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.
Socialist Churches ??
And thanks .. now I'm singing the Cheers song
This is pure managment skill.
Saying Bush sent Lott to be on BET is crazy!
Very good, nut boy! All the cowboys I know, dress like that, with feathers in their caps!
First the WH is accused of wanting Lott out of the ML position and that is probably correct. Now, why would Lott go hat in hand to BET on WH "orders" if he had no guarantee that the WH would lend it's support to kep his position? Answer; the WH had already washed its hands of Lott and did not order him to do anything. Lott went on BET on his own and as a hail Mary attempt to keep his job. The WH had NO interest in rehabilitating Lott as ML so they had NO motive to "order" him to try. I was one of the most vehement critics of how Lott was lynched but he did absolutely NOTHING to defend himself and his BET appearance reminded me of why I didn’t like or respect him before this came up.
The WH has now placed all of the real conservative judges back into play that will have a REAL effect on the Affirmative Action issue and no one has the analytical ability to see that that is far more important than joining an insignificant court case that will have no real impact on AA at all. The real political courage is that Bush has re-submitted these judicial candidates defying the liberal’s, and my, certainty that he would never dare do such a thing after Lott.
Ya know, I'm not sure what your response is so I won't take a stab at it, even if I'm facing your back.
To: FreeReign
Oh, I thought you said he stabbed us in the back when he went to BET. Did I misunderstand you?
241 posted on 01/11/2003 0:47 AM CST by aristeides [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
-------------------------------------------------------- To: aristeides
Myself, I have no idea if he had White House clearance, but the things he said on BET stabbed us in the back. 237 posted on 01/11/2003 0:45 AM CST by FreeReign (keeping everybody's feet to the fire.) [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | 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.