Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

President has wrong school in cross hairs
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 01/29/03 | Cynthia Tucker

Posted on 01/29/2003 8:55:33 AM PST by optimistically_conservative

If President Bush wanted to attack quotas in college admissions, he should have started with the U.S. Military Academy, which the federal government operates. Unlike the University of Michigan, West Point has an actual numerical goal for the number of black students admitted to its ranks.

And while they don't use numerical targets, the Naval Academy and the Air Force Academy also employ affirmative action policies in their admissions.

So why didn't Bush denounce the service academies instead of going after the University of Michigan, which doesn't use quotas? After all, the president is commander-in-chief, and the service academies fall under his authority.

Could it be that the president knew he would have run into opposition from military officers who defend affirmative action at the service academies?

According to The New York Times, a group of distinguished retired military officers is preparing a legal brief supporting Michigan's affirmative action policies.

The military officers have entered the fray because they understand that an adverse Supreme Court ruling in the Michigan case could also force the service academies to dismantle their affirmative action programs.

The service academies use the same logic to defend their use of affirmative action in admissions that other major colleges and universities use: They want a diverse student body that reflects the nation.

"We like to represent the society we come from. . . . " Col. Michael L. Jones, dean of admissions at West Point, told the Times. "We want people to understand the society they will defend."

Each year, West Point aims for a class that is 10 to 12 percent African-American but ends up, despite its affirmative action policies, with only 7 to 9 percent African-American representation, Jones said.

The service academies have an additional reason for supporting diversity in admissions: With enlisted military ranks disproportionately dependent on racial minorities -- from an Air Force whose enlisted personnel are 28 percent minority to an Army with 44 percent -- an all-white officer corps would hurt morale, military experts say.

President Bush and other conservatives often offer the U.S. military forces as an excellent example of integration in America, suggesting that diversity in the officer corps has come about through individual accomplishment alone. But that's just not true. Without affirmative action, the services academies would be quite white.

And Colin Powell would not have had the chance for the advancement that led to his eventual post as secretary of state.

At one point in the late 1970s, Powell had been overlooked for a promotion to brigadier general. Clifford Alexander, then secretary of the Army, held up the promotions list, ordering the General Officer Board to take a second look for black officers who were unfairly passed over.

The second time, the list included Powell's name, as well as other black colonels. Without Alexander's affirmative effort, Powell's career may have been stalled.

Even conservatives don't dare suggest the military is putting unqualified officers of color in command positions; Bush probably didn't intend to open a debate over affirmative action at the service academies. He just wanted to score some cheap and easy political points with his ultraconservative base.

But demagoguery on racial issues can come back to haunt you, as Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue has discovered. He lambasted the vote that exiled the old state flag with its prominent Confederate battle emblem because he needed the votes of the state's "fergit, hell" crowd.

Now, however, the flag controversy threatens to dog him throughout his term in office.

In similar fashion, the president may find that the debate over affirmative action in college admissions takes him places he didn't intend to go -- such as West Point.

Cynthia Tucker is the editorial page editor. Her column appears Wednesdays and Sundays.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: academies; affirmativeaction; diversity; military; racism
It seems obvious that the Bush administration didn't go after the Academies because they were not in front of the Supreme Court.

A win against Michigan U. will change the policies at the Academies, which I see as a good thing.

Also, Tucker should look at the promotion policies in the services and how race/photographs are used (or not) during board selection and then afterward to check racial balance.

I'm amazed that she can fabricate a situation and comparison that has no basis in the reality of the situation bringing this administration into the race debate - and then claim Bush chose betweeen U. Michigan and the Academies.

1 posted on 01/29/2003 8:55:33 AM PST by optimistically_conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
Bush probably didn't intend to open a debate over affirmative action at the service academies. He just wanted to score some cheap and easy political points with his ultraconservative base.

Actually, Cynthia, he was having his Solicitor General submit a brief regarding a case before the Supreme Court - or would you have Ted Olson engage in the sublime idiocy of submitting a brief for a non-existent case?

At one point in the late 1970s, Powell had been overlooked for a promotion to brigadier general. Clifford Alexander, then secretary of the Army, held up the promotions list, ordering the General Officer Board to take a second look for black officers who were unfairly passed over.

Unfairly, Cynthia, unfairly, just as it is unfair to pass over more-qualified white or asian students by giving minorities twenty points just for skin color.

Tucker is a poster child for the pitfalls of affirmative action.

