Posted on 01/15/2003 2:03:50 PM PST by PhiKapMom
Remarks by the President on the Michigan Affirmative Action Case
The Roosevelt Room
4:30 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon. The Supreme Court will soon hear arguments in a case about admission policies and student diversity in public universities. I strongly support diversity of all kinds, including racial diversity in higher education. But the method used by the University of Michigan to achieve this important goal is fundamentally flawed.
At their core, the Michigan policies amount to a quota system that unfairly rewards or penalizes perspective students, based solely on their race. So, tomorrow my administration will file a brief with the court arguing that the University of Michigan's admissions policies, which award students a significant number of extra points based solely on their race, and establishes numerical targets for incoming minority students, are unconstitutional.
Our Constitution makes it clear that people of all races must be treated equally under the law. Yet we know that our society has not fully achieved that ideal. Racial prejudice is a reality in America. It hurts many of our citizens. As a nation, as a government, as individuals, we must be vigilant in responding to prejudice wherever we find it. Yet, as we work to address the wrong of racial prejudice, we must not use means that create another wrong, and thus perpetuate our divisions.
America is a diverse country, racially, economically, and ethnically. And our institutions of higher education should reflect our diversity. A college education should teach respect and understanding and goodwill. And these values are strengthened when students live and learn with people from many backgrounds. Yet quota systems that use race to include or exclude people from higher education and the opportunities it offers are divisive, unfair and impossible to square with the Constitution.
In the programs under review by the Supreme Court, the University of Michigan has established an admissions process based on race. At the undergraduate level, African American students and some Hispanic students and Native American students receive 20 points out of a maximum of 150, not because of any academic achievement or life experience, but solely because they are African American, Hispanic or Native American.
To put this in perspective, a perfect SAT score is worth only 12 points in the Michigan system. Students who accumulate 100 points are generally admitted, so those 20 points awarded solely based on race are often the decisive factor.
At the law school, some minority students are admitted to meet percentage targets while other applicants with higher grades and better scores are passed over. This means that students are being selected or rejected based primarily on the color of their skin. The motivation for such an admissions policy may be very good, but its result is discrimination and that discrimination is wrong.
Some states are using innovative ways to diversify their student bodies. Recent history has proven that diversity can be achieved without using quotas. Systems in California and Florida and Texas have proven that by guaranteeing admissions to the top students from high schools throughout the state, including low income neighborhoods, colleges can attain broad racial diversity. In these states, race-neutral admissions policies have resulted in levels of minority attendance for incoming students that are close to, and in some instances slightly surpass, those under the old race-based approach.
We should not be satisfied with the current numbers of minorities on Americans college campuses. Much progress has been made; much more is needed. University officials have the responsibility and the obligation to make a serious, effective effort to reach out to students from all walks of life, without falling back on unconstitutional quotas. Schools should seek diversity by considering a broad range of factors in admissions, including a student's potential and life experiences.
Our government must work to make college more affordable for students who come from economically disadvantaged homes. And because we're committed to racial justice, we must make sure that America's public schools offer a quality education to every child from every background, which is the central purpose of the education reforms I signed last year.
America's long experience with the segregation we have put behind us and the racial discrimination we still struggle to overcome requires a special effort to make real the promise of equal opportunity for all. My administration will continue to actively promote diversity and opportunity in every way that the law permits.
Thank you very much.
END 4:37 P.M. EST
Agree with you 100%!
IMHO, helping a bright, hard-working, etc. disadvantaged kid, regardless of ethnicity, religion, etc. a hand up and a chance to succeed is a good policy.
Accident of birth - you're a loser - Unfair. Accident of birth - of the correct color - winner. Both systems equally stink.
Discrimination on any basis EXCEPT merit is just that, discrimination. Night, Night.
TLBSHOW - Son of Sybil.
I am so humbled to have members like you on this forum. I read this article, and started to gather my thoughts--and I saw your reply. I thought of this:
Philippians 2 4-7
God is the great equalizer, and He loves us all. It is hard, so very hard, for me to deal with the politics of the age sometimes. For I sometimes view the rhetoric of fools within the prism of my own reason, and then I ask God "What shall then I do?"
When I was in pilot training, a friend (a Black-- African-American) friend helped me. Without him, I would not have ever become a pilot. Last week, I went to lunch with men who honored this man, and I thought of my friend.
In dark days, I survived because of him. I don't know what that means when I say it. It sounds so hollow----so empty---almost as of I launched with the pre---
"Some of my best friends are......!!" Perhaps we are conditioned of doing so...and sometimes afraid of offending in the present climate of "diversity." But God sets the standards--doesn't He? It is to those that I aspire--but still--I find myself falling short----not of hatred or bigotry--but because I find that I cannot hurdle the objects that others put in my way.
Once--you and I mourned this man--an hero to me. A man of dignity, selflessness, courage.....it is to you that I hold a mirror to..and think as Christ would..."This is my brother, my sister, my mother."
Sir /Ma'am,
I have been uncomfortable with companies and Government organizations preaching "Values." Do you have an stories that relate to this?
Values to me can only come from God.
I understand.....but they are not the final authority on anything--and WE do have something to say about it. God bless voices like yours that speak out...because we must speak out against "rights by melanin content."
I agree. Admissions ought to be based on academics and not the color of one's skin. President Bush is doing the right thing on this issue.
At your doorstep, Duke. But seriously, your comment would appear to mean you disagree with me. GWB had three position choices:
1) Accept the UM position and allow direct discrimination by race to continue
2) Say everything is merit based. That doesn't mean only test scores, but it also doesn't mean set-asides for the top 15% regardless of how terrible the school is.
3) The compromise position he took, where the set-asides wind up with a different name.
I'm saying 2) is the right choice, but think 3) is the only politically acceptable solution, and that is sad. What's your opinion? Or should I just off myself for fun?
Precisely.
Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.
You wrote the above words, which I agree with wholeheartedly, at the end of a post supporting the "top 10% or 15%", which I don't agree with. I had the experience of growing up in a city with five high schools. Most of them were terrible, and the top 10 or 15 percent wasn't very good. A couple of the high schools were OK. In the bad schools, I doubt that 10 or 15% of the students were even destined for college. A set-aside on that basis entitling the best of the worst to nearly automatic admissions to the best colleges is another codeword for an end run around merit.
I don't have a problem with giving a decent weight to class standing. I do have a problem with using it to over-ride all other considerations in the name of diversity, creating a defacto entitlement.
Thanks, just the same.
What I admire about our President is his long range, strategic thinking. He understands that to reach the goal, we need to go by thoughtful stages. Too many on this forum demand instant gratification. That just isn't politically or realistically possible.
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.