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."