week of 1/29/03
 
 
 

Relevant facts lost in emotion of Affirmative Action debate
By Lee Shelton

The issue of Affirmative Action has again become a lightning rod with the expected discourse and commentary, principally based on personal perspective and emotion. Little of what I have read recently — locally or nationally — has added anything substantive to the understanding and reasoning of the prevailing issues. Michael Kinsley in Time Magazine (“How Affirmative Action Helped George W.”), Nicholas D. Kristof in the New York Times (“A Boy and his Benefits), Ricardo Pimentel’s column published in the Asheville Citizen-Times,(“Bush opposes breaks for minorities, but he sure got enough of his own”), Scott McLeod in the Smoky Mountain News (“Affirmative Action for the Rich”) among others have focused on President Bush’s own benefits from a form of “Affirmative Action.” Actually, they are misusing the term “Affirmative Action” in such references as it is actually defined, intended and used, but I am confident that they know this.

Let me say at this juncture, that I am — and have been — a proponent of Affirmative Action, and for a number of reasons, do not have a problem even with quotas (but they have been ruled illegal). In our companies, we worked to promote full employment opportunities for all citizens and I have done so on an individual basis, with demonstrative and nationally recognized results. I personally support the aggressive efforts to recruit minorities and disadvantaged into the “mainstream.” In terms of political leanings, I am a declared “Independent.” I have supported both Republicans and Democrats depending on the candidates, issues and circumstances.

Although the attacks that the aforementioned writers have lobbed at President Bush make good sound bites, they are divisive and offer nothing of substance to the discourse. Yale in 1964 (almost 40 years ago) is markedly different from Yale today. Yale is, and was, a private school, with private funding. The applicant pool was much smaller and the acceptance rate much higher during Bush’s time. Recall that less than a decade before George Bush entered Yale, two-thirds of all the jobs in the U.S. were unskilled.

We must be careful not to gauge past events through our current mind’s eye. A lot of those admitted to Yale in the 1950s and early 1960s probably would not be admitted today if everything on their ledger held constant. President Bush’s admission preceded Title VII, and certainly its extension to educational institutions in 1972. Similarly, Andover (actually it is Phillips Academy at Andover, founded by the same individual as Phillips Exeter) is and was a private school. President Bush has recounted how his tenures at Andover and Yale were, on balance, not particularly happy times, and his recent return to Yale was somewhat of a catharsis.

Boarding schools were single sex during his era and were patterned to varying degrees after such schools in the UK. It was believed that boys of privilege had responsibilities to society and they must not be left in the comfort of home to be coddled. Boarding schools during this time continued to have demanding task masters, and the schools were highly structured and regimented with only a modicum of privacy, offering very spartan living conditions. One elite Connecticut boarding school finally and reluctantly provided hot water for shaving and showers in the mid-1970s, as hot water was considered a luxury (and cold showers had other desired results). Most of these schools went co-ed in the 1970s, in part because of Title VII, but mostly because their applicant pools were decreasing significantly, as colleges were recruiting students directly from other schools —public and private.

In terms of grades, President Bush attended both Yale and Andover before the wave of grade inflation. Attaining a C, especially at Andover, was considered a very good mark. Boarding schools were very tough graders, and did not grade on a curve. They set high standards, thus a “C” meant that you met those standards. “Gentlemen Cs” were “good work.”

But, if the writers wish to take this line of pursuit, they should look at John F. Kennedy’s grades at Canterbury and then Choate. They were abysmal. He was also unhappy during his boarding school experiences. In terms of parental influence, his father’s letters to the headmaster at Choate and the president of Harvard are a matter of public record. But, George Bush did not necessarily want to attend Andover or Yale, and his grades most likely reflected this.

Let’s be honest, there are “breaks” and opportunities by/for people all the time. But, these are “individual” in nature and are situational. I am sure the CEOs of American Express, Merrill Lynch, AOL Time/Warner, FNMA, BET, among many others can exert influence on admissions, and they are, of course, African-Americans. I would suspect that the offspring of Eddie George and Archie Griffin can find a seat at Ohio State University regardless of their grades and credentials, as can Michael Jordan’s sons at UNC-Chapel Hill, even if they are not athletic. These “breaks” are personal and are now readily beginning to extend across gender, race, creed, color and religion. Franklin Raines went to Harvard and was a Rhodes Scholar. He is an African-American and CEO of FNMA. I would imagine that even if he has no children as legacies, he could write a very influential letter of reference — or place a call -— to Harvard for someone. Oprah Winfrey could as well. The list goes on and on.

I had some peers that used direct and indirect influence to get into a certain school or land a certain job, and later get advancements. It didn’t — and doesn’t — bother me. There are countless unequal situations; however, they do not necessarily translate into “inequality.” So, people invested in Bush’s business because of his “name” and family. So what? That happens all the time in Charlotte and elsewhere. It is common place.

