Condoleezza Rice Partly at Odds with Bush on Race Case...

Reuters ^

[SSN558]

"Just watch the "Civil Rights Leadership" start demanding that Ms. Rice resign or be an "Uncle Tom"."

Screw the race pimps. Sinlge white guy, about the right age, Condi fan, keep dreamin.

[Barnacle]

Last week, Rice's expression gave her the appearance of suffering from intestinal distress. It was probably nothing more than this issue brewing.

[Clinging Bitterly]

>> How long does it take you to find all these article that bash Bush?

Probably no longer than it would for any of the rest of us. Just go to any lamestream press source and start at the top. One seldom needs to go far.

For me, it is in my face the moment I wake up. The wife has a habit of leaving the bedroom teevee on NBC to watch the second Leno rerun and so the first face I see in the morning will be Matt or Katie.

But it serves as a reminder that the forces of evil are at work in our nation 24 hours a day, so in that sense it's good.

Here, if I recall, we have an article from Reuters, another reliable source for articles bashing Bush. The article tries to exploit a small disagreement that the National Security Advisor has with the President. Seems to me, the presstitutes use Powell in this manner fairly often, and it's predictable they'd do the same with her when given the opportunity.

Condi Rice is no idiot, and neither is Bush, and they know that no two people will be in 100% agreement on everything. It's probably better to let those things air rather than pretend they don't exist. Makes everyone aware that we have a team of real, adult people in the White House.

Dave in Eugene

[WOSG]

As usual, Reuters is trying to exploit a hairline crack to try to divide the Republicans. What Rice says is perfectly reasonable.

My thoughts exactly ... there is not enough space between Rice and Bush to let a gnat breathe on this issue. Nice try, Reuters.

[yendu bwam]

I think they should be forbidden from even asking about race. In fact, I think they should have people who accept the application and assign a applicant code number and then pass only the code and relevant information on to the people who decide on admissions, so as to eliminate given name/surname bias.

Hear, hear. Let's stop defining people by the color of their skin.

[ItsJeff]

The editorial in today's Detroit News, normally a very conservative page:

Bush's Stance on U-M Damages Race Relations

By The Detroit News

Is the Bush administration wrong to oppose the University of Michigan's admissions process?

President George W. Bush's statement this week urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the University of Michigan's affirmative action program is wrong -- wrong in its facts, wrong in its analysis and wrong in the signal it sends about race relations, diversity and equal opportunity.

The president's statement was made as his administration prepared to file a legal argument in a case challenging Michigan's admission process.

The brief is only advisory. But it is seen as an important statement on the issue of affirmative action.

In his remarks denouncing the University of Michigan's program to ensure diversity, the president used the word "quotas" no less than three times and "numerical targets" once. But neither Michigan's law school admissions process nor its undergraduate approach is a quota system. By using the code word "quota," the president was either intentionally deceptive or purposely inflammatory.

Michigan's process of undergraduate admissions involves a complex grid that takes in many factors. African-Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans receive 20 points on this grid. But as the university's president, Mary Sue Coleman, noted this week, 110 points on the grid are based on academics -- and 20 points are also awarded to economically disadvantaged students.

Other points are awarded to outstanding athletes and students from underrepresented parts of the state. The university's goal is to create a diverse student body with different strengths that will reflect the real world that students will encounter when they leave the university. That should be the point of public higher education.

The law school admissions program, also under challenge before the U.S. Supreme Court, doesn't have a grid process but instead looks for a "critical mass" of minority students.

The university's admissions process is little different from programs adopted throughout corporate America, which has realized that a diverse workforce is needed to compete effectively and fairly in a nation of many races, religions and ethnic backgrounds.

Indeed, many of America's largest companies argue that the U-M's approaches are right and necessary, and they have made their points in their own briefs submitted to the court.

The University of Michigan receives many more applications from students who meet the minimum qualifications for admission than it can place. It has to have some rational process to balance its student body. Diversity is an admirable goal, and the university's approaches are legitimate tactics to achieve that goal.

Its admissions process works to help underrepresented minority students -- whose parents and grandparents and ancestors suffered decades of official discrimination that ended less than 40 years ago -- have a shot at one of the nation's best public universities.

Fortunately, this state has many fine public universities in addition to the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor -- from Michigan State to Oakland University to Wayne State to Western Michigan -- to name a few. Qualified students who aren't admitted to U-M at Ann Arbor still have access to a quality publicly funded institution of higher education in this state. So it's not as though U-M's admissions program slams the door on educational opportunity to anyone.

The president made progress for himself and his party when he last month publicly denounced Mississippi GOP Sen. Trent Lott's recent gushing statements about a long-ago segregationist presidential campaign and helped engineer Lott's removal as Senate majority leader.

But his stance on U-M's admission's process is a setback for himself and for his party. If he wants to succeed in attracting people of color to the GOP, he'll have to do better.

And if the U.S. Supreme Court rules against U-M, it will have dealt a blow to all Americans and turned back the clock for many of them.

[ApesForEvolution]

"Officials described Rice as one of the prime movers behind Bush's announcement on Wednesday that he would urge the Supreme Court to strike down Michigan's affirmative action program."

