by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright January 20, 2003
All Rights Reserved.

umping feet first into one of America's most politically incorrect topics, President George W. Bush weighed in on affirmative action. Bush denounced as "divisive, unfair" a University of Michigan admission's policy giving blacks and Hispanics 20 extra points for race or ethnicity, directing his solicitor general to file a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court. "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," Bush told the press during a short White House statement. Whether the Michigan policy amounts to a quota system is anyone's guess. Giving a 20-point preference to minority smacks of reverse discrimination and provides undeniable evidence that Michigan uses race as a quantitative factor in the admissions process.

      Bush's administration is the first in U.S. history to appoint three prominent African Americans to Cabinet-level positions. Secretary of State Colin A. Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice oppose Bush's position on affirmative action and support the University of Michigan's admission policy. Secretary of Education Rod Paige—like former U.C. Regent Ward Connerly and author of Calfiornia's 1996 Proposition 209 banning affirmative action—opposes affirmative action and Michigan's 20-point plan to augment minority enrollment. "We do not have, and have never had, or numerical targets in either the undergraduate or law school admissions programs," said University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman, accusing Bush of "misunderstanding" the admissions process. Adding 20-points to minority applications automatically gives a 20% preference.

      While Michigan may not have actual quotas, giving minorities 20-point preferences shifts the application process away from academic standards to racial preferences. Whether Michigan actually has quotas doesn't excuse a practice in which race gains applicants numerical advantage in the admission's process. Both Powell and Rice support Michigan's system, citing their own experiences as proof that affirmative action works. But it doesn't work for otherwise qualified candidates whose applications are squeezed out because minorities get extra points for race or ethnicity. Instead of getting preferential treatment, Bush advocates a "race-neutral" process in which top high school students get automatic acceptance into state universities—as now practiced in California, Texas and Florida. With Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott resigning his post over racial insensitivity, Republicans take political heat for opposing affirmative action.

      Race-based preferences run counter to America's meritocracy, rewarding hard work and achievement. Facing political pressure, some Republicans can't stomach standing on solid ground. "Many Republicans throughout the nation believe that diversity should be recognized as a compelling government interest in the admissions policies of higher education," wrote Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Lincoln Chafe of Rhode Island and Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, all support the race-based practice at Michigan. One the eve of Martin Luther King Day, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) took a cheap shot: "Once again today, the administration has said, as clearly by their actions as anyone can, that they will continue to side with those who oppose civil rights and oppose diversity in this country." Daschle seems more interested in scoring points than fighting reverse discrimination.

      It's been 25-years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled [5-4] against quotas in Bakke vs. the University of California. In a split ruling, the Court ruled that racial quotas at U.C. Davis Medical School amounted to reverse discrimination against otherwise qualified applicants. Michigan's system is somehow different. The admissions policy is "a complex process that takes into account and considers the entire background of each applicant, just as the president urged," said Coleman, impeaching her own argument by giving black and Hispanic applicants 20-point preferences. Bush never urged giving extra points for race or ethnicity. His "affirmative access" program in Texas offered the top 10% of high school graduates automatic acceptance into the state university. All things being equal, giving numerical advantages to certain minorities unfairly raises the bar for qualified non-minority applicants.

      Giving 20-point preferences to black and Hispanic candidates violates the spirit of affirmative action by penalizing non-minority applicants. If the University of Michigan wishes to use race or ethnicity in its admissions process, it shouldn't be part of a quantitative system to choose applicants. While there's nothing wrong with assessing the backgrounds of candidates, there is something wrong with assigning extra points because of race. "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," said Bush, urging Michigan to find other ways to achieve diversity. Whether Michigan has quotas or not, it crossed the line giving 20-point preferences to minorities in a quantitative admissions process. No society built on merit, hard work and fair play can afford to show such preferences.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2002 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.