2 posted on 01/29/2003 9:02:48 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
The woman who wrote this is a complete moron. Bush didn't "attack" anything. He joined a case that somebody else brought -- that's all he could do. Since no one has sued the service academies, he couldn't "attack" them. How do morons like this get columns, anyway?
3 posted on 01/29/2003 9:04:20 AM PST by lady lawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: lady lawyer
Oh, wait. I just looked at the original web page, with a picture of the columnist, and answered my own question. No wonder she loves affirmative action.
5 posted on 01/29/2003 9:06:13 AM PST by lady lawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gcochran
Probably because he wants to see what the Supreme Court says about the constitutionality of affirmative action before he acts.
6 posted on 01/29/2003 9:07:08 AM PST by lady lawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
When I was in the service (20 years ago), pictures were used in promotion boards. Even worse, I buckled under and shaved my moustache both times I updated my files, because it was a big no-no to have facial hair on your file photo.

I would be willing to bet that photos are still used in promotion boards. Besides, they already know what race you are. All that stuff's in the file.

7 posted on 01/29/2003 9:08:46 AM PST by Night Hides Not
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lady lawyer
How do morons like this get columns, anyway?

Affirmative Action.

8 posted on 01/29/2003 9:09:35 AM PST by EggsAckley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
I am going to open a big can of worms here and will probably be flamed for it.

One reason that the Army has a larger percentage of minorities is that they have lower standards on the ASVAB test scores and looser regs on requiring candidates to have a high school diploma.
9 posted on 01/29/2003 9:14:16 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lady lawyer
The "Cynthia Tucker" alert is missing from the head of this page.
10 posted on 01/29/2003 9:15:16 AM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
I am going to open a big can of worms here and will probably be flamed for it.

No flames needed, this is merely a fact. It is also a fact that minorities tend to underachieve in these tests, and academically as well. Cultural problems I suspect, since I am a member of a minority group, but not part of the urban subculture, and I scored considerably higher than average in all my test scores...

I dont think we should be afraid to bring things up like this. Your post brings up some great points.

11 posted on 01/29/2003 9:23:42 AM PST by Paradox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
Cynthia Tucker outed herself as an unrepentant, unaccountable liar in an op-ed piece earlier this month:

Cynthia Tucker Versus Byron York: Who Is Telling The Truth?

Her opinions are nothing but unsubstantiated fabrications.

12 posted on 01/29/2003 9:24:54 AM PST by an amused spectator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcochran
Being in the military, having taught at USMA, and planning to go back ... I am now totally confused.

Are minorities under-represented in the military, and that's a bad thing, because it shows racism in recruitment, retention and promotion?

Or are minorities over-represented in the military, and that's a bad thing, because it shows racism in our policies by putting them at greater risk fighting our wars to protect rich white kids?

I've found the military to be the least racist organization around. My friends and my children's friends have been from all different cultures - among fellow military families and civilian families in our host country when stationed overseas.

From my point of view, Tucker's article demonstrates the hypocrisy and moral vacuousness of the racial preference/affirmative action/diversity argument today.

BTW, the President can not change the admission policy at the service academies any time he wants - but the SCOTUS decision might.

For more information on the racial makeup of the military see:
http://dod.mil/prhome/poprep2000/html/faqs/faqs.htm#Q-5
13 posted on 01/29/2003 9:25:38 AM PST by optimistically_conservative (France: the only country in the world that has a fill-in-the-blank surrender document on the 'ne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
>>It seems obvious that the Bush administration didn't go after the Academies because they were not in front of the Supreme Court. <<

I was noticing that just a few sentences in. He asked why Bush wasn't going for the military schools and gives a bunch of whiney reasons. And I said to myself, "no, you silly little man. He doesn't go after them because their policy is not before the supreme court."

Once the author made that laughable comment, there was no reason to read on, other than comic relief.

14 posted on 01/29/2003 9:27:32 AM PST by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: optimistically_conservative
Are minorities under-represented in the military, and that's a bad thing, because it shows racism in recruitment, retention and promotion?

Or are minorities over-represented in the military, and that's a bad thing, because it shows racism in our policies by putting them at greater risk fighting our wars to protect rich white kids?

Knowing Cynthia, she'd probably twist those two otherwise contradictory statements into a claim that Bush supports affirmative action if it leads to more blacks getting killed...

16 posted on 01/29/2003 9:51:39 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: gcochran
That is a very pragmatic reply.

Unfornately, my response is probably closer to a rant.

The problem is the African-American Affirmative Action Liberal Left politics will lead to increasing isolationism and exclusion of blacks from the debate on the future of the country.

With each generation removed from the 1960's Civil Rights movement, these preference/protectionist policies will ring more hollow and be resented by whites and asians that are hurt by them.

