Part 4: Affirmative Action is no “Action Jackson” at MnDOT

By Donald W.R. Allen,II – Editor in Chief/IBNN and USA Radical Black

Last week at MnDOT and internal email was sent to select employees at MnDOT regarding the recent stories posted on IBNN.

The email read: (Unedited):

From: Prescott, Mary (DOT)
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 10:47 AM
Re: Part 3 – Who signs off on 0% goals and 0% goals achieved at MnDOT?

FYI for internal use only – this will be discussed at the DBE and Workforce Development Collaborative Group meeting on Friday. Specifically, hopefully, 1) Lennie Chism bringing Donny Allen a newsperson who seemed only there looking for a story and he did not state that this is why he was there; and 2) it was agreed to “no surprises” at the last meeting and this has been the fourth surprise from Mr. Chism; ground roles for media and the hard work going forth with all the project teams.

Note: The email above is just another example of bigotry at MnDOT for the acting civil rights director to single out two Black men, asking questions about a 17 year trend of failure in an attempt to address, solve and recommend a plan of action. This top-of-mind attention is not wanted at MnDOT, hence, 1% in federally funded contracts to minority contractors.

The Minnesota Department of Transportation employee base is a “protected class” of the government workforce. They have the “Cadillac” of benefits that aren’t affected by the current economic status of non-government working-class Minnesotans.

These are, for the most part White women, liberal’s who more than likely voted for Obama (Democrats). Their politics certainly don’t reflect the handling of minority-ethnics or MnDOT’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program. But then we have to look at the President (Barack Obama), who has yet to have a public position on race, color,  status and the state of Black Americans (unless you’re an Ivy League professor) – this is what keeps agencies like MnDOT “safe.”

“Nothing will radically change at MnDOT; the issue of Black exclusion is a political, social, economic, race, class and gender issue the ‘Left’ is in full control of.”

Women (white women) are identified as a “protected class” according to Affirmative Action policies. They don’t necessarily experience discrimination as we (Black Americans) think of racial discrimination, but they do experience gender oppression, sexual harassment and the employment glass ceiling. Affirmative Action policies are designed to protect them from such discrimation. However, in Minnesota, white women outnumber Blacks and are often considered for opportunities in advance of persons of color. Also, more women (again white women) are entering college and are assuming white collar jobs and executive positions in advance of people of color. Consequently, the question is since white women outnumber Black Americans in Minnesota, should white women still be identified as a “protected class” and receive DBE funding while Black American DBE’s receive less than one percent?

We say “no”…hell no!

It’s time to start using the tools in the masters-house against him.

White women are not the enemy…in general (Tiger Woods may beg to differ…)

The enemy is the system that has put those (White women) over and above Black Minnesotans as it pertains to MnDOT’s DBE practices, and the awarding of government funded, highway heavy contracts from MnDOT.

Most of us have experienced White women running organizations in Black neighborhoods and have wondered (out of curiosity), “What’s up with that?” In some cases, its fine – in others, we have challenges.

If MnDOT cannot form a model that works in Minnesota, maybe we need to look elsewhere…

To begin with, let’s take a look at South Dakota’s Department of Transportation (SDDOT).

South Dakota’s population, according to the US Census Bureau is 88.2% White; 1.1% Black; 8.5%American Indian and Alaska Native persons, with Hispanic-Latino’s at 2.6%.

Minnesota’s population is surprisingly similar with 89% White; 4.6% Black; 4.1 Latino-Hispanic; and 3.5% Asian with 1.2% Native American.

Still, with low numbers in the minority-ethnic population of the state, South Dakota’s DOT is light years ahead of MnDOT, developing and implementing “Race neutral and race-conscious means to meet the overall goal for their DBE Program.”  SDDOT has developed a methodology for determining the overall goals for DBE’s that for the most part have seemed to work.

South Dakota’s DBE program is laid out in simple clarity, it’s to the point and states the law as it pertains to people of color.

SDDOT’s website is not afraid to lay out the information, as it should be, stating in the case of DBE’s the following applies:

• (b) Individuals in the following groups, of which are reputably presumed to be socially and economically disadvantaged:  Black Americans, which includes persons having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa

• Hispanic Americans, which includes persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Central or South American, or other Spanish or Portuguese culture or origin, regardless of race

• Native Americans, which includes persons who are American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts or Native Hawaiians

• Asian-Pacific Americans, which includes persons who origins are from Japan, China, Taiwan, Korea, Burma (Myanmar), Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia (Kampuchea), Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Brunei, Samoa, Guam, the US Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands (Republic of Palau), the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Island, Macao, Fiji, Tonga, Kiribati, Juvalu, Nauru, Federated States of Micronesia, or Hong Kong.

• Subcontinent Asian Americans, which includes persons whose origins are from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, the Maldives Islands, Nepal or Sri Lanka

• Women

• Any additional groups whose members are designated as socially and economically disadvantaged by the SBA, at such time as the SBA designation becomes effective.

#   #  #

MnDOT’s website information is “stiff,” lacking real content and appears to be obsessed with the mundane.  How is it that South Dakota transportation agency can layout a webpage full of detail with less employees then Minnesota transportation agency and MnDOT is still stuck in the 1960’s?

Again the question remains, “What is the leadership doing beyond the meetings and lip-service to correct the problem.”

MnDOT has established several “working groups” to get a handle on the DBE issues and to address the current and significant plight of non-compliance, inside and outside of MnDOT. The one thing MnDOT does not understand, while they inundate attendee’s with paperwork, the only folks being paid to be at these meetings are MnDOT employees – again we address capacity building for White women and a couple of random White men who work for MnDOT.

If MnDOT cannot see the perpetual lack of attention to details, how will they ever find out how to engage the minority-ethnic community or have a DBE program that functions on a fair playing field?

Part 5 of this series will be published in the Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder on Wednesday, January 13, 2009.

Comments