Why is Bush doing this?

[Kilmer17]

I agree with him, but it seems like a bad idea politically speaking. Chances are the SCOTUS was going to overturn the policy anyway, so what does he gain by delivering a friend of the court brief?

This may be asking too much, but can we keep this thread to a dsicussion on Bush's action rather than one on the issue itself? Another thread perhaps.

President Bush yesterday delivered a sharp blow to the use of racial preferences in higher education, declaring that two affirmative action methods used to make it easier for minority students to enter one of the nation's leading public universities are "divisive, unfair and impossible to square with the Constitution."

Bush offered his most explicit articulation of his views on affirmative action, a major social policy tool that he had largely skirted since his presidential campaign. Reiterating his oft-stated assertion that he supports "diversity of all kinds," he went on to say, "the method used by the University of Michigan to achieve this important goal is fundamentally flawed."

In deciding to take sides in the most important affirmative action case to come before the Supreme Court in a quarter-century, administration officials said the legal brief they will file today is "narrowly tailored" to condemn racial preference policies at the University of Michigan. But legal scholars across the spectrum said the argument outlined by the White House last night essentially offered a potent justification for dismantling the use of affirmative action nationwide.

In a seven-minute statement delivered from the White House late in the afternoon, Bush himself sidestepped a major issue -- whether the administration would go beyond criticism of the Michigan program to mount a full-scale assault against affirmative action in all government-funded institutions.

An administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said later that the administration's brief will not explicitly address whether diversity on campuses is such a "compelling government interest" that it justifies any admissions policies that rely on racial preferences. Nor will it address the 1978 University of California v. Bakke case, the last major test of affirmative action in academia, in which a divided court set current precedent allowing race to be taken into account in university admissions.

But the official made clear the administration's belief that race should not be directly considered in admissions. Instead, the official said, universities should consider "race-neutral" factors, such as socioeconomic background and geography, that could have the effect of benefiting racial minorities.

The official, who briefed reporters last night, said that Michigan's programs are unconstitutional because "they do not consider a race-neutral alternative first. . . . What the president has said is, we need to try, if at all possible, to promote the broadest amount of diversity without taking race into account."

The decision that Bush announced carries enormous legal implications, if the Supreme Court agrees, and political ripple effects regardless. It has the potential to affect the makeup of college campuses at a time when minorities account for an increasing share of the nation's young people.

Politically, the issue forced the administration to confront two powerful and competing goals: its desire to satisfy its conservative ideological allies and its aspiration to widen the GOP's popularity among Hispanic and black voters a year before Bush faces reelection.

The racial sensitivities inherent in the issue come at a particularly awkward time for the Republican Party, just a month after Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) was deposed as Senate majority leader because of remarks that appeared to endorse a segregationist presidential candidacy a half-century ago.

The decision by the White House ends wrangling within the administration that began a month ago, when the Supreme Court said it would take up the Michigan case. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, who once argued against a Texas program similar to Michigan's, was eager to take a strong position, but others, including White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, argued for restraint to avoid offending the fast-growing Hispanic population. White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr., Bush political adviser Karl Rove and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice -- a former provost of Stanford University -- participated in the deliberations, as did Bush.

Bush's announcement triggered an immediate political firestorm. Many conservatives, who had feared the administration's position might prove half-hearted, praised Bush's remarks, but Democrats and civil rights groups representatives lashed out hard.

Among the Democrats who pounced with criticism were several lawmakers who have announced their presidential aspirations, the most pointed from Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), a Michigan law school graduate who said he plans to file his own brief in the case to support his alma mater's policies.

Civil rights groups all condemned the administration's position. "If President's Bush's stance prevails, it will mean that campuses across the nation will have a less diverse student population," said Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the nation's oldest such coalition. "I don't think there's a Latino organization in the country that sides with what the president did today," said Manuel Mirabal, chairman of the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, a coalition of 40 civil rights and public policy organizations. Mirabal was one of a handful of Hispanic leaders who met early yesterday with Gonzales -- and came away with the impression that their support for affirmative action might still influence the administration's thinking.

In laying out his rationale, Bush said, "At their core, the Michigan policies amount to a quota system that unfairly rewards or penalizes prospective students based solely on their race." And he said that race counts more heavily than test scores as admissions officers determine which high school seniors to accept.

