The foremost left media outlet in the United States, Pacifica Radio, with stations in New York, Los Angeles, Berkeley, Washington DC and Houston, has been locked in a bitter internal struggle over whether or not to use affirmative action in the seating of its local and national boards. At issue is whether communities of color, who now dominate the populations of major U.S. cities, will also rise to power in Pacifica, which has traditionally been controlled by liberal and leftwing white European Americans. The struggle has split its national board and activist leadership roughly along racial lines. Pacifica Radio has acknowledged a pattern of racial discrimination in the past. Opponents of affirmative action say it is illegal and would jeopardize Pacifica's funding and licenses. Pacifica is primarily listener sponsored.

In the latest development, judge Ronald Sabraw ruled on Monday that the controversial Draft "B" of the bylaws, which lacks any affirmative action remedies, would prevail. Nominations for the new Local Station Boards opened immediately.

A court-ordered settlement agreement, overseen by Judge Sabraw, resolved a previous internal struggle between progressives and liberal Democratic Party forces. The settlement agreement required elections for new boards. New bylaws guiding those elections had to be passed by a two thirds majority on the iPNB and then be ratified by three out of the five Local Advisory Boards (LABs). Diversity was the sticking point.

In June Draft "B" failed to gain the required two-thirds majority approval by the iPNB. However, Judge Sabraw ruled in favor of Carol Spooner of KPFA Berkeley, the Secretary of the interim Pacifica National Board (iPNB), who discounted the votes of several African Americans on the iPNB through a technicality. Judge Sabraw ruled that three out of five LABs had to endorse Draft "B" by July 24, the second requirement for passage of the bylaws. On July 23 KFPK Los Angeles defeated Draft "B", which had already been roundly rejected by WBAI New York and WPFW Washington DC, (both stations have a strong African American presence.).

Fearing protest from New York supporters of affirmative action, iPNB Chair Leslie Cagan illegally and unilaterally cancelled the June IPNB meeting scheduled for New York City and instead ordered a "mediation session" in Chicago (where Pacifica has no station) to reach accord on diversity language for the new bylaws. The majority of participants in the Chicago mediation session were people of color and the straw polls taken overwhelmingly favored affirmative action.

Upset with the turn of events at the mediation, pro-"B" forces staged a revote on Draft "B" at KPFK Los Angeles, in which white European American board member Tom Irwin switched his vote, tipping the scales. Two iPNB directors, Carol Spooner and David Fertig then seized the opportunity and unilaterally declared Draft "B" to be victorious. This was soon followed by a nod from iPNB Chair Leslie Cagan, who now declared that the session in Chicago, which reportedly cost Pacifica twenty five thousand dollars had NOT been a mediation but merely a "a facilitated discussion." Draft "B" she declared, had passed. However, when the board later met as a whole via teleconference, they voted down the idea that B had passed, and in a straw poll voted 10 to 1 to continue the mediation process. In Sabraw's latest ruling the judge disregarded his own previous deadline for passage of B and declared it ratified.

The disenfranchisement of African American directors on the board, and repeated violations of democratic process within the iPNB has led some people of color to complain that Pacifica is controlled by a de facto all white European American executive committee, (an executive committee is explicitly disallowed in the settlement agreement.) To some, the judge's ruling reinforces charges of institutional racism within Pacifica Radio, particularly because supporters of Draft "B" are fighting against waivers, which would enfranchise listeners who cannot afford to pay $25 for membership or are unable to volunteer for three hours of work. The friction in Pacifica parallels complaints from organizers of color that racism is a still a persistent problem within the U.S. peace movement, to which Pacifica is closely tied. iPNB Chair Leslie Cagan is a prominent leader of the massive coalition United For Peace and Justice. Pacifica is scheduled to proceed with elections without any affirmative action remedies.

An iPNB public meeting is scheduled to take place in New York City this weekend, September 19-21. It meets Friday from 4 pm to 9 pm, Saturday from 9 am to 6 pm and Sunday 9:30 am to 3 pm. Location: the Synod House of the Cathedral of St John the Divine at Amsterdam Avenue and 110th Street. Public comment, expected to be heated, is scheduled for Friday evening and Sunday afternoon. Race and Nationality is scheduled for discussion Saturday afternoon.

