posted on January 15, 2003 03:39:39 PM new
WASHINGTON -- President Bush, stepping into a major affirmative action case, asserted today that a program of racial preferences for minority applicants at the University of Michigan was "fundamentally flawed" and unconstitutional.
The program "amounts to a quota system that unfairly rewards or penalizes prospective students solely on their race," Bush said in announcing that his administration would file a legal brief in the case with the Supreme Court Thursday.
The administration's brief will narrowly apply to the Michigan program, officials said.
Bush's move drew strong criticism from Democrats and civil rights groups.
"I strongly support diversity of all kinds, including racial diversity in higher education," Bush said. But he added, "The method used by the University of Michigan to achieve this goal is fundamentally flawed."
He said that some students at the university are selected or rejected on the color of their skin. "The motivation for this administration policy may be very good, but the result is discrimination. And that discrimination is very wrong," Bush said.
He spoke in the Roosevelt Room of the White House and declined to take questions.
Bush said that "racial prejudice is a reality in our country" but that, in trying to fix the problem, "we must not use means that create another wrong."
The president said Americans should not be satisfied with the current numbers of minorities on college campuses.
"Our government must work to make college more affordable for students who come from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and because we're committed to racial justice, we must make sure that America's public schools offer a quality education to every child from every background," Bush said.
Without confirming Bush's plans, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said earlier in the day that the president was meeting today with his advisers to review the brief, which is due Thursday.
"He wants to find a way to recognize the importance of diversity, and do so in a way that serves one and all," Fleischer told reporters. "The challenge is to focus on diversity in ways that do not use quotas."
The lawsuit brought by three white students is the biggest affirmative action case in a generation, a political lightning rod as Bush struggles to increase his party's appeal to minorities. Fleischer outlined Bush's philosophy moments after announcing the president's plans to commemorate Martin Luther King's birthday and increase aid to Africa.
The university's undergraduate program awards extra points to minority candidates, while the law school uses race as one of many factors that could enhance an applicant's chances.
Key details in the brief were still being debated this morning, including whether to use the case to make a sweeping statement against racial quotas or rather stake out a more limited challenge to the Michigan program's constitutionality.
The brief is expected to highlight a university admissions program founded in Texas while Bush was governor, and affirmative action opinions by the Clinton administration that seem to support the president's views, they said.
In Texas, Bush opposed racial preferences in public universities and proposed instead that students graduating in the top 10 percent of all high schools be eligible for admission. Supporters say the policy increased diversity without making race a direct factor in admissions policies, because many high schools are made up largely of minority students.
Critics said Bush's plan was a blow to affirmative action programs that have helped minorities overcome social obstacles.
The officials said administration lawyers could argue that the university's program relies too much on race and leave open the question of whether schools could use other methods of assuring a diverse student body.
Some administration lawyers have argued that any policy based on race or ethnic status is unconstitutional and that the goal of a diverse student body is not enough to justify using race to guide admissions.
The case, the biggest issue facing the Supreme Court this year, is politically charged issue in the aftermath of Sen. Trent Lott's remarks that seemed to show nostalgia for segregation. The Mississippi lawmaker was forced to step down last month as Senate Republican leader amid harsh criticism from Bush.
The president must balance the desires of his conservative backers, who tend to staunchly oppose affirmative action, against potential fallout from the broader electorate if he is viewed as being racially insensitive.
Officials said Justice Department lawyers, led by Solicitor General Ted Olson, have argued that race should never be a factor in admissions. Some of Bush's top advisers, including political aide Karl Rove and top White House lawyer Alberto Gonzales, have sought to steer Bush toward a politically safer course, officials said.
Bush's intervention would not be a surprise. He campaigned against racial quotas and preferences in 2000 and his advisers said last week they were laying the groundwork for intervening in the Michigan case.
Administration officials said there are other state programs that promote diversity without quotas or preferences that could also serve as models.
The administration is not a party to the Michigan fight and does not have to take a position. Traditionally, however, the White House weighs in on potential landmark cases.
posted on January 16, 2003 12:41:31 AM new
IMO, it's the same thing that Ronald Reagan's administration did to move the wealth of the middle-class into the Top 1 percent of Americans. They called "Trickle Down Economics" which economists called "Voodoo Economics", as the theory would not regenerate the then ailing economy. Remember what the Republicans did about critics of "Reaganomics"? They bashed them in the media and on the floors of Congress. They pretended to make the Democrats and the American Public think that the economists were all wrong and that the Republicans had a unique plan. It was unique, alright! As proved time and again, the wealth of the middle-class that voted for Ronald Reagan twice got their money stolen from them by Reaganomics and given to the wealthiest people in the nation.
