PERSPECTIVES: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: SOME REASONABLE RESPONSES; COZAD'S ARGUMENTS DON'T STAND UP TO REASON AND PRINCIPLE

I have accepted the kind of invitation of the Southeast Missourian to offer a rebuttal to the absurd bit of arrogance in the Aug. 7 Opinion section by John D. Cozad.

Cozad laments the absence of reasoned principled debate, like that between Jefferson (who predicted that freeing the slaves would ruin the country) and Hamilton (who insisted that the right to vote should depend entirely upon how much property a white man owned). He is outraged to find that (gasp! shudder!) emotion and feeling have somehow become involved in what is, after all, merely a question of the rights of people of color. He implies that by presuming to claim human feelings, these unprincipled cads have somehow sullied the calm atmosphere of reason and studied thought in which he and his fellows shoulder the white man's burden. We have offended bwana!

Let's bring reason and principle to bear on the arguments of John Cozad. He finds affirmative action to be immoral, destructive of both liberty and equality, and founded on a lie. This lie Cozad courageously reveals as the idea that a free market doesn't work for all races.

Surely any reasonable individual would agree with Cozad that such a statement is an obvious outrage against common sense. In a free market, governed by no forces save those of supply and demand, it seems obvious that talent, skill and intelligence would inevitably find buyers at a reasonable price, regardless of the color of the individuals possessing such qualities. Unfortunately for Cozad's argument, the statement that affirmative action is designed to regulate the behavior of a free market is itself a lie, immoral, and destructive of both liberty and equality.

At the risk of disillusioning Cozad, I can't help but wonder where he has discovered such a creature as a "free market." Assuming that it has ever existed, the species has certainly never been native to this country. As a Native American, allow me to point out that racism and dishonesty are the two oldest business practices in the United States. Slavery was an essential factor in the American market before there was an America to market it in. Its most eloquent defenders universally appealed to the idea of practical economics, and at its abolition howled that Lincoln was out to bankrupt the nation over something as impractical (from a businessman's view) as a question of morals.

Cozad would direct us to the Declaration of Independence, and the pondering of self-evident truths, after kindly explaining to us what "self-evident" means. I would direct Cozad to ponder the fact that the white men who wrote that noble document left the Constitutional convention to govern plantations maintained by the sweat of human beings who were (self-evidently) not created quite as equal, on estates bought with the blood of men, women, and children whose Creator had (self-evidently) overlooked them when passing out all those inalienable rights. As with all pious blather about human dignity, Mr. Cozad's self-evident truths had about as much to do with non-whites then as they do now, and should prove equally effective in securing equal rights.

As for Cozad's cynically self-serving and disingenuous whining about racism to hiring and promoting individuals can only compare it to the snivelling of an arsonist who complains that the confiscation of his matches constitutes an assault on his rights as a property-owner. Affirmative action wasn't the whimsical invention of bored judges and legislators with nothing better to do with their time than bedeviling the poor, innocent Anglo-Saxon business owner. It was a direct result of the unfortunate fact that Americans of all colors have had well over 200 years of experience with what happens when American business isn't forced by federal law to provide some evidence that isn't engaging in business-as-usually-racist.

Cozad's brilliance is further illustrated by his claim that affirmative action fails to take age into account, in spite of the fact that age is, in fact, one of the protected categories of affirmative action, and by his outrage that we now have "discrimination in favor of women". I am sure that such brazenly preferential treatment explains why in 1994, in good ol' egalitarian America, the wages of the average working woman fall miserably short of the wages paid a male for performing the same duties. Guess it ought to be self-evident, huh?

Cozad would have it that affirmative action helps only those minorities "who have had the same advantages as whites". Would Cozad be so kind as to point out which minority he is referring to? Is this in reference to America, or Oz?

Cozad would have it that affirmative action raises racial tensions, comparing Massachusetts (those wicked, godless Yankees!) with "the 13 states of the old Confederacy!). Since affirmative action laws are federal in origin, and thus apply equally to Massachusetts and the 13 states of the old Confederacy, it is difficult to understand exactly what point it is that Cozad wishes to make here. It couldn't possibly be that this is an example of the kind of trouble provoked when the colored folk are allowed to get out of their place! Or could it? Is this what the oh-so-cleverly veiled reference to the heritage of racism and slavery of the "old Confederacy" is supposed to (subtly) convey? I am surprised Cozad didn't carry his point a step further by appearing in black-face and closing his speech with a heart-warming rendition of "Dixie", or perhaps "My Old Kentucky Home". We may rest assured that it wasn't out of any concern for the appearance of bigotry that he did not.

It is certainly true that the laws regarding affirmative action in this country are as riddled with loopholes and absurdities as the rest of the American legislation, and that these laws are often administered in ways so arbitrary and idiotic as to make any sane argument could be made in favor of doing away with any or all of America's legal code. Still, Cozad would have it that my unwillingness to play "let's pretend," politely agreeing that I should trust the John C. Cozads of America with my life and livelihood as a person of color, makes me a bigot. He would have it that my inability to rely solely on the same meaningless paper promises that he and his forbears have ignored for generations while standing on the necks of my people, and those of every other ethnic minority in this country, makes me a racist. My refusal to believe that the executives, business owners, and managerial staff in the last year alone are all hallucinations to be ignored is proof that I am the enemy of equal rights, liberty, and above all, reason, principle, and open debate.

Travis Royce Clayton is a Native American writer and artist who resides in Cape Girardeau.