White House torn over affirmative action case

usatoday ^ | 1/8/2003 | Joan Biskupic

[TLBSHOW]

WASHINGTON

[TLBSHOW]

Where White House officials stand on the issue

Key players in the debate over what position the Bush administration should take in the Michigan case that challenges racial preferences in college admissions: President Bush: Publicly he has not indicated where he would come down. He has rejected "quotas that tend to pit one group of people against another" but has said he is not against "policies that give people a helping hand so they can help themselves."

Attorney General John Ashcroft: As a senator from Missouri, he opposed government programs that gave minorities a boost in public contracting and otherwise accorded benefits based on a person's race. But during his Senate confirmation hearings for attorney general, he tried to soften that stance.

White House counsel Alberto Gonzales: A son of migrant farm workers who made his way through Harvard law school, he has spoken favorably about affirmative action. But he keeps his views close to the vest and, as a potential candidate for the next U.S. Supreme Court vacancy, might not want to be seen as a strong advocate on either side.

Solicitor General Theodore Olson: In private practice, he vigorously (and successfully) challenged affirmative action at the University of Texas and spoke out against racial preferences.

Karl Rove: The president's political adviser has not publicly touted an opinion on affirmative action. He likely is considering the pitfalls of Bush taking a position on the issue: If the president embraces affirmative action, it is sure to anger his conservative supporters. But if Bush doesn't, he could alienate voters in the nation's rapidly growing Hispanic population

[AntiGuv]

How about standing on principle over politics?

[optimistically_conservative]

Bush needs to side with the students, and go further, all preferences for legacy, athletics, etc. should be done away with.

No extra points for legacy, athletics don't count for any more than another significant extra curricular activity, and if preference points are awarded they should be for state residents at state schools and for economic aid - but the grades need to be good enough to get in to start with.

[TLBSHOW]

BTTT

[TLBSHOW]

In cases without such political ramifications, Olson controls the government's position. If it were up to him, the government likely would side with the students who say Michigan's policies violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws. As a private lawyer in the mid-1990s, he successfully challenged affirmative action at the University of Texas.

Olson, like other key officials, would not comment on the dispute. If Bush backs Michigan, there is a chance Olson would not sign the brief. Government lawyers speculate that Olson would not risk undermining his credibility with the high court by signing onto a position he does not support.

[shrinkermd]

White House, this is not the time to be clever and calculating. You have two problems.

First, on a mathematical basis there is no justification for advocating one race over another. Indeed, identity politics is not compatible with a society based on individual rights and obligations. Fostering this by encouraging "affirmative action" is destructive to the essential Republican belief of "an equal chance at the starting gate (Lincoln)"

Second, encouraging affirmative action is going against the interests of your base. There is really no justification for affirmative action other than a Rawlsian belief that equity of outcome is a requirement of a "just" society.

IMHO, the beginning of the end of the Dubya Administration begins when he affirms affirmative action.

[TLBSHOW]

He could do what he normally does and say nothing.

[TLBSHOW]

on this issue.

When asked about it he checks no comment.

[optimistically_conservative]

If Bush backs Michigan, there is a chance Olson would not sign the brief.

Good for him. Preferences should not be race based, period. If the universities, especially public, want to provide preferences and the White House is looking for a political win, then make the preferences based on secondary schools. Someone who excels at a low performing/failing school system (No child left behind) in the state should receive preferential treatment by the university, and most already have grade "equalization" curves for the different schools prospective students apply from. In filing on behalf of the students, that point can be made - underpriveledged may benefit different ethnic groups, but the policy should be blind to which groups those are as the demographics and economics in the country change.

[TLBSHOW]

Topic: George W. Bush
Where does George W. Bush stand on affirmative action?

Campaign For a Colorblind America

The Campaign For a Colorblind America (www.equalrights.com) asked George W. Bush to answer the following questions:

In his answer, to each of these questions, Gov. George W. Bush checked "No Opinion."

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a36e138b1462f.htm

[TLBSHOW]

FYI

[Mo1]

PLEASE SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[TLBSHOW]

If Bush cannot bring himself to support ballot initiatives that abolish government preferences, then his stated opposition to preferences is thin gruel.

Michelle Malkin

[Happy2BMe]

Sorry, but it all comes down to ONE WORD: VOTES

Prediction: Bush will buckle.

Reason: By 2010 20% of eligible voters will be Mexican-Americans.

[aynrandfreak]

If it all came down to votes then why did he come out against affirmative action in one of the 2000 debates?

[TLBSHOW]

How about standing on principle over politics?


2 posted on 01/10/2003 1:33 AM EST by AntiGuv

[Happy2BMe]

"If it all came down to votes then why did he come out against affirmative action in one of the 2000 debates?"

Bush has until the 16th to give the nod on which corner he wants to turn on this.

By his inaction on closing the illegal immigration flood from Mexico (a huge source of and influence on voters), he has largely spoken to the issue.

Answer: VOTES

[Happy2BMe]

"How about standing on principle over politics?"

I'll be surprised if he doesn't support the minority rights side of the issue.

He didn't get to be the "head polititian" by falling on his sword every time he had to draw it.

It's just a political reality far too many of us are not prepared to face.... sorry 'bout that.

[TLBSHOW]

In a week we will.