." At issue is whether communities of color, who now dominate the populations of major U.S. cities, will also rise to power in Pacifica, which has traditionally been controlled by liberal and leftwing white European Americans. The struggle has split its national board and activist leadership roughly along racial lines. Pacifica Radio has acknowledged a pattern of racial discrimination".

This is patently RIDICULOUS! The issue is actually about whether the network would be setting itself up for lawsuits if the percentages of PROGRESSIVE people of color mandated by requirements in the Bylaws don't materialize. Then what? We just shove people in regardless of their political consciousness? How would that give us a better network? I suggest that people with "Power Control" chips on their shoulders get their heads out of their collective asses and look at what we really need......a radio network that truly gives us an alternative to the mainstream regardless of the color of the people doing the work. By the way.....were you at the community outreach meeting in South Central last week? The number of people so busy spouting "Requirements" that were absent at a truly groundbreaking event towards real democratic outreach was breathtaking.

>a radio network that truly gives us an alternative to the mainstream regardless of the color of the people doing the work.

"regardless of the color of the people doing the work"

Are you willing to give that same consideration to, say, a privately held corporation?

I think that Cointelpro lives; the lead article here seems clearly written by some provocateur, FBI informer, or careerist who thinks that he/she will get a cushy job as a bureaucrat at Pacifica by fanning the flames of racial and ethnic divisiveness.

Regarding Pacifica Radio:

Is it incorporated?

Is it privately or publicly owned?

Does it receive any government funding?

Regarding Pacifica Radio:

Is it incorporated?

Is it privately or publicly owned?

Does it receive any government funding?

"...a radio network that truly gives us an alternative to the mainstream regardless of the color of the people doing the work."

A white dominated radio network as opposed to the white dominated mainstream is an alternative for who?

I guess "some" kpfk supporters want alternatives to everything but white supremacy.

It's past time to turn Pacifica Radio completely over to minorities. White supremacy must end at Pacifica.

It is a lie that affirmative action has been scrapped at KPFK or Pacifica. In fact, the number of on the air hosts who are people of color had increased dramatically in the past year and a half. Hiring and admission to schools were the areas affirmative action was designed for. It was never intended to be a rigid beaucratic rule that would tell people who they were allowed to vote for or to negate the results of a democratic election. That is not affirmative action - it is authoritarianism, contempt for democracy, and an excuse not to serve the needs of the masses of people of color in southern California but to get no-work jobs in the administration for a few careerists and their cronies.

I cannot argue with much of what you say. But this statement,

"I suggest that people with "Power Control" chips on their shoulders get their heads out of their collective asses and look at what we really need......a radio network that truly gives us an alternative to the mainstream regardless of the color of the people doing the work."

reaks of racist arrogance. KPFK-Pacifica's own elitism/racism issues cannot be put aside in order to help KPFK-Pacifica put an end to society's elitism and racism.

In answer to "a few questions" I believe that Pacifica is a private Non-Profit corporation. I'm not sure if broadcasters fall under different guidelines than other types of businesses. And yes, it does recieve a small government stipend....the name of which eludes me at the moment.....but I'm sure someone will know.

I also agree that cointelpro is alive and well at Pacifica and within the movement in general....and is helped along by all the angry people who do it's work without a paycheck.

Maybe Pacifica has been run by a white elite.....but things will change faster when we stop eating our young long enough to actually do the work to make the changes.

"And yes, it does recieve a small government stipend"

Then it is required to follow federal Affirmative Action guidelines in hiring.

Proportional Representation is Affirmative Action in the Realm of Elections
By Gregory Wonderwheel

It always amazes me when people claim that proportional representation is not affirmative action. This claim arises from a confusion of the different realms in which affirmative action may be sought. The realms of employment, government contracting, school admissions, and elections are all distinct and separate realms with unique concerns regarding prevention of discrimination and the application of affirmative action. Affirmative action itself is a concept that is often confused by the failure to distinguish from affirmative action used as a preventative to discrimination or as a remedy to specific past discrimination. By confusing the different categories and applications of affirmative action some people for their own agenda use the label of affirmative action as a means to prevent understanding rather than to prevent discrimination.

In addition to misunderstanding affirmative action, making such a comment as “proportional representation is not affirmative action” shows a lack of information about proportional representation as well, because proportional representation as an election method is the essence of affirmative action in the realm of elections. What is the foundation of the premise that proportional representation is affirmative action in elections?