If affirmative action is expanded to benefit blacks and latinos, the slavery/segregation argument is lost, which further undercuts the moral "payback" basis of AA.

Currently, the argument is white America is racist against anyone not white and diversity is an honorable goal. But implementing diversity based on skin color decisions is unconstitutional. White "racism" today is no longer institutionalized or codified, and in fact even the perception of racism is prosecutable. Demographics are shrinking the "non-minority" white status. And now some are making the argument that racial discrimination against white and asian Americans is institutionalized and codified.

Culturally, Latinos, Asians and Whites are seeing a black culture that is not promoting academic achievement, but instead criticizing "acting white" and successful African-Americans as "Uncle Toms," "living in the master's house," and "Judases." While at the same time communities are increasingly segregated with urban whites and minorities languishing and suburban whites and minorities flourishing.

[/rant]

I don't see Tucker helping, but instead dragging us down.
17 posted on 01/29/2003 10:26:34 AM PST by optimistically_conservative (France: the only country in the world that has a fill-in-the-blank surrender document on the 'ne)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
Does anybody know whether the service academies award points for ethnicity, as does UM? To my mind, 'targets' don't neccesarily have to morph into quotas, but awarding points for skin color is a clear violation of the 14th Amdmt.
18 posted on 01/29/2003 1:52:32 PM PST by xlib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xlib
From National Review Online's Corner:

LAST REFUGE [John J. Miller] When the defenders of racial preferences find themselves on the ropes, they often point to the military--something many of them must hate to do--as an exemplar of affirmative action. That's what the New York Times does today in a story on how racial preferences affect admissions to the service academies: "Even as the Bush administration sides with opponents of affirmative action at the University of Michigan, officials of the nation's service academies say their own minority admissions programs are necessary to maintain both integrated student bodies and officer corps." What the articles doesn't supply are any actual numbers showing how much preference minority applicants receive. For that, it's necessary to read this report from the Center for Equal Opportunity, which shows that preferences do appear to play a role in admissions--but not nearly the role they play at the University of Michigan, whose admissions process is currently under Supreme Court review. At West Point, for instance, CEO found a 100-point gap between the SAT scores of whites and blacks admitted. At Michigan, that's the difference between whites and blacks on the verbal section alone. Posted at 05:39 AM

LAST REFUGE, PT. 2 [John J. Miller] Here's the jawdropping difference between admissions at West Point and Michigan, according to the CEO reports. If two students with equal test scores and grades applied to West Point, and the school had only one spot to award them, it would be almost twice as likely to choose a black applicant over a white one. At Michigan, however, the school would be almost 174 times more likely to choose the black applicant. The fact of the matter is that West Point and the other service academies employ racial preferences, but not nearly on the same scale as this country's top public universities. The defenders of Michigan's race-driven policies obscure the debate when they try to hide behind West Point. Posted at 05:49 AM


Just as a parenthetical, this also indicates that Cynthia doesn't have an original thought in her head. She rehashes very tired old arguments.
19 posted on 01/29/2003 2:03:02 PM PST by AmishDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: optimistically_conservative
Excellent points.

What the NewsBimbo ignores is that the military academies have a wierd blend of admissions - with applicants competing based on various different considerations - INCLUDING obtaining a Congressional Appointment.

A Congressional appointment can be "given" to 1 individual, and that person gets to go to the school if he/she meets the minimums for entry. Or the Senator/Congresscritter can nominate 10 - with the school choosing the most qualified appliant. And I strongly suspect that the difference is SAT scores between minorities chosen and whites/Asians selected is much smaller or non-existant as compared to Univ. Of Michigan.

The service academies might be considered to have thousands of highly qualified applicants - and if they choose to bypass a white with a combined SAT of 1350 in favor of a minority with a combined SAT of 1345 ... how can anyone complain about the choice. The problem is when (like at Univ. of Michagan), a student with a SAT of 1350 is turned away while a minority with a SAT of 1100 is admitted. That just plain sucks!!! And it is very harmful, because the graduation rates of minority admissions where the students don't meet standards is much worse ... and as Thomas Sowell points out - you do harm to individual minority student by setting them up for failure. A majority of minority students who get a "pass" on academics will often fail to complete college - ANYWHERE. Those students not given a "pass" might go to a lower tier school - AND THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL. Only a KKK-type (like a liberal Democrat) would intentionally set-up minorities for failure!!.

And the service academies try to pick for success ... and they DON'T coddle anyone!

Mike

20 posted on 01/30/2003 9:32:09 AM PST by Vineyard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson