← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Recluse

Thread 4443

Thread ID: 4443 | Posts: 7 | Started: 2003-01-14

Wayback Archive

Recluse [OP]

2003-01-14 12:46 | User Profile

Excerpt from Jan 9 press briefing:

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.

Q You said that the President is very sensitive to issues regarding diversity. Is it possible that lingering raw feelings over the Lott debacle are a factor in your cautious approach on whether to weigh in on the affirmative action case?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think it's fair to say that the President approaches this issue the way he has a governor of a very ethnically diverse Texas, as somebody who was very sensitive to the importance of issues involving race and diversity and opportunity for all. I think I said diversity and opportunity for all. That's how the President approaches this. He approaches it out of a lifetime of care and concern on these type of important, sensitive issues involving civil rights. And that's how he approaches it.

Q Setting aside the affirmative action case for a moment, or whether he's going to weigh in on it, does the policy of adding 20 points to minority students, does that comport with his policy of affirmative access, or does it contrast with it?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that's what is exactly under review among a number of other factors in the current case pending before the Supreme Court. And I think that's the type of thing that the deadline is next week for weighing in on any type of amicus curai, and we'll wait and see.

Q It would seem on its face that adding 20 points to the score of blacks and Hispanics and not giving those 20 points to whites would, on its face, not be consistent with the President's policy. You're saying it might be?

MR. FLEISCHER: Bill, it's under review and we'll know when the review is complete.

[url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030109-8.html]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20030109-8.html[/url]

jay

2003-01-14 14:04 | User Profile

In other words, "Please stop asking me these questions, I'm hoping stupid sap whites aren't paying attention"

-J

Recluse

2003-01-15 13:21 | User Profile

I suspect that Jorge will try to find an alternative to the Michigan policy, something like the Texas Ten Percent Fraud: [url=http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~burniske/spring98/proposal/1/final.html]http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~burniske/sprin...al/1/final.html[/url] After all, it fooled the freeper types once, there's no reason why it won't work again.l

Okiereddust

2003-01-15 16:01 | User Profile

Originally posted by Recluse@Jan 14 2003, 12:46 ** Excerpt from Jan 9 press briefing:

MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think it's fair to say that the President approaches this issue the way he has a governor of a very ethnically diverse Texas, as somebody who was very sensitive to the importance of issues involving race and diversity and opportunity for all. I think I said diversity and opportunity for all. That's how the President approaches this. He approaches it out of a lifetime of care and concern on these type of important, sensitive issues involving civil rights. And that's how he approaches it. **

Very good EEO language - he used the word "diverse or diversity" three times and "sensitive" twice , just in one paragraph.

I seriously doubt they're going to take on the Michigan case head-on. You're right Recluse, sounds like Bush is looking for some trick phase like "Affirmative Access" la de da.

Ed Toner

2003-01-18 22:04 | User Profile

[url=http://www.vdare.com/sailer/bush_michigan.htm]http://www.vdare.com/sailer/bush_michigan.htm[/url] Bush & Bakke: Déjà vu All Over Again By Steve Sailer

Many on the Naïve Right are exulting over the first paragraphs in President Bush's remarks on Wednesday siding against the University of Michigan for using a racial quota admissions system.

But (ahem!) didn't the Supreme Court already outlaw "quotas" 25 years ago in the Bakke decision?

Fat lot of good that did. And fat lot of good the Administration's "very narrowly tailored" brief to the Supreme Court will do either.

Here on the Realist Right, it looks very different: The Bush brief is a catastrophe for the cause of equal treatment under the law. Bush-Rove have almost completely caved in to Diversitycrats.

The President of the United States strongly endorsed the goals of the racial spoils industry. And he instructed it on more devious means to impose racial quotas.

Bush's speech was a nudge-nudge-wink-wink to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to play Lewis Powell's role in Bakke: craft a seeming compromise that will throw a rhetorical bone to anti-quota voters, but deliver red meat to the racial preference industry. The Divesitycrats will be allowed to carry on - just in a more surreptitious manner that won't be as obvious to their victims.

This is exactly what happened in 1978. Allan Bakke won! Quotas were outlawed! And nothing changed.

Here's what Karl Rove is trying to do:

Get the headlines: "Bush Attacks Quotas." Racial preferences are unpopular with voters overall, especially the 81% who are unprotected whites (of which Bush won a measly 54% in 2000, compared to the 59% his dad won in 1988). The liberals will predictably howl, boosting Bush's popularity among the vast majority of voters who follow the news only casually.

