Set-aside programs and workplace inclusion for black women in America

This paper addresses the confluence of race, class, and gender and its effect on a woman of color attempting to live and work in a world dominated by Caucasian males. It is written from the viewpoint of a United States immigrant who grew up during the oppressive Apartheid regime in South Africa. Particular emphasis is placed on the foregoing triad of social factors as they impact women in the workplace. Various eras in U.S. history are also deconstructed, from Reconstruction to Affirmative Action, to indicate their impact on the treatment of the aforementioned historic minority groups in this country. Additional options designed to generate a higher presence of minorities and female in the business world are also analyzed; the purported intentions and realities of government contracts, procurement, and other set-asides are similarly explored. Particular attention is paid to federal legislation targeting small businesses and their effects on the author's demographic group of interest. Again, the efficacy of these efforts is contrasted with their results, which suggests a broad disparity between the two. A number of solutions are presented to redress this situation, as well as further areas of research that can engender the same effect. Black Women in White Male Dominant Industries: Are Set-Aside and Inclusion Programs Really Assisting? Introduction

How did I get here...and why is this topic my area of interest? Let me start with from where and what I hail. I was born in South Africa, into segregation known in South Africa as "Apartheid" -- neither a white nor a black child, but classified as "colored" also known as "hotnot" (bastard). We lived in a tiny apartment on the fringes of the city of Cape Town, which was an area known as Woodstock or the "mixed slums." When the city got overcrowded, we were forcibly removed and dumped over 25 miles outside the city on sand dunes known as the Cape Flats. I did not understand the full scope of things then, but in my spirit, I knew it was wrong. It was not until I heard the name 'Nelson Mandela,' during my high school years that I started learning about all the wrongs...after all, I was born into this and knew nothing different. Off came the rose-colored glasses, as I asked more questions about equality and justice. It was during this period of wanting answers that I was forced to take a long hard look at myself -- I wanted to see what it is that makes me who I am. I also wanted to take a long hard look at the world in which I lived and saw how it was for people like me -- people who did not fit in with the right class, the right ethnicity, or the right gender for getting ahead, assuming control, taking charge, and leading the way. I wanted to see what it was about me -- and about them -- that kept us in a state of perpetual tension.

South Africa's Apartheid was about so much more than just separate compartments on the train, marked benches on beaches and demarcated restrooms. I started my freedom fight journey by participating in the act of refusing to learn our oppressors' history and other teachings...I burnt my books and felt something inside me ignite. My vocation became that of a social justice advocate and boy did I earn that "advocate" degree. I went on to fight for many "forms" of freedom, be it racial, gender or economic. Apartheid, in my opinion, was nothing different from slavery. After our liberation, and being allowed to obtain a passport, I wanted to see what was outside the so-called "prison walls (borders)" of South Africa. I traveled the rest of Africa and soon made my way to Europe.

Then I met my American husband and visited the United States in 2004. In 2009, due to family crises, my husband wanted to return home. We discussed this, and soon he left in preparation for our daughter and me to join him later. A year later we left South Africa with $2,000 and two suitcases, ready for the land of milk and honey.

My "you-live-here-now" culture shock was so intense when I realized that even though the United States was (supposed to be) eons ahead of South Africa with its freedom and racial issues, the harsh realities were so much different. I quickly learned that "Apartheid," "slavery," "segregation," or whatever we want to name it, even though no longer officially sanctioned in America, is still economically and socially very real. I hope (through my research project) to play a small role in helping break down the walls of racism, injustice, and poverty. I believe my experiences under Apartheid added to my research will help me deliver a project that will purposefully get my audience talking (and even taking action) about racism, discrimination, and the danger of erecting barriers, whether those barriers are social, political or economic. I am, however, honing in on the black female trying to build a business in a white, male-dominant America.

Martin and Barnard (2013) state that those women working in areas that are male-dominated have different problems from those working in female-dominated areas and those balanced in gender. The problems are a result of customs, of inequality in gender and the values within families and the community. The male gender is still considered superior to the female gender in families, despite the efforts made to empower females and to bring about equality in gender. The traditional beliefs on gender roles are also in company rules and practices. Women perform degrading tasks and find themselves subject to an organizational culture of gender discrimination.

