October 4, 2026
By Stephen Stofka
Each generation inherits what it perceives as the mistakes of past generations. Each generation must counter error with error as it tries to resolve those issues. This week I want to explore the well intentioned harm we cause future generations.
Bearing the Burden
Each generation inherits a moral, economic and political burden. For the Boomer Generation, a pressing issue was white discrimination and violence against blacks. In the southern states, black residents suffered lynchings, false accusations of rape and trials before all-white juries. So-called Jim Crow laws made it very difficult if not impossible for black citizens to vote. During the cold war between the Soviet Union and the United States, that discrimination became a liability in the propaganda war and the conduct of foreign policy.
Soviet leaders often used that plainly visible discrimination to win the sympathies of people in the newly independent nations of Africa and Asia. American officials were acutely aware that Soviet propaganda was exploiting race discrimination to ridicule American pretensions to civic freedom and democracy. The Soviet campaign worked. A 1957 survey by the U.S. Information agency found that foreign opinion of U.S. race relations was broadly negative (Source).
Southern Democrats in the Senate routinely blocked any national reforms that would challenge the political hegemony that white citizens enjoyed in the southern states. When the Eisenhower Administration proposed a strong civil rights measure in 1957, southern Democrats weakened the final legislation. That the measure was not defeated entirely was due to the efforts of Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson. He helped craft a compromise to overcome filibustering by Democrats, particularly Strom Thurmond who talked for over 24 hours on the Senate floor (Source).
In 1960, Johnson was on the Presidential ticket with JFK. After the assassination of JFK in 1963, Lyndon Johnson assumed the Presidency and took steps to pass civil rights legislation that JFK had promised but could not deliver. As a former Senate Majority leader and Senator from Texas, Johnson understood southern opposition. He was practiced at the strong-arm political tactics necessary to pass contentious legislation. He employed both is power as President and those tactics to get the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed.
A century long problem was solved, or so many advocates hoped. I have often said that we engage with the world through our errors and this time was no different. The passage of the act began a decades long Southern realignment of political parties. Many Democratic voters in the southern states switched their allegiance to the Republican party. Today, what was a solid blue voting block in the South is solid red (Source).
Prior to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, employment discrimination against Blacks was normalized, particularly in the South. Blacks were given the lowest of manual jobs and were paid lower wages despite similar skills. Through executive orders, both JFK and Johnson introduced affirmative action practices to promote equal opportunity for minority employment among federal contractors and firms working on state and local projects partially funded with federal dollar (Source).
What is equal opportunity? In the mid-60s in New York City, the racial composition of affected firms was supposed to approximate population ratios found in the 1960 census. In 1968, Mayor John Lindsay issued an executive order that required all city contractors to approximate those ratios (Source). Thus began several decades of quotas in hiring and in college admissions. A discrimination problem was countered by another discrimination program.
Weren’t quotas themselves a violation of the 14th Amendment? In several key decisions beginning in 1978, the Supreme Court applied a strict scrutiny standard to race-conscious policies that affected college admissions, ruling that an applicant’s race must be one of several factors. It can not be the deciding factor. The blind use of quotas was unconstitutional. A college or employer might have goals of a more balanced student body or workforce. This presumed that a diversity of backgrounds and experiences would benefit the firm or institution. In 2023, the Court further limited such policies when it ruled that a college applicant’s race was pertinent only to their life experience.
Housing
Throughout the country, the practice of redlining restricted or denied financial services to black residents (Source). For most of the nation’s history, the Democratic Party has been the home of hostile bigotry and prejudice. During the 1930s, under FDR, the federal Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) created residential security maps for hundreds of American cities to guide underwriting risks. Neighborhoods were divided into four categories. Homes in green and blue were considered safe risks. Those in yellow areas signaled a greater degree of vigilance to mortgage underwriters. Home in red areas were seen as not safe. Often the residents were black or newly arrived immigrants. Individual circumstances did not matter. Only the neighborhood you lived in. Those with white skin could move out of the neighborhood as their prospects improved. Those with black skin were imprisoned within invisible barriers that made it difficult or expensive to get loans, or affordable car, home and life insurance.
In 1968, a week after the assassination of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Johnson signed the Fair Housing Act into law. The term affirmative action was not associated with housing policy, but federal housing agencies were directed to administer their programs in a way that “affirmatively furthers fair housing” (Source). Developers of federally subsidizing housing developments were required to proactively seek a population balance through affirmative marketing (Source – pdf).
Agencies employed several financial tools designed to aid low income minority households without specifically excluding white families. These included tax credits and lower interest rates on their mortgages. But wait, if affordable home loans were only made available to minority families, wasn’t that also discrimination? In a 2015 decision, the Court reiterated the principle that specific racial targets and quotas were unconstitutional.
Once again, government policies have been adopted which correct one error with another. It is interesting that the Fair Housing Act of 1968 introduced some discriminatory policies meant to remedy the sins of earlier federal policies.
Changing Sensibilities
With the passing of generations, sensibilities change. What was acceptable a hundred years ago may offend people of the current generation. Likewise, what is acceptable today might offend the sensibilities of past generations. Civil War battles were an occasion for civilians to picnic on the sidelines, an amusement that might horrify people today. On the other hand, imagine a woman dressed in tee shirt and shorts at that same picnic. Certainly, some of those at the picnic would try to cover her up while soldiers fell on the battlefield. Former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer has pointed out the folly of so called originalist interpretations of the Constitution. Many particulars, the burdens and amusements of life, change with the passing of generations.
Next week I want to explore these changing perceptions of error in different generations. I hope to see you next week.
////////////////////////
Photo by Tamara Gak on Unsplash
