But last week Bush suddenly reversed course. He announced his support for a civil-rights bill which, he claimed, “is going to hit a lick against discrimination in the workplace.” Bush was quick to say that the measure was “nonquota,” but many noted that there was little difference with the bills he had once denounced. Democrats mocked Bush’s conversion. “If the few word changes … provide the, president with a convenient fig leaf, that’s fine,” said Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell.
What happened to change Bush’s mind? David Duke, for one. When the ex-Klansman swept into a runoff for the governorship of Louisiana on the GOP ticket (page 33), it suddenly became important for the White House to stop playing on racial fears and adopt a tone of moderation. Another critical factor in Bush’s turnabout was Anita Hill. Women’s groups were furious with the White House for trying to discredit the woman who accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment. By endorsing a civil-rights bill that protects women as well as blacks, the White House made a peace offering to voters Bush will need in 1992. It was much easier for the White House to play tough when Bush was soaring in the polls. Now that fewer than 50 percent of Americans say they would vote to re-elect the president, Bush’s men have to be more careful about alienating large constituencies.
More immediately, it was by no means certain that Bush had enough votes in Congress to sustain his veto of the bill. Last week five key Republicans warned the president that they had no stomach for a fight that would anger women and blacks, and that they were sick of being tagged as racists. Bush did some quick arithmetic and decided not to risk his first veto override.
The civil-rights bill he endorsed would make it easier for women to collect money awards for intentional bias. Under current law, women can win only back pay, not so-called punitive damages. Among the offenses covered by the bill, lawmakers noted last week, is sexual harassment. The bill does include limits, ranging from $50,000 to $300,000, on the amount women can collect.
The most controversial provisions affect minority hiring and promotions. Under a 1989 Supreme Court decision, Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, plaintiffs can win a discrimination suit only if they prove the employer had no valid reason for screening out women or minorities. The new bill would ease that standard, putting the burden on the employer to prove that hiring policies were not discriminatory. The mere fact that a business employs fewer blacks than are represented in the pool of qualified local workers could be enough to make a case. There is one key exception: employers could cite a “business necessity” to justify low numbers of minorities or women. Business necessity might justify requiring college diplomas for paralegals, for instance, but not a high-school diploma to work as a janitor.
The new bill is so vague in places that all sides can claim to be satisfied. But if it becomes law, some employers will quietly hire by the numbers to avoid getting sued. That, of course, may lead some conservatives to cry “quota”-and the posturing and politicking will begin all over again.