According to the American Association for Access, Equity and Diversity (2015) it has been more than half a century since the U.S. began to fight for equality, both as a result of slavery and as a result of freedom. It has been quite successful as seen in a large number of people of color and females in the government, academy, and private sector. The fight for equality has been problematic, both legally and rhetorically, and has become more prominent in some presidential administrations and less so in others. These issues, among others, were the reason for affirmative action. Affirmative Action "Affirmative Action" is a term used to describe any step taken beyond merely terminating a biased act; to compensate for, or correct present or past biased acts, or to stop any future bias from taking place. Affirmative action is defined differently, based on the department, whether at work, in government contracts or school. According to The Executive Order along with its policies, affirmative action is defined as a process that requires a government contractor to analyze and examine the total range of the practices of its staff to find and correct any obstacles for equality in job opportunities. The contractor has to create a program for correcting the identified problems. The contractor should also, where necessary, come up with logical objectives to rate the success level of achieving the required result (American Association for Access, Equity, and Diversity, 2015).

The American Association for Access, Equity and Diversity (2015) also stated that these programs involve a lot more than just recruitment and outreach. It is a tool for fighting discrimination through the elimination of obstacles to equality in job opportunities. The Executive Order shows how discrimination and affirmative action are inversely related. It starts with prohibiting discrimination. Affirmative action essentially sets a good environment for equality in job opportunities.

Due to the mandate that affirmative action has in the litigation on employment bias, it also includes compensation and works to correct the results of previous bias. Hence, affirmative action can be defined as taking positive measures to eliminate bias, eliminate chances of its recurrence and give back those opportunities that deprived women and minorities in the past (American Association for Access, Equity, and Diversity, 2015).

According to The West's Encyclopedia of American Law (2005), this notion was foreseen around the same time as the Era of Reconstruction, right after the civil war in the U.S. After the conflict, the past population of slaves all through the South had nothing in their possession and few skills to help them earn a living. General William T. Sherman came up with an idea to assist the newly liberated citizens to live within the minimum financial base. He suggested that the goods and land from those huge plantations under his control in southeastern Georgia should be divided. The families of color would receive a mule and 40 acres of that land. This suggestion faced strong opposition by politicians, and it was not broadly adopted.

Over 100 years later, the idea to help whole classes in accessing the goods of life in the United States returned to the legal and social forefront of the U.S. The courts enacted some decisions, along with the political initiatives for interpretation of the guarantees of civil freedoms. This was per the clause of equal protection found in the 14th amendment. The initiatives and court decisions are what were later called affirmative action (West's Encyclopedia of American Law, 2005).

According to the American Association for Access, Equity and Diversity (2015), affirmative action faces a lot of criticism. It is said to involve preferential treatment, reverse discrimination, and defiance of the merit principles and a stigmatization of beneficiaries. There have been initiatives by voters from some states including Arizona, Washington, Michigan, California, and Nebraska, against affirmative action. It is, however, important to note that preferential treatment, guaranteed results, and quotas are not part of affirmative action. Set-Aside and Inclusion Programs According to Kranjc (1990), the set-aside programs for minorities are an affirmative action strategy that is contentious. Set-asides had been introduced by some governmental agencies to help eliminate the results of previous acts of bias in the process of government contracting.

The government has a great chance for promoting equality in economic opportunities, and for prevention of marketplace bias, through procurement. The state, local and federal governments in the country have, in the past few decades, come up with programs meant to increase the value and number of WBE (Women-owned business enterprises) and MBE contracts (Minority-owned business enterprises) (Office of the State Comptroller, 2010).