Rice is the reason this pos brief was so narrow and why the 'diversity' (aka or code for AFFIRMATIVE ACTION!) crap was the central theme. Bush managed to enter into, which could have been solely left up to the DoJ considering the crap brief submitted, a superlatively *WEAK* argument which leaves the door wide open for affirmative action - yet looking as though, to the conservatives/constitutionists - that he's doing something right. It's a circle jer* at the WH with the Powell/Rice team subverting conservatives and the Constitution.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

Would a banana make you happy?

[ApesForEvolution]

"I believe that while race neutral means are preferable, it is appropriate to use race as one factor among others in achieving a diverse student body."

Like I said, what a *crock*! State the reality of what is and isn't constitutional/moral and be persuasive.

[ApesForEvolution]

Honest and persuavive, Constitutional and moral actions would suffice. Keep your fruit.

[LS]

Ohhh, yeah, right. One is based on SEX. Sure, I see the difference. Another is based on purely athletic ability. Another purely on musical ability.

By the way, if teaching students to operate in the "real world" is a goal of a university (I'm not saying it is---I have a different view, but it DOES appear to be the goal of most major universities), would it not be an educational requirement that students interact with people of different backgrounds and ethnicities? Just curious.

[Redleg Duke]

Oh, they have been waiting in the wings, drooling all over themselves, for any opening. That they have jumped all over this non-story indicates how thin things are for them these days.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

Honest and persuavive, Constitutional and moral actions would suffice. Keep your fruit.

It seems to me that the two main arguments used by the administration in this case are that Michigan's policy is 1) unconstitutional and 2) immoral. Now, I understand that you think they are being dishonest by trying to appease their "true conservative" supporters while leaving some kind of wiggle room, but I think that they have persuasively made the constitutional and moral from a truly conservative point of view. What more do you want? I mean, they are politicians. It is in their nature to leave wiggle room. George Bush ain't George Washington.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

I'll take what I can get. Public condemnation of Michigan's abhorent policy and a Supreme Court victory (knock-on-wood) is as much as any rational person could hope for.

[GoreLoser]

Rice: "I believe that while race-neutral means are preferable, it is appropriate to use race as ONE factor among others in achieving a diverse student body."

Your point is right on, demkicker. Just as GIVING 20 points to favored minorities is logically and morally equivalent to TAKING AWAY 20 points from non-minorities, so are racial "preferences" for minorities the same as racial "penalties" for non-minorities. It's all in the language. No doubt a majority of the sheeple would respond favorably to a poll asking "Should disadvantaged minorities be given preference in admissions?" Contrast that with the likely response to a poll asking "Should non-minorities be penalized in admissions?"

Similarly, the Rice quote, above, may sound relatively innocuous by considering race as "only" ONE factor; what it really means, though, is considering race a PLUS factor for minorities and, conversely, a MINUS factor for non-minorities. This shows the absurdity, analytically and ethically of Rice's position. As provost at Stanford, she rationalized faculty discrimination by claiming it was legitimate to give racial preferences in hiring junior faculty, while not considering race in tenure decisions. That initial hiring process obviously prevented more qualified applicants from ever even getting a shot at tenure -- a point either ignored by or lost on Rice.

This excerpt from the Post article reveals the real reason for Rice's tortured "reasoning" on affirmative discrimination:

"Stanford released minutes from a 1998 faculty senate meeting in which Rice was quoted as saying that she was 'a beneficiary of a Stanford strategy that took affirmative action seriously,' pointing to her arrival at Stanford in 1981 as a fellow in the arms control and disarmament program."

Translation: Rice, with her Ph.D. from the University of Denver, was a "two-fer" (black female) affirmative-discriminationwise, for Stanford when she was hired over more qualified applicants in 1981. Take a wild guess about how many U. of Denver non-minority Ph.D.s got hired by Stanford back when Rice got her first job. Rice no doubt is still trying to defend that with her contorted explanations to justify discrimination, as long as race is "only" one [PLUS] factor for favored minorities.

[GraniteStateConservative]

The Bakke decision was all about saying that race could be a factor. This isn't controversial. It's saying Condi agrees with the SCOTUS.

The Court ruled 5-4 that admissions officers do not violate the equal protection guarantee when they consider race as one of many factors that determine which applicant is accepted and which rejected.

That's all Condi was saying.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Condi is just repeating Bakke:

The Court ruled 5-4 that admissions officers do not violate the equal protection guarantee when they consider race as one of many factors that determine which applicant is accepted and which rejected.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Powell is far more supportive of AA/quotas than Condi.

Condi's statement really wasn't that controversial.

[GraniteStateConservative]

They say it was Alberto Gonzales who wanted no brief at all, so I'd say it was Gonzales who cheerleaded the narrow brief.

[ApesForEvolution]

Could be. I had little hope in 'compassionate conservatism' being much more than liberal-light when I voted for Bush, so this is just another "why should I be surprised?"...this is a weak constitutional administration - better than a RAT, but not enough to avoid a splintering of the conservative base, IMO.

Bush signed Kennedy's Ed. Bill (no vouchers, bloated spending for the Ed. Unions), Harkin's Ag. Bill (more misguided subsidies, bloated spending), McCain/Feingold's CFR (1st Amendment disaster), the USA Patriot Act (unConstitutional 'sneak-a-peek' legislation, among much more) and a Constitution-gutting, big centralized Government Homeland 'Security' Act. This is just a small sampling of bad Bush initiatives.

That he'd be weak on unConstitutional Reverse Discrimination policies with Colin 'Affirmative Action' Powell and Condoleeza 'Diversity' Rice on board should've been a foregone conclusion.