Closed-Door Policy The Supreme Court's refusal to hear a set-aside case deals a blow to affirmative action.

In the latest blow against minority- and women-owned businessset-aside programs, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review aPhiladelphia law setting aside one-fourth of the city's publicworks contracts for businesses owned by women or minorityentrepreneurs.

By refusing to hear the case in February, the Supreme Courtupheld a judge's 1995 ruling that the city's set-aside lawshould be struck down because it was "motivated by racial andgender politics." Indirectly, the court also took another steptoward eliminating similar programs nationwide, as many othercities were closely watching the Philadelphia case to determinewhether their own set-aside programs could survive.

In fact, Philadelphia's struggle mirrors the dilemma facingmany areas across the country. "The city alleged it wasnecessary to remedy prior discriminatory exclusion of such firms,when in reality there were very few minority- and female-ownedfirms that were qualified to do the work," says Jack Widman,the attorney who represented the Contractors Association of EasternPennsylvania in the case filed against the city of Philadelphia in1989. "There is a real-life problem of discrimination, andthere has been one for hundreds of years. I would be the first toacknowledge those problems and the devastating effect they'vehad. But you don't remedy the absence of qualified minoritycontractors by requiring 25 percent participation. That polarizessociety because the nonminority contractors are suddenly told theycan't compete for 25 percent of the work because of who theyare. And it impedes the development of legitimate minoritycontractors because there's no competitive pressure for them tolearn the business. All the money taxpayers spent to enforce thisprogram created the very result the program was trying to avoid:the continued absence of qualified minority and femalecontractors."

Yet Carole Robinson, owner of Robins Industrial & BuildingSupplies Inc. in Philadelphia, says minority and womenentrepreneurs are suffering as a result of the decision. Since anexecutive order from the mayor two years ago barred the city fromenforcing its set-aside program, Robinson has seen many of herpeers close their doors. "It's just status quo,"Robinson says of the Supreme Court's lack of action.

Robinson agrees with Widman on one point: that for all the legalturmoil, the basic problem has not been resolved. "There arefewer and fewer businesses that are able to sustain themselveswithout affirmative action," she says. "This willcontinue to be a challenge nationwide."

Whether the effects of the Philadelphia case will indeed createa ripple effect across the country remains to be seen. ErwinChemerinsky, professor of constitutional law at the University ofSouthern California Law School in Los Angeles, says, "It'shard to read much into a denial of review. It simply means thereweren't four votes to hear the case and could mean the justiceswere waiting for another case or wanted to focus on otherthings."

Chances are, however, that the denial is not an aberration onthe part of the Supreme Court. "This is a court," notesChemerinksy, "that has been consistently hostile toaffirmative action programs and has in fact invalidated everyaffirmative action program that's been before it in recentyears." Considering the court's stance--and the refusal ofminority and women-owned businesses to back down from their needfor set-aside programs--this sticky issue is clearly far fromover.

Young And The Restless

Contest honors rising stars.

These kids nowadays. Not content to veg out on MTV and hang outat the mall like their '80s predecessors, a growing number oftoday's young adults are taking a more drastic, alternativeroute to combating teen angst--they're starting their ownbusinesses.

Granted, succeeding in business provides more tangiblesatisfaction than progressing to a new level on a video game."There's an art to it," says Steven Todd, an18-year-old who started ST Hay Investments in Ojai, California, twoyears ago. "It's all about how you create your business,how you run it, and how you treat your customers."

Todd, the winner of the 1997 Outstanding High SchoolEntrepreneur Contest sponsored by Johnson & Wales University,acknowledges that this drive sets him apart from the mediaportrayal of teens, which, he says, tends to publicize gangs."When you're our age," he says, "people put youin a particular class."

In reality, life for this high school entrepreneur, who buys andsells livestock hay, is sort of like a campy John Hughes teenmovie. "I go to school with a lot of preppies, and show upwith hay in the back of my truck," says Todd. "Even theprincipal laughs. But I feel it's their loss. They just gohome, and I'm building something."

The underdog phenomenon isn't anything new to those who dareto cross a new border in business ownership. When Gertrude Johnsonand Mary Wales started their Providence, Rhode Island, school in1914 with seven secretarial students, many considered theentrepreneurial women an aberration rather than pioneers."They probably had a tougher time, simply because itwasn't `the thing to do,' " says Daniel Viveiros, aJohnson & Wales professor of business who's been involvedin the high school entrepreneur contest since it started six yearsago. "Now it's more accepted for younger people to go intobusiness. There's been more exposure to the benefits ofentrepreneurship in the past few years, which stimulates theirinterest."

This new generation of entrepreneurs, says Viveiros, "ismore independent, more free-spirited, more creative. The businessideas are getting better. They're always looking for anangle."

And, like Johnson and Wales before him, Todd and the other sevencontest finalists are always looking for the opportunity to breakdown barriers. "I hope a lot of kids follow in ourfootsteps," Todd says, "and that the number ofentrepreneurs doubles or triples."

Contact Sources

Robins Industrial & Building Supplies Inc., (215)877-2252