Appease the powerful Diversity Industry on the substance. The Bush-Rove Plan will entrench the industry and make it a more amorphous target ("Quotas? We don't need no steeenking quotas!"). As with Bakke, Bush's base (which is about 92% whites voters) will take a long time to figure how they wound up with the fuzzy end of the lollipop after all the President's brave words.

You think I'm over-reacting? Let's review:

First, in his statement Monday Bush endorsed the central issue in the lawsuit, the University of Michigan's goal of increased diversity. He said

"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. … We should not be satisfied with the current numbers of minorities on American college campuses. Much progress has been made; much more is needed."

Likewise, a "senior Administration official" anonymously briefed the press after the speech:

"The President strongly promotes diversity and made it very clear in his statement today that schools have to take serious, aggressive and honest efforts to promote diversity. … That means we want to have students who are white, who are black, who are Hispanic, who are Asian, who are rich, who are poor, who come from rural and urban areas, who are handicapped, who are physically able. We want genuine diversity. And a component of genuine diversity is racial diversity. … [The President] wanted to make clear, as he did in his statement, that trying to promote the broadest possible diversity, including racial diversity, is an important goal."

According to this shadowy Bush representative:

"What the government is going to argue in the brief is that any time there is a consideration of race, the Court has said you have to look to see if there are race-neutral alternatives. There are race-neutral alternatives here; we know that."

In other words, the Bush Administration is saying that universities are supposed to achieve their "diversity goals" (a.k.a., quotas). They should just do it in a more cunning fashion.

The briefer summarized the White House's stance with this inspiring statement:

"You should not be making decisions based on race without first trying race-neutral alternatives."

Helpfully, Bush outlined various schemes to jigger admissions systems to achieve the same results as straightforward quotas:

"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."

(It's worth noting that while the Bush Brothers’ "X-percent solutions" in Texas and Florida are blatant schemes for achieving quotas, they are an even bigger waste of taxpayer dollars than the old-fashioned honest quotas. Quotas at least admit the highest potential students within each race. But the Bush Brothers’ schemes discriminate against smarter minority students who get poorer grades because they attend integrated high schools. Harvard long ago virtually gave up on admitting applicants from all-black schools because their performance was so dire.)

Bush went on:

"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."

Similarly, the anonymous “senior Administration official” explained -

"And, indeed, what the President said very clearly is, he said university officials shouldn't just look to take the easy way out, they need to take hard steps -- to go out and recruit and increase the pool of applicants; make their schools more attractive to minority students; and come up with lawful and constitutional ways to increase the number of minority students. He strongly believes that we have made a great deal of progress, but we haven't made enough progress."

In other words, colleges prevented from discriminating explicitly by race are being told to keep up their black and Hispanic quotas by recruiting minorities more vigorously. Of course, this beggar-thy-neighbor policy can't work on the national level. It doesn't create any additional qualified minorities. It just ups the bidding for the existing ones.

And increasing demand without increasing supply of course leads to higher prices for those minorities. They are given more scholarships precisely due to their race.

Mr. Bush went on:

"Schools should seek diversity by considering a broad range of factors in admissions, including a student's potential and life experiences."

This is an endorsement of the method the University of California recently installed for subverting the Proposition 209 ban on racial preferences.

The “Senior Administration Official” recommended "a personal statement that people can make about whether they've overcome any hardship."

For example, at UCLA applicants are now told to write whiney essays on the "life challenges" they have suffered. The kind of hardships largely peculiar to preferred minorities (such as having been shot) are given extra credit.

Bush's speech is an unsubtle call to erect a photographic negative of the kind of nominally colorblind devices – for example, poll taxes - that Jim Crow states once used to discriminate against blacks.

Here's the harsh truth. The only way we could tell if we've actually eliminated racial preferences is if the percentage of blacks and Hispanics in elite schools falls sharply, and stays down for many years. (But the ones who remained would perform as well as whites. And more minorities would complete courses at second-tier schools, rather than being mis-matched and burned out at elite ones.)

In all likelihood, the Supreme Court won’t dare make such a sharp reduction happen. This will be despite the letter of the law - a measure of the diversity’s distortion of our Anglo-American institutions.

It’s time to start thinking about what can be salvaged from the wreck. Above all: to minimize the damage done by quotas, we must have immigration reform - to slow the growth of racially-preferred groups.