Now it's Bush's turn. America is waiting to hear exactly what Theory of Constitutional Law that he is cooking up to justify this without looking like a bunch of stupid bigots. I say, look for the Republicans to come out with a unique theory and to bash their detractors just like they did with Reaganomics.
We all suspected what the end result of Reaganomics was, but we really didn't want to believe it to be true. We all suspect what this means for minorities, so let us not be distracted from what will enevitably happen.
posted on January 16, 2003 05:28:37 AM new
Uh....I know that he has taken over the function of Congress to declare war. Does this mean he has taken over the function of the Supreme Court also now to define the constitutionality of things? Next election will he just announce his own ruling if he needs another like last time?
posted on January 16, 2003 08:17:20 AM new
In the 'you learn something new every day column': Before the Bush Administration decided it would write an opinion on this issue, I had read that the USSC requested an opinion from him. Reading further, I learned that this is something that has been done in the past. The USSC has, many times, requested the opinion of the sitting president on issues they are to hear.
President's are not required to do so when it's requested, but may if they wish.
For a while it looked like President Bush wasn't going to offer his opinion to the USSC and has waited until the submission dead line to do so.
I support a decision to stop this practice. To me there should be no mention of race on the applications. What's it needed for? And giving additional points because one isn't white is reverse discrimination imo.
posted on January 16, 2003 08:18:24 AM new
"If the Michigan university's racial preference policy was to give an extra twenty points to the white students, rather than the black students, what would that be called?"
For those of you who don't know or remember, Ward Connerly - the man who penned the petition and led this effort - is a University of California Regent who also happens to be black. A few years ago he led the Prop 209 fight to eliminate racial preferences in college admissions in California. The ballot initiative won overwhelmingly, but Ward took a lot of shots and a suffered a lot of grief in the process.
Other so-called black "leaders" of the Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton variety regularly refer to Ward as a "sell out," an "Uncle Tom" and an "Oreo" (black on the outside/white on the inside). But that's probably not the worst of it.
You see, there still ARE some white folks who harbor racial prejudice and bigotry against black folks simply because they're...well, black. There really and truly ARE some racists among us. So by championing the cause of a color-blind American society by opposing race-based quotas and preferences, Ward not only incurs the wrath of many fellow blacks, but he also advances a position held by some whites who hate him just because of the color of his skin.
That's GOT to gall him to no end.
Yet Ward marches on, doing the right thing regardless. It takes a lot of guts to swim against such a tide. But Ward Connerly doesn't quit and he doesn't back down. In fact, he's already leading a new effort in California to force the government to remove those little "race boxes" from all government forms. If only he were in Congress!
Anyway, if you have a spare moment, why not drop a short email to Ward and express your support and appreciation for this great and tireless conservative on the front lines of our movement. Send your email to: [email protected].
-----------------------------------------
So True
"Democrats will trample over a thousand poor people to throw a rock at a rich man."
- Tom Adkins, editor & publisher of "The Common Conservative"
posted on January 16, 2003 09:25:46 AM new
About those little boxes in government forms.
When I used to work for a university there was a black cabinet maker that worked in our carpenter shop. He was noted for being a curmudgen and having a quick wit for nasty replies.
When they came out and wanted us all to fill out a form so the university could measure it's diversity he filled in the box for Eskimo, and muttered something about damned foolishness.
The director knew he was no more Eskimo than he was Arab, but knowing his tongue the foreman refused to ask him about it. Said he'd probably ask if the man was dising his mother. So our physical department had an Eskimo in it's statistics.
"While it is possible to make a strong argument that race should be a qualifying component of admission (because of tangential benefits that result from a diverse class), it is impossible to make the same argument for legacy policy, since one's status as a child of an alum does not add any merit or diversity that should warrant preferential admission."
posted on January 16, 2003 12:04:41 PM new
>What's it needed for?
Look. Those of us who are for Affirmative Action are not stupid. We've listened to arguements against AA and the admisssions standards. We coldn't agree with that position more, to your utter surprize. Our reply is: not right now.
>What's it needed for?
Linda, AA is needed because of many reasons. Some of which are that from the time of the end of the Civil War in 1865, it took until the 1970's and 1980's just to get blacks and other minorities (read: Women there) into many colleges and instittuions that have always been closed to them. I mean, if it was a 7-11, who would care? But the Powerful and Eleite of this nation have had their chosen schools and have exclued all but themselves. If you don't go to this college or that, then you don't get to rise above a certain level in our society. Understand?
