week of 1/22/03
 
 
 

Affirmative Action for the rich
By Scott McLeod

I’m going to take the president at his word and believe that his latest foray into Supreme Court politics is sincere. Doing that, though, will leave me more concerned than ever about whether our chief executive has the capacity to occupy the position of most powerful man in the world.

My feelings about our president are contradictory. He seems a decent, nice guy, like his father; then, however, I look at what he does and see that he has become too captive to a political constituency that may indeed be the majority in this country, but in many ways it is one whose views I just can’t stomach.

The grand speech this past week about ending racial preferences as one factor for admissions at the University of Michigan law school sounds like a typical affirmative action argument. Some white students claim they had grades at least equal to those of some minorities who were admitted to the school. They’ve filed suit, and the president decided to file a “friend of the court” brief supporting the students’ position. Bush, in a speech Jan. 15, called the policy “unfair” and “divisive,” but he stopped short of saying whether he was against all affirmative action.

From all I’ve read about this president, it would be nearly impossible to believe that he is racist. He has worked hard to change the face of the Republican Party on this issue.He has two African-Americans in his Cabinet and another, Condoleza Rice, as his most trusted adviser.

However, it is easy to believe that his stand on affirmative action is aimed at solidifying his political base, a white middle class struggling to remain employed and fearful of terrorists, many of them increasingly irritated by minorities who may get a bit of an advantage merely because of their skin color. Those of us in North Carolina remember well the ad run by Sen. Jesse Helms of the white worker crumbling up a pink slip, the voiceover announcing solemnly that (paraphrasing, but not by much) “you deserved that job, but it went to a minority.”

So Bush may be doing what he truly believes is right while his political advisers will spin it to his — and their — advantage. Affirmative action, even many minorities now argue, has perhaps served its purpose but now deserves to be vanquished to the history books. It makes minorities think they have been wronged, burns it into their psyche and makes them grow up to expect something they have not earned, many say.

Probing the president’s mind and legacy to determine his views on race, though, is only one aspect of this issue. What Bush didn’t say, perhaps, is what is more telling — and more troubling.

Just as schools base part of their admissions equation on race, so do they use what is known as “legacy preferences.” That is where the children of alumni, particularly those whose families are large financial contributors, get preferential treatment over other more academically qualified applicants. Happens at most major private colleges and at a lot of public schools. So race, legacy, scholastic achievement, and geography (to promote, again, a diverse student body) all play into the equation.

Bush, as many know, is a third-generation Yale man whose family ties to the school are no doubt a source of pride to the prestigious college’s officials. Whether his own admission to the school knocked out of contention a more academically qualified applicant from the working-class neighborhoods of Pittsburgh or some cove high in the Appalachians isn’t known for sure, but many of his detractors argue that his admission to the prep school Andover and his admission to Yale was heavily weighted due to family connections. What we do know, though, is that the president is now asking the Supreme Court to take race out of the admissions equation while saying nothing about this legacy standard.

This question is not as telling about the GOP as it is in explaining how our president’s psyche works. Many in his own party, including Sen. Trent Lott and former Sen. Bob Dole, have argued against legacy admissions at universities. Evidence abounds, though, that Bush favors and coddles those imbued with or who earn incredible wealth.

The issue here is not that hereditary preferences in admissions are all bad. They help provide a loyal alumni base that builds the treasure chest at universities, a treasure chest that provides scholarships to poor smart — and minority — students. At its most base level, though, it knocks otherwise qualified students out of contention, which is exactly what racial preferences do. Is one less problematic — or “wrong” and “divisive,” to use Bush’s words — than the other?

This thinking by our president that affirmative action admission policies are bad and hereditary admission policies are not bad, I believe, is not aimed at inciting minorities or pitting classes or income groups against each other. I’m afraid it’s what he believes — the rich deserve breaks by virtue of their class. And he does it off-handedly, without thinking about its implications. No big deal. The fact that those who can deliver cash to the college get automatic admissions — Affirmative Action for the rich — is not a problem. The fact that some minorities get preferential admissions is a big deal.

Is this politics, or is it what George Bush truly believes? Either way the ball bounces, it’s pretty disturbing.

(Scott McLeod can be reached at info@smokymountainnews.com)