University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman swiftly issued a statement, saying "It is unfortunate that the president misunderstands how our admissions process work," and rebuffing the White House's characterization of its policies as quotas.

The campuses uses a method in undergraduate admissions that give 20 extra points, on a scale of 150, to students who belong to a minority group or are socioeconomically disadvantaged. Coleman said the system gives relatively little weight to test scores because grades are considered far more important. At its law school, Michigan set a loose target for enrolling a critical mass of minority students, roughly 10 percent to 12 percent.

While the University of Michigan admissions plans differ on some details from those at other schools, their overall approach of considering race in evaluating applicants makes it similar to admissions plans employed at virtually every selective university in the country. The main exceptions are in several states in which race-conscious admissions policies have been struck down.

A few conservatives said they were disappointed the president did not oppose affirmative action more frontally. "It appears he is not going to address the central question before the court and that it is a disappointment," said Edward Blum of the American Civil Rights Institute.

But many conservative legal scholars said Bush had found a politically palatable way of taking their side without saying that diversity is not a "compelling interest" of government. "It's very heartening," said Curt Levey, director of legal affairs at the Center for Individual Rights, the group that has represented the white students in the Michigan case applauded Bush's action. The administration comes "as close to saying you can't use race as one can come without explicitly saying it."

Constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein, a former Reagan official who opposes affirmative action, said the fact that Bush does not explicitly call for overturning the Bakke decision is "a semantic game" and "P.R." because Bush's position would have the same effect. "This is going to be a revolution of the landscape out there."

[gbear]

IS he acting based on polls? On polls of registered Republicans?

The thing is, I can see how he could read a public opinion poll and then come out against it.

I also think you are right though about it being a bad political move at this time. I think the people who feel strongly as he does probably already vote for him. I suspect this, the tax cut that doesn't directly benefit the poor, and Lotts comments have the potential to really get out the minority vote which could hurt not just him but his whole party come election time.

I know nobody on here belives this, but could it also be a way of continueing the Southern campaign approach? I know nobody here believes the Republican party does anything to pay off the "racist" segment of the South for voting for them. But that's one way to spin this.

Personally, I think he's doing it because it's what he believes. I don't even know that I disagree with him. However, I think it might be a bonehead political decision since the Supreme Court will probably rule in his favor without his brief. It's just him spending political capital where he doesn't need to. As a Dem, I'm okay with that.

[Art]

Kilmer,

The answer is simple. Bush is defining himself. This is what won the mid-term election for Republicans. Actually standing for something resonated with voters. They didn't know what Democrats stood for except that everything the other guy said was somehow bad.

It is crucial for the leader of a country to be capable of expressing leadership on various issues. This is one of them. In delivering his friend of the court brief, Bush highlighted his views. He continues to define the party in his image and that has been successful. Unlike Clinton, Bush doesn't appear to lead by popularity poll. He leads by fundamental belief. Some of his belief disturbs me. I do not like some of the things he has done and has tried to do. But, he's out front and takes a position. This has connected with voters, even as his popularity takes a slide, they continue to "trust" him and believe he has integrity, whether he does or not.

I believe this also happens to be a popular position in this country. I imagine, though I have no real idea, that well over 60 percent of people would support an end to affirmative action. And while this type of firm stance may cost the Republicans black votes, or the votes of guilty white liberals, the fact is, we've already lost those.

The Dems got 92 percent of the black vote. We're not going to lose because of that. Bush is clearly targeting a different segment with this position. And, while it may be a false belief I hold, I do believe this is a popular, majority view at this time.

[Kilmer17]

Art, I totally agree with you. My point was that everyone already knows his position on this issue and the court was going to rule that way with or without his brief.

This will not influence the Justices decision.

It will not affect those not voting for him anyway

It MAY affect those who are on the fence.

Just the politico in me that says their was no reason to do this. If it cant help, it can only hurt.

[fansince62]

a little moral courage never hurts....

it is a problematic issue.......diversity is the new password for racial preferences.....well, that might indeed have beneficial consequences dependnig on one's point-of-view...but it doesn't square well with all the laws on the books vis discrimination and the avowed goal of social equality........at least I assume that discrimination is a concept that applies to everyone, regardless of color.....