And not just that. Realize that after the Civil War, blacks who gained an income had to pay taxes. They paids taxes for schools that Whites enjoyed, exclusively. That happened for over one hundred years. How would YOU feel, Linda, if that had been the case with YOUR family -- just because of your skin color?
20 points? I think it ought to be 100 points! I agree that we need to continue to open up the doors of opportunity to these minorites, because we haven't given them their full due just yet. Not yet by a long shot!
And it's also not about just colleges here. States have to award contracts to businesses and once again, Afirmative Action is also there and for much the same reasons. Bob White will get the quality paving job done for $200,000. Joe Black's construction company will get it done for $150,000 and just as good a quality. Who gets the contract is supposed to be the firm who can meet the requirements at the lowest cost to the state.
Strangely, Joe Black's quality construction company never seems to get any contracts from the state. So they sue. How come, they ask? And time after time, the courts discovered: BECAUSE YOU ARE BLACK -- THAT'S WHY!
So, Afirmative Action is also there to ensure that minority owned companies get equal treatment and ALSO, to make up the practice of hiring them by helping them to get into contracts that before would never have gotten them anything.
The question is, is IF we get rid of Quotas and AA, will minorities (women as well) be able to enjoy equal access to contracts, colleges, jobs, and the like? Have a few decades already made up for over one hunderd years of discrimination? Can states, empl;oyers, and colleges be trusted now to treat all applicants fairly, or will everything backslide?
posted on January 16, 2003 12:34:19 PM new
Here's an idea:
1. assign numbers to college applications. When applicants turn in the application, they give only their address, (no name, gender or racial info), and transcripts of school performance, SAT scores, etc.
2. Judging the applicants only by their scholastic merits, the college/university chooses which will be accepted to the school.
3. Once they are accepted, the students then send their personal info to the school.
This way no discrimination by gender or race is possible. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on January 16, 2003 01:31:09 PM newit took until the 1970's and 1980's just to get blacks and other minorities (read: Women there) into many colleges and instittuions that have always been closed to them.
If I remember correctly, [it's been quite a while since I read this case] one of the plaintiffs in this case, is a woman....a white woman. So your agrument of using unfairness to women really doesn't apply in this case. She should be denied her chance of attending law school with the only reason being that she's not black so she doesn't have the same 30 point advantage. No way.
And just how long are we going to have to have reverse discrimination before those for AA feel enough is enough? Most likely never.
People from other countries, especially Asians have come to our country, not speaking our language and have excelled. They haven't been given 'special' points because of the color of their skin.
posted on January 16, 2003 01:34:40 PM new
I'd support that 100% bunni. Now why can't our decision makers see how easy it would be? A fair way...no descrimination could be claimed that way. Argument over. Merit rules.
posted on January 16, 2003 01:43:56 PM new
Some colleges now...Harvard, for example has a need-blind admission policy. In other words, they do not consider need or ability to pay when admission decisions are made and base their decision on scholastic achievement alone.
That's similar to your suggestion regarding race, bunnicula. Giving every applicant a number with no name or photo until the decision is made.
Unfortunately, this policy would negatively affect the minority population in this country because they would be at a disadvantage competing with white students scholastically.
posted on January 16, 2003 02:49:52 PM new Unfortunately, this policy would negatively affect the minority population in this country because they would be at a disadvantage competing with white students scholastically.
But isn't college admissions for the scholastically superior, period? There are alot of colleges out. There is a simple fix: GO TO THE ONE YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR!
It hasn't affected the Aisan population....
Hasn't affected the Irish population...
Hasn't affected the Jewish population...
Which doctor would you rather having operating on you or your loved ones. One who got into college because of their superior scholastic and community merit...or one who had failed the SAT(perfect score: 12 points) and if they hadn't gotten that 20 points would be pumping gas.
.................................................
We call them our heroes...but we pay them like chumps
[ edited by mlecher on Jan 16, 2003 02:51 PM ]
posted on January 16, 2003 03:01:21 PM new
People from disadvantaged backgrounds can catch up with the white majority if given a chance. It's that simple, mlecher.
We have failed the black population. You know that.
posted on January 16, 2003 03:21:10 PM new
Helen - I believe that mlecher was using the #12 as an example of that being the 'extra' points on the admission total [compared to the 20 points one is given for being black]....not the SAT score.
posted on January 16, 2003 07:09:59 PM new
Descrimination is wrong. So is reverse-descrimination. While blacks in this country were sitting in the back of the bus, my ancestors were being fired up in Hitler's ovens. Should my kids also receive preferential treatment? My family had absolutely nothing to do with any ill treatment of blacks, during the Civil War, the 1950s, or ever. Why should I or my kids pay the bill?
