First it was class warfare with tax cuts and now race warfare with jumping in on a Supreme Court case. Speaking out of both sides of your mouth trumpeting diversity and then trying to shoot down the only mechanism to achieve it currently is pathetic. It's also an embarrassment how he trumpets this stupid 10% rule in Texas which has done nothing for diversity in admissions. Affirmative Access my ass! Bush wary of race-based admissions By Mike Allen and Charles Lane THE WASHINGTON POST http://www.msnbc.com/news/859404.asp?0cv=CB10 Jan. 15 — President Bush plans to declare his opposition to University of Michigan admissions policies that give preference to black and Hispanic students, injecting the White House into the Supreme Court’s most far-reaching affirmative action case in a generation, administration officials said yesterday. THE OFFICIALS said Bush, who faces a deadline tomorrow for registering opposition with the high court, plans to pay tribute to the value of racial diversity in higher education. But he plans to argue that Michigan’s approach is flawed. The issue is politically sensitive and legally complex, and top administration aides last night were unable to provide crucial details about the brief’s legal arguments, which are still the subject of discussion by top presidential advisers. For example, it was unclear whether the brief’s praise of diversity would go so far as to assert that achieving racial diversity is so important that it justifies college admissions officials to consider race, in some fashion. “Not all the decisions have been made,” an official said. The decision could come as early as today, the official said. The aides said Bush plans to point to an “affirmative access” program he championed as governor of Texas. It guaranteed state-college admission to the top 10 percent of each high school graduating class, regardless of race. The Michigan case presents Bush with one of the thorniest political questions of his administration. The administration is eager to placate its conservative base, which generally opposes racial preferences, while also continuing to woo Hispanic voters, a growing percentage of the electorate. Meanwhile, administration officials said they were aware of the sensitivities of African American voters after the furor over remarks by Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) last month, when he praised a 1948 segregationist presidential campaign. The comments cost Lott his job as Senate Republican leader. Conservatives said they worry that a compromise brief from the administration will send an equivocal signal to the justice generally considered to hold the swing vote in the case, Sandra Day O’Connor. Generally inclined to take modest steps on the most controversial issues before the court, she could take a fudge by the administration as a cue to issue a middle-of-the-road opinion of her own, conservative activists said. SHOWDOWN OVER MICHIGAN CASE At Michigan, applicants who are “underrepresented minorities”— blacks, Latinos and Native Americans — receive a 20-point bonus on a 150-point scale used to rate aspiring undergraduates. At the law school, admissions officers strive to admit a “critical mass” of minority students, a goal that is not specifically defined, but has generally produced entering classes that are 12 percent to 20 percent minority. Conservative critics of the programs say they are tantamount to quotas, and thus violate the constitutional ban on racial discrimination by the states. Both administration officials and conservative opponents of affirmative action depicted Bush’s planned position as a political compromise forged amid intense negotiation. Justice Department lawyers, led by Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, lobbied the president hard for a brief that would categorically declare that not even diversity can justify the use of race. White House political adviser Karl Rove and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, sensitive to the need to expand the Republican base to include minorities, pushed in the other direction, the officials said. “It’s a hard brief,” an administration official said. “You can say it touches all the political bases or you can say everyone’s going to hate us anyway.” BUSH’S PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said Bush, who leaves such decisions to the Justice Department in lesser cases, had taken deep personal involvement in preparing the administration position. “It’s something the president has continued to focus on,” Fleischer said yesterday. “He’ll likely focus on it some more, and it remains a question under review.” The case’s key legal issue is whether achieving a diverse student body is such a ‘compelling interest’ that it justifies otherwise impermissible state government actions: considering college applicants’ race in deciding whom to admit. A day earlier, Fleischer said Bush “views matters of race as some of the most important, sensitive matters in our country.” He said Bush is sensitive to “giving opportunities to people from a variety of backgrounds, while also giving opportunities in a manner for one and for all in our country.” The case’s key legal issue is whether achieving a diverse student body is such a “compelling interest” that it justifies otherwise impermissible state government actions: considering college applicants’ race in deciding whom to admit. Even if diversity is “compelling,” any use of race must be “narrowly tailored” to achieve it-meaning it must do a minimum of harm to other societal and individual interests. Since the Supreme Court’s divided and ambiguous 1978 ruling in the case of University of California v. Bakke, universities have operated on the assumption that the Constitution permits them to use race as a factor in admissions, as long as they do not set rigid quotas. However, in recent years lower courts have issued contradictory rulings as to whether the Bakke case actually did establish the principle that diversity could justify using race, even as one factor among many.