[Steve Sailer is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute. His website www.iSteve.com features site-exclusive commentaries.]

January 16, 2003

SEE ALSO:

The Unmentionable Root Of The Quota Problem, by Steve Sailer [url=http://www.vdare.com/sailer/quota_problem.htm]http://www.vdare.com/sailer/quota_problem.htm[/url]

This is going to be a great fight!

Michelle Malkin on the Michigan brief: Bush's Tiny Step [url=http://www.vdare.com/malkin/tiny_step.htm]http://www.vdare.com/malkin/tiny_step.htm[/url]

mwdallas

2003-01-18 22:58 | User Profile

I read the brief in the law-school case yesterday. Awful.

Okiereddust

2003-01-19 23:08 | User Profile

Originally posted by Ed Toner@Jan 18 2003, 22:04 **By Steve Sailer

Many on the Naïve Right are exulting over the first paragraphs in President Bush's remarks on Wednesday siding against the University of Michigan for using a racial quota admissions system.

But (ahem!) didn't the Supreme Court already outlaw "quotas" 25 years ago in the Bakke decision?

Fat lot of good that did. And fat lot of good the Administration's "very narrowly tailored" brief to the Supreme Court will do either.

Here on the Realist Right, it looks very different: The Bush brief is a catastrophe for the cause of equal treatment under the law. Bush-Rove have almost completely caved in to Diversitycrats.

The President of the United States strongly endorsed the goals of the racial spoils industry. And he instructed it on more devious means to impose racial quotas.

**

Compare this with David (gag) Frum eulogy over the Bush decision

[url=http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum-diary.asp]Do the Right Thing[/url]

JAN. 16, 2003: DO THE RIGHT THING

Still Overcoming

President Bush’s decision to intervene in the Michigan affirmative-action case

is a stunning victory for the principle of race neutrality. It is also, incidentally, a reminder of why it was so important for the Republican party to remove Trent Lott as Senate Majority Leader. Advocates of racial preferences insist that the Republican principle of race-neutrality is a mere ruse: that it’s white-skin privilege under a new name. And face it: if the GOP had begun the year by defending Trent Lott’s right to praise segregation as a way of avoiding “all these problems” – and had then tried to turn around and denounce the University of Michigan’s racial preferences as an offense against the principle of racial equality – well it wouldn’t have worked, would it?

Especially since Trent Lott would have had to oppose the president’s brave position. Even before Lott pledged on the BET network to support affirmative action “across the board,” the logic of his personal situation would have demanded that he take the university’s side, not the president’s – and loudly so. He was ruthless enough to do it too: just look at his willingness in that same interview to give his old friend, Judge Charles Pickering, the heave- ho.

President Bush, by contrast, has offered the country a racial politics that is simultaneously principled and defensible: he repudiated Lott, he renominated Pickering, and now he has ordered his administration to speak out against preferences. That last call was especially gutsy. He did not have to announce the administration’s intervention in the Michigan case himself. He could have disassociated himself personally, by leaving the announcement to (for example) Attorney General Ashcroft. Instead he not only delivered the news himself, but did so in a powerful speech that explained his racial politics: a politics that acknowledges that racism is a fact, that the damage done by 350 years of slavery and segregation has not been (and could not be) eradicated in the bare 35 years since the Civil Rights Act – but that we cannot achieve the racial fairness almost all Americans want by the unfair means that the University of Michigan used.

We hear it rumored that some in the administration opposed the president’s decision, on the grounds that it would not win him minority votes. They’re right: it won’t. Although polls pretty consistently show that a majority of African-Americans reject racial preferences as wrong in principle, we know that in practice, the vast majority fear that surrendering their preferences will shrink the opportunities open to them. Most of them will probably dislike the president’s stance.

But Bush was never going to win minority votes by virtue of his position on civil-rights laws. His winning strategy for minority voters was to offer them a civil-rights policy they could tolerate even if they disliked it – while seeking to win them on the issues of national security, education, faith-based social services, and reform of Social Security and Medicare. That strategy is now in place, and we have every reason to hope it will work. Lott plus Michigan equals a civil rights philosophy that black Americans can respect even if they do not share it – and a civil rights philosophy that black Americans can respect plus education and other policies that they do share equals a rising proportion of the minority vote.

And even if the position Bush took translates into not a single minority vote, it is still right – and that alone is all the justification that should be needed.