Ellis Henican Newsday January 17, 2003 "To those of you who received honors, awards, and distinctions, I say, well done. And to the C students, I say you too can be president of the United States." - George W. Bush, Yale commencement address, 33 years after graduation He was a C student at Phillips Andover. He got a not-so-stellar 1206 on his SATs - 566 verbal, 640 math. That was a full 180 points below the median score for the Yale University class of '68. But boola-boola for him! In the fall of 1964, George W. Bush was welcomed inside Yale's ivy-covered walls as a "legacy admittee." And why not? The wisecracking Texas teen had something far more powerful than dumb ol' test scores or silly grades. He had a father, George H.W. Bush, who was a rich and prominent Yale alum. And a grandfather, too. Prescott S. Bush, the aristocratic Connecticut senator, was even a Yale trustee. A merit decision by a highly selective admissions committee? Not even close. If this wasn't affirmative action, nothing is. Affirmative action for rich, white kids whose daddy and granddaddy also went to Yale. And of course, this particular unlevel playing field denied a place to some higher-scoring, harder-working student who made a single, tragic mistake - not being born as well as the Bushes. Tough luck for him or her. But wait! Wasn't that just the kind of squeezed-out student that now-President Bush was supposedly speaking for last night when his Justice Department filed a brief with the Supreme Court challenging the affirmative-action program at the University of Michigan? First, Bush inaccurately derided the Michigan plan as "quotas." Then he got all moralistic, saying that giving a leg up to black or Latino applicants is "divisive, unfair and impossible to square with the Constitution." That kind of system, he complained, "unfairly rewards or penalizes prospective students." It's unfair? Unfair like being ushered into the Ivy League by Poppy and Gramps? Unfair like getting into Yale with a 1206 and Cs? Unfair like having an entire educational career - and much of a professional life - delivered by rich-boy affirmative action? And in W's case, the special boosts didn't begin or end with the admissions committee at Yale. Had the future president's name been, say, "Arbusto" instead of Bush, would he even have made it as far as Andover, the tony prep school that was also up to its crinkled nose in Bushes? At Andover, Bush never got his name on the honor roll, even one term. The published record shows that on his very first essay assignment, the future president's grade was zero. "Disgraceful," the teacher ! wrote in bright red ink. With a prep-school record this sad, his college counselor suggested, maybe he ought consider applying to a safety school in case things didn't work out at Yale. Bush chose the University of Texas. But he never had to fall back on Austin, the Bush name packed such a wallop at Yale. And once classes started in New Haven, this third-generation Yalie continued not to impress academically. Oh, his easy manner won him plenty of friends on campus. He was active in his fraternity, rising eventually to president. He made the cheerleading squad and the super-secret Skull and Bones society. But there is little evidence he did much book-cracking along the way. Freshman year, his grades put him in the 21st percentile of his class, meaning four-fifths of his classmates did better than the Future Leader of the Free World. And in the years that followed, young W never pulled his average above a C. His college transcript, in an eye-popping leak to The New Yorker magazine, showed a 73 in Introduction to the American Political System and a 71 in Introduction to International Relations, to cite two examples that could mean something in hindsight. Now, none of this is any cause for shame. Lots of people do poorly in college and succeed grandly in life. And a crucial lesson was obviously learned. The playing field is never level, whatever people say. Just make sure the tilt is your way. As it was for George W. Bush. His own family-sponsored affirmative-action plan kept pulling through. Despite the Yale grades, he was accepted at the Harvard Business School. Despite repeated business failures, cronies of his father's kept bailing him out. His big-jackpot investment, the Texas Rangers baseball team, was pretty much a gift from pals of his dad. And the rest, as they say in the Ivy League, is Bush family history. You don't think some black kid in Michigan would have a problem with that? Copyright 2003, Newsday, Inc
Don't apologize Icehouse, Bush's hypocrisy on this topic is perfectly valid as a stand-alone thread, imo. The opportunities afforded the elite are so conspicuous, you have to wonder about the sincerity of conservatives. I have always been cognizant of the privileges I've had as a white man in this culture. Since I know that every white person on this website has heard horrible things said to them about African Americans, things said to them by their associates, oftentimes in positions of power... I have to wonder why those same people are not convinced that there is more to be done. ps, so why did Bush oppose affirmative action and then pledge money for historical black colleges? I don't understand the leap. He solidifies his base, yet invests in schools in which students segregate themselves for personal comfort. Affirmative action is supposedly wrong, but he still practices affirmative action by just giving hush money to blacks at these other schools. Let's assume that Bush isn't a hypocritical **** b/c of his past at Yale. What is the idea? Conservatives are always talking about accountability in education, why select out specific schools to 'bring up' or whatever he's trying to do. And you've offered, Icehouse, that many of these schools are competitive, that they don't need to be 'brung up'. Explain it to me like I'm a four year old (and sober). What's the point? What are the legalities? What is the tone?