Don't Go Wobbly, Mr. Bush! Take a stand against racial preferences. BY LINDA CHAVEZ Wednesday, January 8, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST Whether to go to war in Iraq is not the only major decision facing President Bush in the next several days. By Jan. 16, he must decide whether his administration will stand for colorblind equal opportunity or for politically motivated racial preferences. Briefs supporting challenges to the University of Michigan's affirmative-action admissions policies are due in the Supreme Court on that day, and the Justice Department wants to file a brief making clear that a desire for prefab "diversity" does not justify racial and ethnic discrimination. But the president himself must decide whether to let the Justice Department do the right thing. As head of the executive branch, the president is charged with seeing to it that the nation's laws are faithfully executed. I suspect that nearly all of the administration's lawyers, including Theodore Olson, the solicitor general, have concluded that the University of Michigan's use of racial and ethnic preferences, which give additional points to black and Hispanic applicants, violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and section 1981 of title 42 of the U.S. Code. In a case of this importance, it would be awkward for the federal government not to state its views. And so the next question is whether the president will put on his "political strategy" hat and decide that the administration ought not go on record as opposing the university's policies. It is no secret that Republicans generally, and President Bush in particular, hope to attract more minority voters than they have in recent elections. It is also the conventional wisdom among some Republican politicos that opposing affirmative action is a sure way to alienate such voters. But the conventional wisdom is wrong. "Affirmative action" has become an ambiguous phrase that means different things to different people. In its traditional sense, affirmative action meant nothing more than enforcing nondiscrimination laws coupled with proactive steps, such as outreach and training, to increase the pool of eligible candidates. The left understands this and shrewdly exploits the ambiguity for its own ends, insinuating that the University of Michigan uses traditional affirmative action, when in fact the university employs egregious and discriminatory double standards that treat applicants differently based on the color of their skin. When the Center for Equal Opportunity analyzed admissions records at Michigan in the mid-1990s, we found that the odds ratio favoring admission of a black applicant with identical grades and test scores to a white applicant was 174 to 1, the second largest we found at the 47 public colleges and universities we studied. The president should make clear that he supports the original meaning of affirmative action, but that he opposes the illegitimate use of racial and ethnic preferences. If he does this, he will enjoy overwhelming political support. To give just one example, a recent Washington Post/Harvard/Kaiser Family Foundation survey asked 1,709 Americans this question: "In order to give minorities more opportunity, do you believe race or ethnicity should be a factor when deciding who is hired, promoted, or admitted to college, or that hiring, promotions, and college admissions should be based strictly on merit and qualifications other than race or ethnicity?" Ninety-two percent--including 86% of African-Americans--said that decisions "should be based strictly on merit and qualifications other than race/ethnicity." There's another survey that the president ought to consider when he makes his decision. When Mr. Bush was running for re-election as governor of Texas in 1998, he filled out a candidate questionnaire sent him by the nonprofit Campaign for a Colorblind America. Next to the statement, "For the sake of obtaining a diversity of viewpoints and experiences, public educational institutions should be allowed to consider the race and ethnicity of applicants," he checked the box marked "Disagree." Then he wrote in, "I do not support race-based quotas or preferences. Public colleges and universities have an affirmative duty to offer equal opportunity to all applicants. Equal opportunity doesn't guarantee equal results--but it guarantees that every person will get a fair shot based upon their potential, heart and merit." This is not an isolated statement. When he was running for president, Mr. Bush said, "I want to end quotas, racial preferences, policies