Advertisement
Several days before last month's national holiday celebrating Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday, the Bush administration came out forcefully against affirmative action policies initiated at the University of Michigan, which soon, will be under Supreme Court review. To his credit, Secretary of State Colin Powell informed the media that he continued to express "support for the policies used by the University of Michigan."
Condoleeza Rice, Bush's National Security Adviser, unfortunately lacks Powell's integrity. She at first claimed that she agreed with her boss's ridiculous charge that Michigan's policy of giving preferences to black and Latino applicants who came from racially oppressed communities is a "quota system." Then in a series of contradictory explanations Rice admitted that her career had indeed "benefited from affirmative action." She also acknowledged that race could be "a factor in university admissions," but not to the extent used in the University of Michigan's admissions policies.
Compounding Bush's decision to oppose affirmative action was his renomination of Charles W. Pickering, Sr., of Mississippi, to the federal appellate court. Pickering's conservative history on racial issues, such as his efforts as a judge to reduce the sentence of a man convicted of burning a cross outside the home of an interracial couple, guarantee strong opposition to his ratification in the Senate. Given the Republican Party's embarrassment in the wake of Senator Trent Lott's resignation late last year, why would Bush seem to go out of his way to alienate the African-American electorate? New York Senator Charles Schumer spoke for many when he informed the press, "I'm still scratching my head in amazement that they actually (re)nominated him."
The controversies over both affirmative action and Pickering's renomination led many columnists to question the administration's commitment to civil rights. One of the most thoughtful commentaries to appear was by author Roland S. Martin, which appeared in USA Today on the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday. Posing the question, how would King have viewed Bush's rejection of affirmative action, Martin observed: "President Bush opposes the University of Michigan's admissions program because he views it as a quota system." "Yet he is proud to call himself a Yale graduate, even though he benefited from a quota system because of his family's history at the Ivy League school. That's right. Our own president is an affirmative action baby."
Growing up, little G.W. was at best a mediocre student. According to New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof, Bush was denied admission to St. John's, an elite private academy in Houston. He managed to get into Andover Academy, an elite prep school in the Northeast only because "it wanted Texans to diversify its student body, which was heavily from the Northeast. In addition, using just the kind of point system that Mr. Bush now derides as quotas, Andover gave George three extra points on a 20-point scale."
I think two points are crucial here. First, Bush's "legacy" preference he received is "a higher percentage than a Michigan applicant gets for being black." Second, Bush's admission knocked out of Andover another (probably white male) student who had better grades, and was better qualified than he was.
The same pattern of mediocrity followed Bush into college. He never made the honor roll at Andover during his years in high school. His SAT cumulative scores in verbal and math were about 150 points below the median scores of students admitted in his class at Yale. Martin asks the logical question, "Maybe Bush should ask himself whether someone with better grades was denied a chance to get into Yale" because he was selected. "If so, would he consider switching places with him or her today?"
If Martin Luther King, Jr. was with us today, he would probably describe the Bush administration's racial strategy as "symbols without substance." King would certainly applaud Bush's appointments of blacks in high level administrative positions, such as Powell and Rice. He would have commended the President's criticism of Lott's outrageously offensive statements, celebrating Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign on the Dixiecrat segregationist ticket. But King would deplore and condemn the administration's ugly pandering to racist, conservative extremists in our country by falsely describing "preferences" as "quotas."
King would perhaps cite a recent study published in Academe, the journal of the American Association of University Professors, that shows that minority students actually have less access to college today relative to white students than they did a quarter of a century ago. Affirmative action programs have expanded access to college for black and Latino students, the study confirms, but these gains have been "offset by policies that give an advantage to white applicants." These policies "include special consideration for the children of alumni and donors, prepaid-tuition plans, which benefit only those parents who can afford to save money for college, and the current movement among many public colleges to tighten admissions standards and end remedial programs."
As a result, there is a growing system of racial apartheid in American higher education, where African-American and Latino students in increasing numbers are concentrated in third-tier schools. The report notes that of the 30 non-historically black institutions that enrolled the largest number of black students, 23 grant only associate (two-year) degrees and only 3 are research universities. "By contrast," of the 30 colleges with the largest numbers of white students, 26 are research universities, and only two offer only two-year degrees. In effect, the educational gap between the races is widening. Southern universities today are more racially segregated and have lower percentages of black students than twenty years ago.
King might say today that a defense of affirmative action in higher education is not a defense of "quotas"; it is a defense of affirmative opportunity. It is a defense of greater educational fairness. As Roland Martin observed, most African-American students "weren't able to write on their applications that they were a 'legacy' because a different legacy - that of racism and Jim Crow - didn't allow their parents and grandparents to have the same educational opportunities as their white counterparts."