Hasn't Bush been on the record as saying he's for helping poor students? If racism is bad, then it's bad. There are all sorts of considerations that are used to admit students. If you are a legacy, essays, extra-curricular participation, how good you are at football... The problem with race-based admissions is that's its racist and society says that's wrong. Also, if you are going to admit based on race then all races should be considered....Asian, Hispanic, African, Indian, Middle-Eastern. UM said that race based admissions were to promote diversity but do they give you extra points for being Asian or Indian?
I find this to be laughable. Bush gets into Yale because he's a legacy. Now him being against affirmative action makes him a hypocrite? Had Bush gotten into Yale because he was white on a government mandated program and then opposed affirmative action, THAT would make him a hypocrite. I'm pretty sure that Bush would be ok with it when a wealthy minority kid's daddy gets him into a high profile college. I didn't hear Bush crying out for reform in the educational system when James Earl Jones bought his son into Vassar. Before you call somebody a hypocrite...look up the definition of the word.
i appreciate your views on this...i think you're right on in many respects...i certainly benefitted from the area i grew up in...teh area afforded to me by my father's hard work...but aren't we comparing extremes here? do you think all white people have the advantages that bush had? how is it relevant to real affirmative action debate? i'm white, and i can assure you i wasn't a legacy anywhere. i grew up in a pretty nice neighborhood, but i didn't have one friend who got into college because of who his daddy was...certainly there were advantages to growing up in that neighborhood and attending the public schools around there that others in different areas didn't have...but there were just as many screwups there too, who didn't take grades or tests a bit seriously, and didn't get into college because of it. i do like your use of denzel's quote from "philadelphia," though...great movie!
The more I've thought about it, the more my view on affirmative action as it applies to college admissions has changed. To me, if a college has a standard for admission based solely on academics and test scores for, let's say, 80% of the students they admit, it doesn't bother me if race is used as an admissions criterion for that remaining 20% of students who are admitted who don't meet the admission standard along with things such as where the student is from, the student's socioeconmic background, whether the student is a legacy (I suppose since both my parents went to Baylor, that would've helped me go there. Of course, I met their regular admissions standards, too. I just didn't want to go there), extracurriculars, and so on. It just seems to me that if we're looking at a group to admit that doesn't meet the academic requirements, it doesn't seem that bad to have race be one of the factors. I certainly see (and respect) the other side of this because that's how I've traditionally seen it. But I do think that college admissions opportunities are not yet equal among the races based on factors such as economics, the short history of African-Americans being allowed to attend college in larger numbers (though it really hasn't been that long since large numbers of people attended college. My grandparents never even considered going to college), factors having to do with secondary education, and so on. But maybe I'm a hypocrite since I didn't benefit from lowered admissions standards (and didn't get in to my first choice of colleges) and am now advocating them.
great posts by all. 111chase111, the funds directed towards "hbc", if that's the accurate acronym (I never really figured out what it means Icehouse, so allow my guess... but I could have sworn you had a v in there too ) seem to be specific targets towards the black community. I'm not sure that Bush is directing funds towards other poor, as Icehouse likes to call them 'white', or as I like to call them 'no-theme', schools. I don't know the protocol for UM's admissions policy. In related conversations, I have heard it argued that Asians, etc. haven't needed directed affirmative action b/c they weren't systematically brought over by the millions in an oppressive state. I find that relatively convincing. I, as mrpaige hinted at previously, would probably be more comfortable with a socioeconomically correlated affirmative action. Perhaps, eg, if you eat dirt, you should get a +2 on your high school gpa. If you eat ramen you should get a +1 (permit my weak attempt at humor). Refman, I think it's a fair criticism that C students admitted into the best schools b/c of a familial advantage are probably not the best advocates of the conservative's argument here. A guy like Clinton could have argued this point... but not someone w/ Bush's camelot c.v. I think, his approachability aside (disarming as it is), his history only furthers the case for affirmative action. 'Hypocrite' might not be the best word for it, but it sets the atmosphere. MadMax, I see many of your points. As somebody from a place where racism was a pdh until South Carolinians came to grips with the schock of Clinton's election, I am horrified by the realities of race in the deep south (Texas isn't really in the south ). In my own family, I have gone from routinely hearing racist jokes to hearing about how members of my family have 'black friends' (it's a long road to recovery). These are the people (mom's side of the family) that are still honest with me b/c they saw zits on my face a few years back, and wiped by bum of poo years before that. Granted, I have heard far worse and far better from many South Carolinians, but I tend to think of my mom's family as the normal South Carolinian. If I assume these are typically good people, I wonder about the far reaching effects of their habits. Hell... of all of our habits. I am wary of the ability of all of us to inadvertently prolong the inequities through our otherwise benign acts. Remember Major's horrific post? Imagine that a 100x over from each of us just doing the things that people do. I have routinely gotten my friends great jobs. For whatever reason (perhaps b/c of hbcs ) many of my friends happened to be white (and philipino/chinese/indian/and sprinkled w/ african americans), but many of them were white. I am afraid that so much of this stuff is benign... (so much to say, when I think about the taxbase inequities for school districts I get more discouraged). mrpaige, I think your post says it all. I'd add, w/ histrionics, that if affirmative action is not going to be there, then we should do away w/ athletics and legacy issues (I don't even understand legacy silliness; then again, I haven't attended Harvard yet ). In all seriousness, schools are money making enterprises... they routinely give favor to people of privilege. If we're still going to celebrate Camelot, I don't see any reason why we can't help a group of historically disadvantaged people too.
