting dollars.

The battle in California, both sides warn, cannot be seen as parochial since it will probably have a domino effect, eventually reaching all Americans. "California will be the bellwether on affirmative action," says Scott Syphax of the Sacramento Community Forum, which recently sponsored a forum on the issue. "Whatever happens here will strongly influence the national debate and subsequent legislative action on this issue."

In June, Gov. Pete Wilson intensified the battle by signing an executive order virtually eliminating affirmative-action programs in every California state agency and department. "Today we begin a new chapter in the journey toward a color-blind society that protects the rights of every individual," Wilson said prior to signing the order.

The long-anticipated move by Wilson, who is seeking the Republican nomination for president, was seen as symbolic, since the governor's order does not affect federal programs or judicial decisions mandating affirmative-action programs.

"What the governor did was slam the door on our foot," says state Sen. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles). "Why has affirmative action become a point of concern now? Affirmative action means opportunity. It means equality. It has nothing to do with preferences, set-asides or quotas."

Wilson supplemented his initial strike against such programs in July by orchestrating the elimination of affirmative-action programs within the University of California.

DOOR OPENER OR MENTAL CRUTCH?

In such a tense racial climate, California's fabled diversity is threatening to collapse in on itself as camps split among ethnic and political lines. Predictably, the debate has divided many residents, both in the state and nationally. But the divisions have not been drawn by race and gender alone. In California, African Americans have assumed prominent roles on both sides of the battle lines.

Many, like Fred Jordan, a San Francisco businessman and chairman of the California Commission of the Status of Black Males, argue that affirmative-action is needed to ensure that America does not regress to its ugly history of excluding minorities and women.

Jordan dismisses claims that such programs unfairly favor minorities. "We would not need preferences, if there were not preferences for white males," Jordan Says. "White males have 95% of the power.

Alice Huffman, former director of political affairs for the California Teachers Association, agrees with Jordan. "Affirmative action is a very, very powerful tool," she says. "Affirmative action is access." Huffman concedes that some programs should be refined, but says that their total elimination is comparable to throwing the baby out with the bathwater."

Others believe affirmative action programs have created a harmful mind-set that blacks can't compete without outside help. "In principle, I see them [affirmative-action programs] as being flawed," says Errol Smith, the owner of the Los Angeles-based Building Maintenance of America. "They have come to be synonymous with lower standards. It perpetuates the myth of our inferiority." He says that many African Americans now believe they "can't get a dollar unless a white man gives it to them," and that such attitudes have prevented blacks from succeeding like many other immigrant groups.

Ward Connerly, a business owner and a University of California regent (See Choosing Sides," this issues), goes a step further. He believes African Americans must work toward a system that benefits everyone, including white males, instead of just protecting their own piece of the pie. "Affirmative action was not designed to be there until hell freezes over. If we don't get preferences, then why are we concerned about eliminating them? We want to be treated equally, not preferentially.

The color-blind society that Wilson and others purport to endorse is light years away, still others contend. To believe otherwise, supporters of affirmative action say, shows an ignorance of American history and reality. "Race is not an accident. It's not a coincidence," says John Stansfield, a professor of sociology and African studies at UC Davis. "It's an ingrained part of how we think, how we behave." Stansfield believes affirmative-action programs will be needed until Americans are able to face the reality of the role that race plays in our society.

ACCORDING TO THE NUMBERS

Many of the programs that California has enacted to incorporate minorities into the economic mainstream have shown little progress, at best. While the specific numbers for black participation are not readily available, even the cumulative numbers for all minorities are abysmal. According to a report commissioned by the California Senate Office of Research:

* In 1991-92, only 4.23% of all state contracts went to minorities and 2.13% to women.

* The state spent $1.9 billion on construction projects in 1991-92. Of that amount, minority contractors received about $225 million, or 12 cents of every dollar.

* The Department of Transportation, the state's largest builder, commonly referred to as Caltrans, spent $1.1 billion on roadway construction in 1991-92. About 15 cents of every dollar went to minority contractors.

* The California State University system in 1991-92 spent $262.5 million on construction projects, of which about 9 cents of every dollar went to minority-owned construction companies. Of the $830.6 million the University of California system spent on construction in 1990-91 and 1991-92, minority contractors received about 10 cents of each dollar.

"The gains have been modest" says Willie Brown, longtime speaker of the California State Assembly and one of the leaders in the fight to save California's affirmative-action programs. (See "Choosing Sides," this issue.

Minorities also fared poorly in California's private and public workplaces. In 1993, whites represented 60.4% of the state's workforce, but held 79% of the managerial jobs with the state's major companies, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The 1993 overall median income for blacks in public jobs was $33,774, significantly lower than the $40,313 for whites.

White managers complain that qualified minorities ar not always available. "The affirmative-action process is extremely time-consuming, cumbersome and, in some ways, a way to practice creative writing when one must justify and write ways in order to comply," one county employee in charge of hiring told state officials.

Proponents of affirmative action say the problem is not the availability of minority job candidates, but dogged resistance on the part of many whites to share California's economic wealth.

In Los Angeles, for example, despite two decades of affirmative-action policies, 95% of the fire department's top officers are white, according to a city audit released in 1994. Since 1988, the city of San Francisco has been operating under a federal court decree to integrate its fire department. U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel recently appointed a trustee to speed up integration in the department after complaining of "foot-dragging."

In California, the anti-affirmativeaction forces have won many of the early battles, but the other side has been galvanized into action. "We've made a commitment to do what is necessary," says the Rev. J. Alfred Smith Sr., an Oakland minister and president of the Baptist Ministers Union, which is organizing ministers to fight any retreat on affirmative action. We'll use "demonstrations and public and civil disobedience, as well as legal methods in the courts," he declares.