that tend to pit one group of people against another," and later, in a debate with Al Gore, he reiterated that quotas "pit one against another" and are "bad for America." This president has made his word his bond. He should live up to the commitments he has already made to end racial double standards. The Trent Lott fiasco, by the way, should make it easier, not harder, for the president to do the right thing in the Michigan cases. The president was an early and strong critic of Sen. Lott's Strom Thurmond remarks, and he has gained credibility on civil rights issues as a result. His condemnation of Mr. Lott's remarks and Michigan's policies alike are each rooted in the original, colorblind ideals of the civil-rights movement. In all events, when the president makes this decision, he should make it neither on legalistic nor political grounds, but as the nation's leader at a crucial point in American history. We are already at war against terrorism, and the president will be understandably reluctant to take any "divisive" position when he may soon be putting more young Americans in harm's way in Iraq. But if there is any lesson that we can already draw from this war, it is that America cannot survive as a nation of racial and ethnic enclaves. If the president wants to leave as his legacy an America more united than ever before, he will speak out forcefully against racial and ethnic preferences. Such preferences do indeed pit one American against another. They typically discriminate not only against WASPs, but against Asians, and Arab-Americans, and Jews, and ethnic Catholics. According to studies done by the Center for Equal Opportunity, they frequently discriminate against Latinos as well. And in many ways the group hurt most is the one supposedly most helped by preferences: African-Americans. Black students are now being told that they must be held to lower academic standards than everyone else. It is, as the president himself has declared in a memorable phrase, "the soft bigotry of low expectations," and it simply perpetuates racial stereotypes and prejudices. The root question in the Michigan case is what sort of country America ought to be. Institutionalized racial and ethnic preferences have no place in that vision. Discrimination still exists, the playing field is not completely level, but there are many and much better ways than affirmative discrimination to ensure what the president has called "affirmative access." Enforce the civil rights laws, improve K-12 education through school choice and accountability, provide financial aid to deserving students of all colors, set up special programs for students who are the first in their family to attend college, recruit far and wide for the best students of all races--but don't engage in racial and ethnic discrimination.
Yeah, like you can give tax cuts that favor the wealthy and then talk about your empathy for the poor?
No, more like saying high taxes on businesses hurts the economy as a whole. But you were close I suppose.
What we have is a person of hispanic heritage who is able to see past their own immediate self-interest and debate an argument based on principle. I applaud her.
Linda Chavez debates an argument based on principle and other people of hispanic heritage can't disagree on principle? That is such crap and incredibly insulting.
I don't think the Hopwood case was taken on by the Supreme Court, so the decision only affected the 5th District. That was my understanding anyway. I admit I haven't been paying close attention. So I could be wrong. As for the issue itself, I think we're going to see economic status playing a much larger role in college admissions decisions should the Court side against race as an admissions factor. It could achieve much the same result as race-based admissions given that, unfortunately, minorities make up a disproportionate number of poorer households. And perhaps that is a solution that we all could live with... or at least most of us.
I was at UT when Hopwood came down, it was a interesting time to be on that campus. As far as affirmative action is concerned, I believe it is a necessary evil. When you think about it, Affirmative Action is the only program, or whatever you want to call it, that tries to make up for inequalities caused by slavery, so until we can come up with a better institution, I will support it for that reason. Also, what is never mentioned in the Hopwood Case, is that it wasn't only minorities that got into the Law School with lower test grades so race isn't the only non-performance factor that goes into college admissions.