I did. The only thing that was listed was a picture of George W. Bush. The phrase "compassionate conservatism" is a lesson in hypocracy all in itself!
2 things. 1) I'm never going to get into Harvard/Oxford if I can't use benign in the right context... I meant to say "seemingly" benign. 2) everybody go out and buy the Shins cd.
The 'legacy admittee' is not about affirmative action, it's about the schools "history and culture" [whatever that means] and, more importantly, about fundraising. Legacy attendees and their families are more likely to contribute cash to the school. In the same way a good football program means more athletic revenue and more alumni revenue resulting in athletes being given scholarships while scholars are not, the legacy attendee helps raise contributions too. It's about the Benjamins. An ugly truth. If only they didn't have to pay those pesky professors, and operating costs, they could be much more 'fair.' I happen to be in favour of some affirmative action in school admittance, and am very much not a supporter of most of Bush's policies -- but I don't see a connection here.
The connection is pretty simple. How can a guy who got into a college simply through legacy, be against someone being helped by affirmative action? How can you say it should be based on performance when you didn't get in on performance? Why is affirmative action wrong, and legacy Okay? BTW, you do make a good argument for legacy, even in higher education, the money counts.
Bush slithered in through one side door -- one based on fundraising --- and he's trying to close a different side door --- one based on social goals. I see where neither student necessary passes the pure grade admittance standard, but I am making a distinction between the legacy and athlete (admittance’s that contribute to the schools cash flow) and the other admittance’s criteria that are not economically based. I've come to accept that economics plays a factor. Personally, I'd rather the science wiz received a scholarship over the quarterback, but I accept it won't happen. I'm not defending Bush here. I'm just saying I think the connection in this article is loaded and weak. Affirmative action is a valid issue in its own right.
AA and legacy admittance policies are both discrimatory. Favoring one discrimatory policy over another is hypocritical.
Yeah but IMHO, they are both neccessary evils. Schools like Yale and Harvard couldn't survive without Alumni support. On the other hand, I think if it takes Affirmative Action to diversify a school, so be it. I bet a guy like Bush would have benefited as a person by going to school with minorities who weren't of born into elite Families. Do you remember one of the key missteps George Herbert Bush made when he was running for re election? Remember in that debate the young black lady asking Bush, basically, how can he relate to her? He couldn't answer the question. It killed him, not just because he couldn't answer the question, but he really couldn't relate. How many black people from middle class families do you think either of the George Bushes know. How many middle class minorities get to network with people from families like the Bushes. I think both sides benefit from Affirmative Action. That's just me.
I'm not so sure I agree with that. Legacy admittance nourishes familial traditions across multiple generations with a particular school. Often, successful Alumni will make contributions to their Alma Mater, and that familial tradition would certainly be an encouragement to that practice. School's legacy admittance policies are mostly grounded in this very real economic factor. It has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with money.....one would expect that money would help improve the school. I don't think you can compare the two, but seeing as you're gonna do it anyway, my response would be: get rid of legacy points for admissions. If it means we never have to listen to another argument for the discriminatory practice called Affirmative Action, I'm all for it.
A black kid and a white kid can both benefit from legacy admittance. Only one can benefit from AA. I'm for AA, by the way.
