John Stanford: Affirmative Action, Inc.

Two days ago, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer announced, “Private donors offer to boost pay of Stanford” (Ruth Teichroeb, January 10, 1998). As I’ve reported elsewhere, this corporate generosity evolved out of what appeared to be a pathetic stunt to blackmail Seattle into giving the insatiable Stanford more money (See John Stanford: Employment Agency?). This in turn reminds me of something that’s been making headlines nationwide, but which has been largely ignored by The Seattle Times and The Seattle Post-Intelligencer — affirmative action.

While making a three-star general ass out of himself on the witness stand during Mr. Mak’s epic lawsuit, Stanford affirmed that he had benefitted from affirmative action. Stanford’s testimony struck some observers as ironic, for Stanford could apparently care less about using affirmative action to level the playing field for others; the trial proved that Stanford pays about as much attention to Seattle School District’s Affirmative Action office as he does to teachers and parents, rendering that office as dysfunctional as the local teachers union. (Incidentally, Stanford was found partially liable in a huge affirmative action case in Atlanta.)

While letting talented, dedicated educators get ground up in the bureaucracy he commandeered 2 1/2 years ago, Stanford continues to benefit from what I might loosely term affirmative action. Indeed, Stanford seems to have effectively evolved into a one-man affirmative action office, which is charged with ensuring that Stanford gets an unfair shot at every perk a retired general with a big mouth is entitled to.

But I accuse Stanford of practicing a double standard. On the witness stand, he insisted over and over that he rejects quotas, hiring people on the basis of merit only. (So how does he account for all the screwballs in his administration?) Yet Stanford seems to want a salary commensurate with what celebrities make, rather than one based on his merits (if any).

Frankly, there are many teachers and parents who don’t think Stanford is earning his keep as it is. If his brand of leadership were given away for free, many of us would reject it, were it not shoved down our throats by Seattle’s education mafia.

The legacy of affirmative action that ex-Seattle Mayor Norm Rice is so well known for has hardly served Seattle School District well. Indeed, the central bureaucracy that is crowned by Stanford sometimes seems little more than a holding pen for incompetent pigs living off the public dole. But are these miscreants really the product of affirmative action?

The boundary between “affirmative action” and nepotism is sometimes indistinct. For example, the phenomenal increase in the number of black administrators hired in recent years would seem to point to affirmative action rather than nepotism, yet evidence presented at Mr. Mak’s trial suggests that administrators are often hired on the basis of personal friendships rather than race or qualifications. (I still can’t get over the woman with substitute teaching credentials who was hired as an assistant principal! Was Denise Jones an example of a race-based hire, nepotism, plain stupidity, or all the above?)

I don’t mean to imply that any particular ethnic group produces inferior administrators or educators. It just seems that the district is so gung ho to recruit African American personnel that it threw its standards out the window. Why else would they recruit and protect such principals as Evelyn Fairchild, Euhania Butler, Beatrice Cox, Marella Griffin, Sherrill Adams, Cothron Macmilian, and William Cook (all discussed under Principals) and retain Alice Houston, an administrator who allegedly threw away more than $4 million and later filed a grievance and subsequent discrimination lawsuit because she didn’t get a pay raise?!

But affirmative action cuts both ways. Seattle School District boasts plenty of white derelict administrators (along with a few Asian American and Hispanic bums). And the Seattle School Board — arguably the most despised institution in Seattle — is mostly white.

Affirmative action? Nepotism? Bureaucracy? They all unite in John Stanford, who lords over Seattle School District’s anti-meritocracy as a mutant vision from the futuristic raceless society Americans dream of. The retired general who spoke of children with such apparent passion at the Democratic convention appears to be an apolitical, raceless whore who is more adept at exploiting children than acting as their advocate.

Initiative 200

How do I feel about Initiative 200, which would end affirmative action in Washington State? Since discrimination remains a problem in American society I support affirmative action.

However, I think affirmative action needs to be mended to stop abuses. As long as incompetent people can exploit affirmative action to get jobs as public schools administrators, this benevolent program will, ironically, hurt the children of the very people it is designed to help.

On the other hand, there doesn’t seem much point in funneling tax dollars into affirmative action programs if they aren’t going to be enforced.

Mr. Mak was abandoned by the State Human Rights Commission, Equal Opportunity Commission, Seattle School District’s Affirmative Action office, and the Seattle Education Association (teachers union). If the combined efforts of such organizations can’t defend someone of his stature, then how many people with less sensational talents and no access to the media are falling through the cracks even as I write?

Therefore, I wouldn’t feel too badly if Initiative 200 passes. Seattle’s children probably won’t be any worse off than they are now. And we can save a little money that was formerly squandered on affirmative action programs that made liberals feel good while infuriating Republicans and the discrimination victims who learned that such programs can be effectively neutralized by bureaucracy. Except for those affirmative action fans who are fortunate enough to rule bureaucracies. [Note, I later voted for Initiative 200.]