At least Bush did not decide to kick back and live on trust income. He and his family waded into not only public service but commerce. George H.W. Bush was one of the youngest pilots in World War II and was shot down in combat. Yes, George W. Bush enlisted in the Air National Guard, but he did not brazenly evade the draft as Bill Clinton did. Flying military jets is a very demanding — and dangerous — task. He could have found something far easier to pursue. His decision had nothing to do with “an easy way out,” but more likely choosing the program that would allow him to follow in his father’s footsteps — as a military aviator. They “shared” Andover, Yale, and being a military aviator. Some see that as “privilege”; those that “know better” see it as “obligation.” Think about it.

Bush completed the MBA program at Harvard, unlike one of his recent critics of “his privilege” who was “excused” from Harvard Law School for cheating on an exam. The world is full of hypocrites, and they come out of the woodwork on issues such as this. In terms of being declined for admission at the University of Texas and then attending a private school, that happens a lot today with highly deserving candidates, such as Virginia residents applying to the University of Virginia. It is also not out of the realm of possibility that his father “pulled strings” to get such a rejection, so George W. would attend Yale. George W. didn’t want to attend Yale — as his father and grandfather had done. He did not want to attend Andover. He wanted to go to school in Texas and to The University of Texas.

The point is that whatever “breaks” (I see them as obligations of the “younger”) George Bush got 40 years ago in his admission to secondary school and college has little relevance to the issue now before the Supreme Court. It is a superficial diversion. In 1962, 40,000 federal troops were on and around the campus of Ole Miss in the wake of James Meredith’s efforts to enroll. This past month, James Meredith was the keynote speaker at Ole Miss as it overtly works to move forward in the 21st Century. In 1962, Ole Miss had no blacks enrolled. Today the percentage of African American students is higher at Ole Miss than it is at Michigan. Ole Miss did not have any blacks on its football team until the 1970s. The recent teams have been over 60 percent black — contrasted with Michigan’s at 45 percent. I only mention this, because a lot has changed in 40 years, and it is unfair to reach back into that era for aspects of President Bush’s “breaks” and enter them — with equal weight — into the discourse of this moment. It is also simply a lazy effort, because the underlying issues take thought.

But for discussion purposes, let’s look at specific issues. The University of Michigan has a category on its admission evaluation form that offers 20 points for candidates from one (and only one) of these following:

Someone from a disadvantaged background; under-represented minority; scholarship athlete; male enrolled in nursing; and at the Provost’s discretion. Admissions can only assign a total of 20 points in the above category. Thus, a highly disadvantaged black youth from a poor school in inner-city Detroit gets the same number of points as a black youth who went to, say, Andover, is the son of a financier and lives in a gated community. There are inequities — actually quite a few — that further tilts the scales towards the more “well heeled” black applicant, over a disadvantaged black applicant, and candidly, for a number of reasons, the University of Michigan would rather have the former.

For the subject point system, if you are black — rich or poor, born in an upscale suburb to a wealthy family or in a Detroit hovel — you get 20 points. Black is Black. Thus, don’t expect a proportional number of the latter in the University of Michigan’s freshman classes.

To me that is a concern. To be only a short drive from Detroit, it appears that the University of Michigan’s efforts are ineffective, given the proportion of African Americans — especially those that Affirmative Action is really intended to help — in the student body. And If I were a parent of a black applicant in inner-city Detroit — a stone’s throw from the Ann Arbor campus — I would be upset about the “tilt” towards the upper-class black applicants; but, then the media hasn’t really delved into the underlying “facts;” they have been too busy reaching back 40 years to whack George Bush — which is really what the columns were about.

Surely those aforementioned columnists could have offered something more substantive to their readership, perhaps along the lines of discussing the Amicus brief filed on behalf of 30 corporations, including Microsoft, supporting pro-active efforts to admit minorities; or on the system at Michigan, its pros and cons. Granted, a personal attack on George Bush is a good way to stoke emotion, but it is disingenuous and divisive, and takes the discourse away from the real issues at hand.

Personally, I do not believe that the University of Michigan’s policies are a form of quota system, and thus do not violate the 1978 ruling in Bakke. That is if you want to consider male nursing students as part of a quota system too, as they also get 20 points for just being male and enrolled in the nursing program. But, I am not called upon to decide the issue. Thankfully, those who are writing these media columns won’t decide it either, given their apparent level of thought and reflection on the subject. It will be decided in the Supreme Court.

Some applicants to the University of Michigan believe that they were denied their equal protection and access under the law and filed a suit. That is their right to pursue a legal course of remedy. The Bush administration offered an Amicus Brief. It will be considered — along with all the other facts of the case and arguments.

Hopefully, those who filed the Amicus briefs, those arguing the case, and those ultimately deciding the matter, will base the outcome on something other than the fodder contained in the media drivel.

“Fairness” is in the eye of the beholder. The issue is to not make up for past events, but to foster a society — through inclusiveness — for the benefit of all, as the corporate Amicus brief articulates. If it meant that my son would not have been accepted at a certain college or university, then I am sure that he could have found another viable alternative. Sometimes there are tradeoffs for the common good. We need to see beyond ourselves. But, bashing someone for events of 40 years ago does anyone little good.

There is a lot that people should be truly energized about, but you just can’t — or shouldn’t — find it through dredging up events of 40 years ago.

(Lee Shelton lives in Maggie Valley and can be reached at Lee@Ensync.com)