There have been many programs developed through the whole federal government, meant to increase contracts with women and minority-owned business enterprises, along with procurement. The greatest among these initiatives are the programs used throughout the government under the supervision of SBA (Small Business Administration). At times, agency-specific measures are used to assist those programs. Under these whole programs, some contracts for procurement are preserved for the purpose of sheltered or sole-source or sheltered rivalry contracting, whose eligibility is for minority-owned businesses, or women-owned businesses that are non-minority. It is, however, more widely assisted by parliament [THE CRUX WITH THIS IS THAT PARLIAMENT IS IN THE U.K. AND THE REST OF THE PAPER IS ABOUT THE U.S. YOU MUST RECONCILE THIS] for the economically and socially unprivileged. Also, there is a wide, sheltered, racially unbiased competition or general set-aside for little businesses. However, we still have more than 93% of procurement with those companies that are non-minority (White House, 1999).

According to Chatterji, Chay and Fairlie (2013), from the early 1970s, there are hundreds of billion dollars which have been used on programs to set aside or create percentage goals for contracts by the government, for subcontractors, or for companies owned by minorities. There were $28.2 billion contracts of federal procurement awarded to the less privileged businesses in 2008 only. Approximately six percent of the overall value of all the awarded federal contracts. [THIS IS A FRAGMENT -- YOU HAVE TO INDICATE THE RELATIONSHPI BETWEEN THIS CLAUSE AND THE PRECEDING SENTENCE. I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY RELATE]. The total amount that was used on contracting programs for affirmative action, for those companies owned by the minority, dwarfs that amount used for implementing affirmative action on workplaces and those acts of discrimination by the central government, such as The Civil Rights Act and Executive Order 11246 of 1964 (Title VII)[THIS IS A RUN-ON SENTENCE THAT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND. WHAT ARE YOU SAYING HERE?]. There was a considerable growth rate, especially in the 1980's, in the cost of contracts for city governments than for the cost of MBE's. The set-aside programs were meant for the establishment of minority-owned businesses, correcting the consequences of previous bias and lowering the high level of unemployment among the urban minorities in the 80s.

Small businesses create the most opportunities for technical innovation and employment in the U.S. Therefore, the president and Congress have expressed much interest in motivating the health and development of small enterprises through the whole American economy. Among the simplest methods for the government to nurture and motivate small enterprises is the use of federal contracts. According to the 1953 Small Business Act, small enterprises need to get an equitable share of contracts by the federal government, and those small enterprises must possess a possible practical opportunity for participation in contracting with the central government (Mcvay, 2009).

Furthermore, Mcvay (2009) states that the set-aside for small enterprises is the highest used socioeconomic program. It "sets aside," or regulates contracts meant for participating in small businesses. The only enterprises that are said to be small are those who do not go beyond the recommended size limit for the acquired service or supply. They are the only ones allowed to propose or bid on set-asides for small businesses. Those offers and their bidders who go beyond the allowed size limit for some set-aside for a small business are considered non-responsive. Their proposals or bids are not approved.

There were other programs developed to increase the reach to economic opportunities for minorities, the disadvantaged and women-owned businesses. These programs include Veterans Business Program, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program and Business Enterprise Program (BEP) (Tollway, 2016).

The program for DBE is meant to correct present or past prejudice against DBEs, create level ground and give fair opportunity in contracts that are DOT-assisted, ease the burden on small enterprises and improve the efficiency and elasticity of the program. The program was initially for women and minority-owned businesses. It was developed under the command of the 1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) along with other acts of discrimination which are applicable to the DOT (Department of Transportation) programs for financial assistance (U.S. Department of Transportation, 2014). National Trends The programs for M/WBE have made initiatives at the local, state and federal levels for women and minorities. However, there is still discrimination at work and in the market, mostly for black women. Women and minorities earn considerably lower income, whether self-employed or employed, than non-minority men do. White women also earn more than their female counterparts (Black and Latino women). Minority-owned companies throughout the country comprise 17% of the overall nationwide businesses. However, they earn lower than 3% of the overall receipts and sales. A similar situation applies to women. Women throughout the country account for 28% of businesses, but only earn 4% of the total receipts and sales. Other studies show that women and minority-owned businesses earn less than what they deserve from public contracting. Minority-owned companies earned way fewer dollars from government contracts than expected considering their availability. Actually, MBE's, as a whole, earned only 57% of what they would expect to earn from contracts with the government, considering their availability and numbers (Office of the State Comptroller, 2010).