[redman]

I agree with Art. I think Bush is offended by racism in all its forms, and no matter what "good motives" it's supposed to achieve. Affirmative action is a form of racism, however justified or useful one may think it is because it distributes benefits to people purely on the basis of their race, and because it costs others opportunities that they'd normally enjoy because they are not the "right race". In essence it fights fire with fire, something which in this context is untenable.

It's obvious to most reasonable people - on the left and on the right - that Bush has no political reason for doing this. I think in the long run that will garner him the respect even of his political opponents.

[codeorama]

For the most part, I dislike Bush and where he came from (his background) but I agree with his stance here. If you are against "racism", than how can you feel that it is ok to allow for affirmative action. I'm curious as to how it will affect his reelection campaign. As of now, I can't say if I would vote for him or not, It depends on who runs against him and how I feel about them. But I know for a fact that many black Americans will not vote for him for this reason alone.

[fansince62]

code....90% of African Americans won't vote for Bush anyway - and his strategists know this. the republican electoral strategy doesn't rely upon this segment of the population.

[redman]

What's funny here is that there are in fact a larger number of blacks who are against most forms of affirmative action - i.e. lowering of standards and quotas - than is typically talked about. I think it's as many as 25%-30%. You'll note that that's even larger than the percentage of blacks who are registered as and who vote for Republican candidates.

This is the part of the debate the media seems to omit, apparently assuming that "all blacks think alike", which is both inaccurate and insulting to blacks.

Again, I think Bush comes from the school of thought that holds that he should do what he thinks is right rather than doing what he thinks is politically expedient.

[Kilmer17]

A funny argument I just heard on Hannity. He was destroying some race monger and asked this question.

"If 2 kids apply to the same school and 1 has higher grades and tests scores but the other is of a more preferable race, which should be offered the spot?"

The guy fell right into the obvious trap and stated the kid with a lower test score.

Hannity then lowered the boom and explained that this was the case (cant remember the names) that lead to the original inclusion of race as a factor. Because it was a black student with the higher grades that was denied the admission.

Classic stuff. The racemonger then went on a rant about slavery and lynching and how whites owed blacks billions of dollars.

[fansince62]

let's move outside the realm of the university admissions process and consider another venue. no one can seriously argue that much mobility in our economic system depends on "who you know". the term used in HR classes, I believe, is "networking". if you're sitting in the ghetto or are part of the underclass - your chances of networking are twofold: slim and none. how does one account for such structural inequities? is there a role for government?

[redman]

Originally posted by fansince62

let's move outside the realm of the university admissions process and consider another venue. no one can seriously argue that much mobility in our economic system depends on "who you know". the term used in HR classes, I believe, is "networking". if you're sitting in the ghetto or are part of the underclass - your chances of networking are twofold: slim and none. how does one account for such structural inequities? is there a role for government?

I don't know about you, but most of my networking was done in the university realm.

However, how do you determine who is best able to raise themselves up via their hard work and talent such that networking could pay off for them? Not by race, but by grades and academic achievement.

[RiggoDrill]

But the official made clear the administration's belief that race should not be directly considered in admissions. Instead, the official said, universities should consider "race-neutral" factors, such as socioeconomic background and geography, that could have the effect of benefiting racial minorities.

If this is TRULY the position of the administration, then I actually agree with them.

To me, promotion based upon race is divisive and results in token progress: a few kids from racial minorities go to college, while the rest languish in poverty. Meanwhile, the poor whites are left out, and begin to hate the minorities, etc. etc.

Tha doesn't sound like progress towards racial harmony to me.

However, I firmly believe in social promotion -- the presence of a public education system gave my poor, immigrant father the chance to work his arse off, get into Princeton, graduate with honors, and get his PhD from Yale.

I believe, as the official states, that there are "race-neutral factors, such as socioeconomic background" that would, if earnestly implemented, actually result in far more persons from racial minorities being admitted.

[fansince62]

redman......i agree...and my contention is that most of these kids don't have a chance of even getting to that educational starting line.......i see no contradiction in color-blind admissions at the university level but color conscious allocation of public funds at the secondary and primary level - the structural inequities are so pronounced and the social benefits so clear that this is a compelling case for government (state, federal or local) sponsored "engineering"..........I think no one on this board will debate that all Americans deserve an equal opportunity. and that opportunity is fundamentally dependent upon education.