First, affirmative action means that action which is taken to affirm equal access and opportunity to all peoples without wrongful discrimination or prejudice based on race, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexuality, age, etc.

Douglas W. Portmore, a visiting assistant professor at the Department of Philosophy, College of Charleston, presents a definition of affirmative action in a lecture outline as part of his Philosophy 101 course: “AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Any attempt to bring about proportional representation of certain groups (those that are underrepresented due to wrongful discrimination) in positions of power, wealth, and status.”

Sources: http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/
http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/101-L14.htm

Thus the attempt to bring about proportional representation in the realm of elections (as well as in employment, college admissions, etc.) is by definition affirmative action. In elections, the winner-take-all manner of elections has been criticized because on a multi-member board 51% of the voters can determine 100% of the make up of the board. Due to this the possible diversity of boards becomes highly restricted and much less diverse. A minority of any kind who can never overcome the 50% barrier remain unrepresented. Election reform is the action that is needed to correct this problem, and the proportional representation method of voting is the reform that affirms the equality of opportunity and access for the democratic principles of representation in proportion to the interests of those represented.

For an example is this article excerpt from Christian Science Monitor, 8 August 1995, p. 18 at

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/democracy/1995-0808-csm-proportional.html

Let’s Dump Single-Member Electoral Districts
Proportional representation would ensure minorities a place in legislatures
by Andrew Reding
Proportional representation offers numerous advantages, many of which address other problems with our electoral system.
First and foremost, no significant minority is excluded. Women, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, political independents, and African-Americans can win seats without being in the majority. That cuts voter apathy. Americans have the lowest participation rates in the developed world precisely because many voters are denied a meaningful choice.

-end of excerpt-

Another example is from this article:
http://www.emory.edu/WHEEL/Archive/99Mar5/news5.html

Former Clinton appointee Guinier addresses audience in Law School
By Hervey Pean, Staff Writer,

Emphasizing the importance of true democracy and the need for people of different races to learn from one another, Lani Guinier, the former presidential nominee to the Department of Justice and first black woman to become a tenured professor at Harvard Law School (Mass.), addressed students and faculty Tuesday night in the Law School's Tull Auditorium.

Guinier, the keynote speaker for Emory's Women's History Month, presented a lecture entitled "Lift Every Voice." She said the United States should "evolve to the next level of democracy" -- into a proportional representation system. Under this system, she said, a "winner take all" situation, like in the United States today, would not occur.

-end of excerpt-

Also the excerpt form
http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/96/4.18.96/guinier.html

Lani Guinier insists she will keep challenging the status quo
By Jill Goetz

But the problems of inequity go beyond the ivory tower and into the voting booth, Guinier said.
"I think the political process in this country is seriously broken. In our winner-takes-all majority system of government, 51 percent of the people get 100 percent of the power. We may have been the first democracy, but many other countries that became democracies later have learned not from our successes but from our failures; their elections are based on proportional representation rather than majority rule," she said.
-end of excerpt-

To fully understand the role that proportional representation plays in relation to affirmative action, one can learn a lot from the anti-affirmative action writers such as Carol Iannone
writing for the National Review Online. In her article at
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-iannone062003.asp

Ms Iannone equates proportional representation with the new vision of affirmative action and calls both of them a “mistaken road.”

She writes, “But even as these various rationales were being refuted and discarded, a new and more comprehensive articulation of affirmative action was emerging into prominence. This was the diversity ideology, meaning the demand for proportional group representation in all areas of endeavor, and not just for blacks but for a whole panoply of other minority groups as well. While the concept of racial proportionality had played a key role in affirmative action from the start, namely as the only sure proof of the absence of racial discrimination, it was now touted as nothing less than the organizing principle of our whole society. In other words, instead of racial proportionality being seen as a questionable means justified by a morally good end (such as the overcoming of past discrimination) it had become the end, an apolitical good in itself.”
-end of excerpt-

Even the enemies of proportional representation recognize that the concept is the embodiment of affirmative action. Any claim that proportional representation is not affirmative action must necessarily be examined for the hidden agenda it contains as an attempt to confuse people regarding the issues at hand. The failure (whether deliberate or merely uneducated) to take into consideration that proportional representation in elections is affirmative action is a failure to understand the role of affirmative action in modern political developments as the next level of democracy. Whatever the agenda of the person making the claim, it is not in furtherance of affirmative action in the realm of elections.
-end-