King would ask us, what kind of American society do we really want? A racially divided society, with growing educational, income, and health inequalities between racial groups? Or can we dream of a democratic society that takes affirmative action to reduce educational disparities that takes meaningful steps to create genuine diversity and opportunities for all?
Condoleeza Rice, Bush's National Security Adviser, unfortunately lacks Powell's integrity. She at first claimed that she agreed with her boss's ridiculous charge that Michigan's policy of giving preferences to black and Latino applicants who came from racially oppressed communities is a "quota system." Then in a series of contradictory explanations Rice admitted that her career had indeed "benefited from affirmative action." She also acknowledged that race could be "a factor in university admissions," but not to the extent used in the University of Michigan's admissions policies.
Compounding Bush's decision to oppose affirmative action was his renomination of Charles W. Pickering, Sr., of Mississippi, to the federal appellate court. Pickering's conservative history on racial issues, such as his efforts as a judge to reduce the sentence of a man convicted of burning a cross outside the home of an interracial couple, guarantee strong opposition to his ratification in the Senate. Given the Republican Party's embarrassment in the wake of Senator Trent Lott's resignation late last year, why would Bush seem to go out of his way to alienate the African-American electorate? New York Senator Charles Schumer spoke for many when he informed the press, "I'm still scratching my head in amazement that they actually (re)nominated him."
The controversies over both affirmative action and Pickering's renomination led many columnists to question the administration's commitment to civil rights. One of the most thoughtful commentaries to appear was by author Roland S. Martin, which appeared in USA Today on the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday. Posing the question, how would King have viewed Bush's rejection of affirmative action, Martin observed: "President Bush opposes the University of Michigan's admissions program because he views it as a quota system." "Yet he is proud to call himself a Yale graduate, even though he benefited from a quota system because of his family's history at the Ivy League school. That's right. Our own president is an affirmative action baby."
Growing up, little G.W. was at best a mediocre student. According to New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof, Bush was denied admission to St. John's, an elite private academy in Houston. He managed to get into Andover Academy, an elite prep school in the Northeast only because "it wanted Texans to diversify its student body, which was heavily from the Northeast. In addition, using just the kind of point system that Mr. Bush now derides as quotas, Andover gave George three extra points on a 20-point scale."
I think two points are crucial here. First, Bush's "legacy" preference he received is "a higher percentage than a Michigan applicant gets for being black." Second, Bush's admission knocked out of Andover another (probably white male) student who had better grades, and was better qualified than he was.
The same pattern of mediocrity followed Bush into college. He never made the honor roll at Andover during his years in high school. His SAT cumulative scores in verbal and math were about 150 points below the median scores of students admitted in his class at Yale. Martin asks the logical question, "Maybe Bush should ask himself whether someone with better grades was denied a chance to get into Yale" because he was selected. "If so, would he consider switching places with him or her today?"
If Martin Luther King, Jr. was with us today, he would probably describe the Bush administration's racial strategy as "symbols without substance." King would certainly applaud Bush's appointments of blacks in high level administrative positions, such as Powell and Rice. He would have commended the President's criticism of Lott's outrageously offensive statements, celebrating Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign on the Dixiecrat segregationist ticket. But King would deplore and condemn the administration's ugly pandering to racist, conservative extremists in our country by falsely describing "preferences" as "quotas."
King would perhaps cite a recent study published in Academe, the journal of the American Association of University Professors, that shows that minority students actually have less access to college today relative to white students than they did a quarter of a century ago. Affirmative action programs have expanded access to college for black and Latino students, the study confirms, but these gains have been "offset by policies that give an advantage to white applicants." These policies "include special consideration for the children of alumni and donors, prepaid-tuition plans, which benefit only those parents who can afford to save money for college, and the current movement among many public colleges to tighten admissions standards and end remedial programs."
As a result, there is a growing system of racial apartheid in American higher education, where African-American and Latino students in increasing numbers are concentrated in third-tier schools. The report notes that of the 30 non-historically black institutions that enrolled the largest number of black students, 23 grant only associate (two-year) degrees and only 3 are research universities. "By contrast," of the 30 colleges with the largest numbers of white students, 26 are research universities, and only two offer only two-year degrees. In effect, the educational gap between the races is widening. Southern universities today are more racially segregated and have lower percentages of black students than twenty years ago.
King might say today that a defense of affirmative action in higher education is not a defense of "quotas"; it is a defense of affirmative opportunity. It is a defense of greater educational fairness. As Roland Martin observed, most African-American students "weren't able to write on their applications that they were a 'legacy' because a different legacy - that of racism and Jim Crow - didn't allow their parents and grandparents to have the same educational opportunities as their white counterparts."
King would ask us, what kind of American society do we really want? A racially divided society, with growing educational, income, and health inequalities between racial groups? Or can we dream of a democratic society that takes affirmative action to reduce educational disparities that takes meaningful steps to create genuine diversity and opportunities for all?