January/February 2008

The challenge in writing this page is not what to write about, but which topic to address.

The Small Business Administration, after 8 years of delay, has issued a proposed rule which names only four industries in which woman-owned businesses are determined as underrepresented. (See In Brief, page 4.) The resultant hue and cry from WIPP, WBENC, NAWBO, the Center for Women’s Business Research, and women business owners and organizations across the country, is testimony to the fact that they regard the rule as too little too late. Likewise, a number of our legislators have criticized the proposed rule.

SBA Administrator Steve Preston defends the rule, based upon what is known as the RAND study, which identified the four categories after a review of dollars going to woman-owned firms. He further states that the comparison of the total number of woman-owned businesses (one-fourth of all businesses) to the gross receipts of those businesses (4.2 percent of the economy) is flawed, and likens it to comparing apples to oranges. Preston explains that, “For the SBA rule, the pool was confined to the nearly 56,000 woman-owned small businesses that were registered federal contractors at that time.”

Part of the confusion stems from the often misunderstood purpose of the 2000 legislation. It was and is written to enable federal contracting offices to meet the 5 percent contracting goal with woman-owned businesses by means of setting aside contracts in those industries where women are determined to be underrepresented—similar to 8(a) for minority-owned firms. Although the SBA describes the 8(a) program as a business development program, the original goal-enabling purpose is still valid.

Although the general impression is that federal contractors are falling short of meeting the 5 percent goal, Preston states, “[I]n 2007 SBA women-owned business procurements exceeded the government-wide statutory goal of 5 percent, reaching 24.7 percent.”

Obviously I need to do more research. I think my basket contains apples, oranges, and maybe even some unripe persimmons. (If you’ve ever tasted one, you’ll know what I mean.)

As to my second topic, in an effort to stay on top of the issues relevant to our readers, I came across an article written by “Guy White,” who says, “Nobody likes diversity and nobody wants affirmative action. It is just a hoax to make yourself look ‘open minded’ and ‘progressive.’” He contends that large corporations support diversity and provide diversity training only to stay out of trouble. I could fill several pages with an excoriating rebuttal, but it would undoubtedly make no difference to the people who follow his ill-conceived logic.

And, you must understand that Ward Connerly, the man behind Proposition 209 in California, is making progress when the mainstream news media begin to report on his efforts to overturn affirmative action programs by amending state constitutions. (See In Brief, page 7.) It’s likely to be on the ballot in five states this coming November.

I urge all of you to communicate with your legislators now. Talk to your friends and relatives, making sure that they understand that these ballot measures use the language of civil rights to amend a constitution that does not need changing.