By Brittany Hutson
State Senator James Meeks is no stranger to racial controversy. The reverend, who is currently running for mayor of Chicago, has been caught with his foot in his mouth in the past. Several years ago, he gave a sermon at his Salem Baptist Church in which he compared Mayor Richard Daley to a “slave master” and called some elected black officials “house n*****s” who are “gonna fight you to protect the white man.’” In 2006, he described homosexuality as “an evil sickness.”
According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Meeks was again caught in another firestorm earlier this week when what was supposed to be an interview with WVON radio about his education policy turned into a discussion about the city’s designated program that mandates a certain share of city contracts go to minority-and women-owned businesses. Because Blacks already have a tough time fighting for contract funding, Meeks said he believes that businesses owned by white women should not be considered minority.
“I think that the word ‘minority,’ from our standpoint, should mean African-American,” said Meeks. “I don’t think women, Asians and Hispanics should be able to use that title. That’s why our numbers cannot improve, because we use women, Asians and Hispanics, who are not people of color, who are not people who have been discriminated against.”
Off hand, Meeks’ comments are offensive to the aforementioned groups who have experienced their share of discrimination. In an attempt to recant his initial statement and be more specific, Meeks said if elected mayor he would only exclude white women. Currently, the city’s set-aside program allocates 25 percent of contracts for minorities and 5 percent for women-owned companies.
Hedy Ratner, co-president of the Women’s Business Development Center, angry with Meeks and his comments, said if anything, “the 5 percent set-aside for women ‘should be higher.’”
But, upon closer examination of the numbers, Meeks did have grounds to say what he said. Of the $1 billion in contracts awarded during the first eight months of this year, African Americans got $73.6 million worth, compared to $83 million for Asian Americans, $142.2 million for Hispanics and $81 million for women.
The fact of the matter is that regardless if the language stipulates that minorities are mandated to get their fair share of funding for contracts, it’s nothing new that Blacks get the short end of the stick. Capital has long been slipping through the hands of minority-owned enterprises due to underhanded schemes. A little over a year ago, there was an investigation into large corporations getting contracts intended for small businesses. Also sometimes, there are regulations that unfortunately work against minority-owned businesses, such as project labor agreements that only permit projects be awarded to union contractors, which many black businesses are not.
Whatever the cause behind the problem, it seems Meeks wanted to explain that because the word ‘minority’ considers other groups besides Blacks, it makes it more difficult for them to get their share. In a written statement to further clarify his remarks, he said ‘”all minority-and-women-owned business’ deserve their ‘fair share’ of city contracts’” but that “’systemic corruption’ has allowed white-owned ‘fronts’ posing as minorities and women to defraud the program and make African-Americans the ‘most under-represented among city contractors.’”