If it is a matter of encouraging low-income students, I'm all for it. But not based on race. Enrolling, hiring, or promoting because of race is wrong. Not even with the best of intentions.
posted on January 16, 2003 09:24:11 PM new
>If I remember correctly, [it's been quite a while since I read this case] one of the plaintiffs in this case, is a woman....a white woman. So your agrument of using unfairness to women really doesn't apply in this case.
You're just not getting it, Linda. One case does not make an adequate example. Women have not been denied most colleges in this country. I should say, White Women. Since Afirmative Action has been in place, women of ALL colors and minority status can now get into what was once all-male schools.
Afirmative Action applies not just to colleges, but to many areas of public society that have previously been closed to blacks, women and other minorities. If AA is ruled Unconstituional, then you'll be rolling back much more than just school admissions: there's a lot of places where it applies.
This school law suit is a model case for the Republican Bigots. It's hard to argue with the logic. But any White Make that thinks that he's being unfairly discriminated against needs a good laughing at: we've been doing that to everyone since our nation was founded! You don't like it just because it's happening to you! Imagine how THEY felt for that time period!
But I digress. The problem is that Bigotry is not gone forom this ocountry. We still have powerful Senators who hold powerful positions in government that still wish for "The Good Ole Days" aka Trent Lott, Bob Barr, and other KKK Nazis. When will it be time to lift the equalizing agent of AA? When people like Trent Lott are not tolerated in our society; when people like Bob Barr aren't being voted into public office; when Fairness has a much better chance of succeeding on its own.
Sorry. Too many Bogots in the GOP, and yes, in the Democrats as well! And in Industry. And in Housing. And in School Admissions. And so on down a very long list.
Just think: when AA is gone, so will be lawsuits for woemn wanting "equal access" to anything! You're just shoving women back into the kitchen -- which is where they want you. If you can't see that, then there's no further point in trying to explain this to you and you need to go talk to a college professor about it.
posted on January 16, 2003 09:29:06 PM new
>While blacks in this country were sitting in the back of the bus, my ancestors were being fired up in Hitler's ovens. Should my kids also receive preferential treatment?
No.
Because WE didn't do it -- WE don't OWE you anything!
AND
YOUR people weren't the only ones rounded up and killed by the Germans! MINE were too! You DON'T hear ME making a lot of noise about it, though!
>My family had absolutely nothing to do with any ill treatment of blacks, during the Civil War, the 1950s, or ever. Why should I or my kids pay the bill?
Neither did mine.
In fact, we fought in the Civil War (and died in battle too) to free the Black Slaves.
But that battle still isn't over. We are STILL having to make payments of sorts to them. We STILL OWE THEM!
What? Your family wasn't here? But they are now? If they don't like it, maybe they should move back to Germany to avoid living in this Land of the Free and helping us pay for the mistakes of our ancestors -- and the idiots of today as well, don't you think? Right?
posted on January 16, 2003 10:23:48 PM new
This is where I disagree with you. We "owe" them nothing. No one alive now has ever been a slave--nor owned one. And laws are now in place that forbid discrimination on the basis of race or gender--and any who are caught breaking those laws pay for it.
By your reasoning women (of all colors) "deserve" to have ascendency over men (of all colors) because until this century we were under the thumbs of men, at their beck & call, subject to their whims, capable of owning nothing in our own rights--even our children weren't considered ours but rather our husbands'. How about it? Isn't it now only "fair" that women make all the laws? Hold all public offices? Be permitted to beat their husbands? Make higher wages? Should men even be allowed to vote--after all we couldn't, in this country, until 1920... Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on January 17, 2003 12:05:25 AM new
[quote]Just think: when AA is gone, so will be lawsuits for woemn wanting "equal access" to anything![/quote]
Borillar, you keep missing the obvious point. There is a world of difference between "equality" and preferential treatment. Your argument is so full of holes that it is like a sieve. The only thing it has going for it is that familiar ring of pseudo-liberality.
Since you seem to have misunderstood my last post, I will restate it in simple(r) terms: My family had nothing to do with oppression of blacks. (In fact, they got much worse treatment.) There is no reason I should participate in any compensation for people I never wronged.
