Numbers could be even more misleading given individual statistics for different agencies. Six percent of the $16.9 billion in contracts awarded by the Federal Highway Administration were given to “disadvantaged” groups, and 7.8% of the 1.1 billion in Federal Aviation Administration contracts were given to “disadvantaged” individuals, according to Transportation Department figures.
Edward Blum, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, had an explanation for that, too.
“These [racial] set-asides, beginning about 25 or 30 years ago, metasticized from just focusing on race and ethnicity to include women owned businesses,” said Blum. “Set-asides now – which I think are a very bad idea, but they exist – include white women owned businesses could very well be siphoning away what used to be a pretty healthy [racial-based] quota.”
In other words, the higher minority-participation for these individual contracts may simply be participation by women. Black contracts might still represent something near 1%.
Whatever the case, Detamore had a good explanation for why affirmative action is a faulty measure of “good” contracting practices.
“My main reason for opposing [affirmative action] is that its unconstitutional. The government cannot remedy what the Supreme Court calls societal discrimination – it reaches too far into the past and too far into the future to be remedied with regulation,” he said.