Posted on 01/10/2003 6:25:04 PM PST by RCW2001
By Ron Fournier
AP White House Correspondent
Friday, January 10, 2003; 8:56 PM
WASHINGTON Bush administration lawyers are laying the groundwork to oppose a University of Michigan program that gives preference to minority students, a step that would inject President Bush into the biggest affirmative action case in a generation.
Bush himself has not decided what role, if any, the administration will play in the landmark case but several officials said Friday night he is unlikely to stay on the sidelines. White House political allies are planning to intervene against the Michigan program nonetheless.
The administration officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, pointed to Bush's record in Texas and their continuing review of Clinton administration affirmative action cases as signs that the president is inclined to oppose the university's policies. Furthermore, he is likely to suggest alternatives to racial preferences that still promote diversity, officials said.
Bush is awaiting formal recommendations from Justice Department and White House lawyers before making his decision.
The Supreme Court, in its most important case this year, is expected to rule on the constitutionality of programs that gave black and Hispanic students an edge when applying to the University of Michigan and its law school.
The issue is a lightning rod both for conservative voters who back Bush and for minority voters, whom Republicans are courting.
Further complicating the White House's decision is the fallout for the GOP from the racially provocative comments that cost Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., his job as Senate majority leader. Bush denounced Lott's remarks, which were widely interpreted as nostalgia for segregation.
Siding with white students so soon after the Lott controversy could be seen as an affront to blacks.
The administration is not a party to the Michigan fight and does not have to take a position. Traditionally, however, the White House weighs in on potentially landmark cases.
Bush must decide soon. Legal briefs opposing affirmative action are due to the court Jan. 16, and briefs supporting the Michigan admissions plans are due in February.
Lawyers for political allies of the White House are drafting friend-of-the-court briefs arguing that the University of Michigan policy is unconstitutional, administration officials said.
The Justice Department is awaiting word from Bush on whether to file a brief of its own. At the least, Bush is expected to take a public stand on the matter and explain his position that racial quotas are not needed to foster diversity, officials said.
In Texas, Bush opposed racial preferences in public universities and proposed instead that students graduating in the top 10 percent of all high schools be eligible for admission. Supporters say the policy increased diversity because many schools are largely minority.
Among the cases that would bolster their argument against the University of Michigan, officials said, is a 1997 affirmative action suit that supported a white high school teacher's claim that she suffered reverse discrimination when laid off from her job. A black teacher was retained.
The Clinton administration argued that the school district's affirmative action policy went too far and could not be justified merely by the notion that a diverse teacher corps is a worthy goal.
"A simple desire to promote diversity for its own sake ... is not a permissible basis for taking race into account," the government said then.
The brief was largely written by Walter Dellinger, former head of the Office of Legal Counsel and later the Clinton administration's acting solicitor general. Administration lawyers consider at least one other Dellinger brief, a case involving a Wisconsin teacher, as further basis to argue against the University of Michigan policy.
Contacted Friday, Dellinger said the reasoning assumed that there is some role for affirmative action but noted that the tool can be wrongly used.
"The general position taken was that while the use of race is sometimes permissible in educational settings, it must be narrowly tailored and shown to advance important educational goals," he said.
In a 1995 memo analyzing the effects of a Supreme Court case over affirmative action in government contracting, the Clinton administration's Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel noted that the Supreme Court has consistently rejected racial balancing as a goal of affirmative action.
"To the extent that affirmative action is used to foster racial and ethnic diversity, the government must seek some further objective beyond the achievement of diversity itself," said the memo, largely written by Dellinger.
I'm sure all of us fail sometimes to give a courtesy ping to people tangentially involved in what we post. (I've even been asked by at least one FReeper not to ping him.)
That's exactly what this thread is about. I hope Bush does the right thing.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030109-8.html
Q Ari, will the administration be filing a brief in the Supreme Court affirmative action case?
MR. FLEISCHER: That is under review. This is something that the Department of Justice and the White House are reviewing as we speak and no decisions have been made.
Q There's only a week left, so presumably they have to be writing this now. Can you give us a little more on where you are in the process?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the deadline is a week from today. And that's a lot of time.
Q Why wouldn't you?
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I'm not indicating whether the administration will or won't, or if we do, what it might say.
Q But the signal landmark case on affirmative action in 25 years, and the U.S. government isn't going to take a position?
MR. FLEISCHER: I didn't say we would or we wouldn't. I'm just saying it's a matter that's under review, precisely because it is a landmark case and a case that's important and a case that the President, who is very sensitive to issues involving diversity and opportunity for all, wants to make sure that it's approached in a thorough and careful, deliberative manner. And so there is one week remaining on the court given deadline for when an amicus brief would have to be filed. And so it remains an issue under review.
And anyone that knows Howlin, knows she would never support Jesse Jackson .. She made a mistake and said so but yet that doesn't seem to be enough for Todd ..
At any rate, there is nothing being accomplished here on this thread, and I don't wish to hang around to be (irrationally) insulted further.
Thanks for trying to help, though. (I mean that....there is no sarcasm intended.)
Courtesy ping to TLB and Fred.
Yes, well, I have my suspicions regarding what conditions (physical and emotional) might be behind this sort of behavior - but in any case, it most certainly is a sorry way to lead one's life. People who hide behind computer screens and say things to others they would never in a million years have the guts to say to a person's face do not impress me.
First .. I have been trying to stay fair .. and if I was to take sides .. You would know it
I have been watching what has been going on for some time .. just like I watched what happen over at the other site .. and as I suggested before .. drop it
That's what I was trying to tell you earlier. Why are you being so obtuse?
I believe that he will do the right thing with regard to this decision. He is opposed to AA, and has said so recently. The point of this thread is a discussion of this issue, and that's what I came on it to say.
Good night, Todd.
If by "many of us" you mean TLB, Mertz and you then you have a skewed sense of proportion when it comes to the term "many". Yes I searched the entire thread and it was only you 3.
To: Howlin; TLBSHOW
I see that once again you have failed to criticize Jesse Jackson. I wonder why.
59 posted on 01/10/2003 9:51 PM EST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Why should I criticize him? I agree with him.
It's lying that I don't agree with. Patterson is NOT the liar on this thread.
60 posted on 01/10/2003 9:52 PM EST by Howlin (Ignore Todd Spam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
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.