If disadvantaged children score lower on college entrance exams, then we should ALL participate in improving the high schools and middle schools so that every child gets a good college preparation. That does not mean that anyone should gain entrance to university, or a job promotion, or membership to a private club, based on their race.
As a culture made up entirely of immigrants, we struggle daily to embrace the universal nature of mankind. Promoting one race at the expense of another goes against everything we stand for as Americans. EVEN WITH THE BEST OF INTENTIONS.
It's really very simple. Descrimination is wrong. Promoting whites over blacks is wrong. Promoting blacks over whites is wrong. They're both wrong. Something the knee-jerk, apologist liberals haven't figured out yet.
posted on January 17, 2003 12:09:33 AM new
bunni, I agree with you, but you are wrong. This is not about personal wrongdoing, but about Shame and culpability on our parts. We didn't ask for these parts, but they are ours. We didn't ask to be born White, but we are. If that's not fair, then get used to it -- life isn't fair.
As for me, I personally have never done anything that discriminated against anyone due to race, color, creed, etc. It didn't take an Amendment to make me do it or any rules in a progam to force me to act like a civilized human being. That's just the way that I am.
Further, as I pointed out to twinsoft, on one side of my family, we've been here since the 1500's and were farmers in Virginia and then West Virginia. When the Civil War came, we were mostly in the North digging coal. Coming from an oppressed people (Irish), our family has always been against slavery that I've ever heard of in our history. We fought and died in the Civil War to make all people Free in this country as the US Constitution states.
Do I owe black people a thing -- personally speaking? Wouldn't most people say that I'm actually OWED by black people for the sacifices of my ancestors to help their ancestors? I say: I'm guilty because we haven't finished making reparations and I, and every other White American still owes. Not because of what each of us individually have done, but collectively what has been done as a race. It is a COMMON BURDEN that we share, not a personal one. Capice'?
And Bigotry isn't dead. We still have KKK and now also Nazis, no longer running around neighborhooods and terrorizing folks and hanging them in the middle of the night for getting 'uppidy', but behind closed doors. Doors closed to minorities and they get their help from elected bigots. And for each purposeful discriminatory act that they take, it just puts all of us further into the hole. And all that they need is to make their discrimination legal again to push forth their beliefs of a superior White Race in so many little, but important and personally devastating ways.
Women won't be exempted either.
No, FIRST you get rid of all of the Backwards Bigots. And get rid of all of those White people crying about how the shoe now feels on the other foot. If we walk in their shoes and feel the discrimination for the next hundred years, it will be little enough pennance on our part.
Are we going to have to put up with reverse discrimination? Yes! We've only been at Afirmative Action for 30 years or so, while they experienced over a hundred years of freedom with discrimination. We STILL have AT LEAST another 70 years or so to go before we can lift our heads and cry foul!
posted on January 17, 2003 12:16:40 AM new
twinsoft, read my post above. If you are all so certain that if we eliminate Airmative Action programs that everything will be hunky-dory, are you willing to die for that belief? I mean, if proved wrong, would you be willing to take your opwn life in shame for being wrong? If not, then don't try to sacrifice other's lives, simply because you personally haven't done anything wrong. Recall, that not ALL Germans were Nazis and not ALL Germans were for the killing of Jews and other minorities. But recall that ALL were made responsible! Ask any German from Germany what I mean. They would be able to understand.
So. We can eliminate the programs that help minorities, because:
a) There is no more bigotry in America
b) We've given enough -- the Playing Field is now level everywhere
c) Just because those laws will no longer force them to treat people equially, we can trust the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazis in America to behave and not do wrong things like discriminate.
posted on January 17, 2003 12:30:42 AM new
Bush is correct in observing that there are other (color-neutral) ways to help blacks or other disadvantaged kids.
Take, for example, CA governor Gray Davis' new budget plan for our schools. Currently, the poorest schools are funded by the state. The richest schools receive a minimum of state help: The majority of their funding comes from local property taxes. So the richest communities enjoy the richest schools. I came from one such high school in Palo Alto. Funding per student was second only to Beverly Hills High.
Gov. Davis' new plan would skim much of the local property tax and redistribute it more evenly throughout the state. Of course the locals are up in arms over it. To me, Davis' plan is a fair, color-blind solution. (In fact, I said so in this forum, a year ago.)
I would add that fancy manicured lawns and tennis courts do not make a school any better. Dedicated teachers and supportive parents are far more important. Bottom line, students must study if they want to make the grade. Nobody can do that for them. The problems of racial inequality (which do still exist) won't be solved by giving a handful of kids a free ride. It will only help assuage white guilt.