The aides said Bush plans to point to an “affirmative access” program he championed as governor of Texas. It guaranteed state-college admission to the top 10 percent of each high school graduating class, regardless of race. --------- That sounds like a merit based system. How embarassing for you to have to champion a race based system. Poor pitiful wittle me; my race is x percent of the overall population, but my race is only y percent of the school's students. Please make it easier for me to get in.....relative to those nasty people in the majority. (But Shsss! Don't talk about those Asian Americans though...because as a group, they've QUIETLY gotten to the point where their numbers as a group are almost equal to their overall college age population...AND what's worse: a larger percentage of their group makes it to graduation over that nasty white majority) How in the hell do you NOT expect to get pushback on such a ridiculous idea? Nothing, and I mean NOTHING will perpetuate racism like moronic ideas such as affirmative action. All this will do is create resentment and increase the gap in mutual understanding between the races. But maybe that's the point. Maybe playing the race card pays better than hard work. Tell me Timing, say we let more students enroll based on race over merit? If that's the case, that should generally indicate that their student ranking was lower. What happens when it comes time to grade their papers? Should there be a race-curve? What about graduation? Do they need the same amount of hours? What about after graduation.....do we take merit out of the hiring process? Oh....silly me......I already knew your answer to that one. Where does it all end?
I don't think Bush understands the issue honestly. he's talking about quotas, but Michigan didn't even use quotas. The problem I see is that African-American and Hispanic students (even when receiving the same education as white students) continue to average lower scores on standardized exams. I don't think anyone here is willing to say that ALL minorities are less intelligent (or less academically diligent) than all whites. Until we can determine the reason(s) for this trend (and remedy it), I don't think that using race as a part of the application process is wrong. Furthermore, many whites are beneficiaries of special treatment because their parent is an alumni. For many African Americans and Hispanics, they are the first persons in their families to go to college (as their parents did not have the opportunity). Now, you could remedy this by giving points for "first person in family to go to college." If you grew up in a secure home (as opposed to a crime-ridden neighborhood) where your parents were able to be actively involved in your education (as opposed having to work to put food on the table), you should have to perform better. I can easily see why an admissions board would be more impressed by someone with a good academic record who worked a job than they would be by some spoiled surburban teen with all As I will say that I think 20 points out of 150 seems excessive to me. I'd be interested to see if other groups receive similar treatment.
People have this misconception that all Asians who came to this country were poor, lived three families to one apartment, opened a convience store in a black neighborhood, and then got rich. That is a big misconception. A professor at Rice, when I get his name I will post, did a study that shows that most Asians who come over here and go to college, and as a result, their off spring continue the success, actually come from middle class homes in their home countries. On the contrary, most hispanics who come across the border because they are poor, remain poor in this country. My point being you can't compare the Asian experience to the black experience, to the Hispanic experience. Your, Pole, willingness to put us all in the same group shows your lack of understanding on these subjects.
Why do Hispanics benefit from affirmative action, yet Indians (east indians), Vietnamese and Chinese don't? I am for a colorblind and merit-based USA.
Well the Civil Rights Act said you can't discriminate on the basis of race. It didn't say you can't discriminate on the basis of having alumni parents. I pretty much agree. I don't really think it's right for someone who is less qualified to get in over someone more qualifed, for whatever reason, but colleges should have the freedom to diversify their student bodies. Well, private colleges.
A Professor at Rice? Whose name you have to look up? Puhleeez. Two seconds on the Internet brought me to this: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cup/catalog/data/023112/0231120826.HTM A book written by a prof at University of Missouri at St. Louis and sold by the Columbia press. The bio states EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what you are saying: "Although stereotypically portrayed as academic and economic achievers, Asian Americans often live in poverty, underserved by human services, undercompensated in the workforce, and subject to discrimination. Although often perceived as a single, homogenous group, there are significant differences between Asian American cultures that affect their experience." Your willingness to state as fact the findings of one Professor--whose name you have to look up--shows you have a lack of understanding in general.
Stephen Kineberg. P.S. I apologize for not being such an internet geek like you. Next time I will do better.
