How to slice the county’s contract pie more fairly

As pie charts go, this one was particularly lopsided.

It appea red on t h is n e ws pa p e r ’s web si t e Wednesday accompanying a story about the racial disparity in the awarding of contracts by Shelby County government.

To no sur prise, 88. 3 percent of the pie is being gobbled up by businesses owned by white men, according to a $310,000 disparity study commissioned by the county. African-American businesses, whether owned by men or women, account for a paltry 5.8 percent of the pie, while the slice consumed by white women-owned firms is just 5.15 percent.

The slivers going to Hispanic, Asian and Nat ive A mer ic a n- ow ned businesses are barely visible on the chart, accounting for less than threefourths of 1 percent.

In raw dolla rs, businesses owned by white men raked in $168.2 million of the $190. 5 million in contracts awarded by the county during a threeyear period that ended in 2014.

U.S. census figures for roughly the same time period show that white men made up 19.8 percent of the county’s population, compared to 20.7 percent for white women, 24 percent for black men and 28 percent for black women.

All of which means the county pie is pretty darn tasty for the 19.8 percenters.

This is not meant to disparage any racial group or, as one person posted at the bottom of Wednesday’s story, to engage in race -ba it i ng, whatever t hat means. Historica l advantages are the way of the world.

But if we are ever going to get serious about real economic development that touches all parts of the county, and if we really want to start fighting our way out of abject poverty, we must start by opening the door of opportunity to hardworking and capable business owners who are merely looking for a fair chance to compete.

After all, that is what the study was about in the first place. It was commissioned to determine if a statistica l disparity exists in the awarding of Shelby County’s contracts “to ready, willing and able market area” minority and women business owners.

The obvious conclusion is that it does, and — like it or not — that spells discrimination.

When county government tried to address the issue more than 20 years ago, courts determined t h at t he remedy t he county intended to use amounted to racial quotas.

Since then, little if anything has been done to increase the number of minority and women contractors getting county business.

Former county commissioner Mike Ritz said it best in 2014: “This county has a terrible history on this subject.”

The way to a lter that history is to, among other things, expand the list of local businesses that are qua li fied to get county jobs. Then develop new g uideli nes t hat make it

less of a hassle, in time a nd expense, for minority companies to qualify for county contracts.

Owners of minority firms have complained in the past about the cumbersome process that is required to become a county contractor. Most are relegated to going after subcontracting work that is far less lucrative.

But honestly, the best remedy has less to do with regulations and specs and charts and graphs, and more to do with a paradigm shift away from the notion that minorities are less capable of doing the work. It also means resisting the temptation of going back, time after time, to those familiar non-minority companies that have always gotten the job.

Yes, I am talking about benign racism or implicit bias, both of which, let’s face it, still very much exist.

With the results of this disparity study, perhaps county leaders now have what they need to address this problem without running afoul of the courts.

Perhaps in the future, the slices of pie will be more equitable.