CDIH

The University of Michigan is in a lawsuit going to the Supreme court this summer about the university's use of race in the app review process. Bush may be sticking his hands in that too.

God bless America.



Edited By Splatterpunk on 1042646560

May Intervene in Affirmative Action Case
January 15, 2003
By NEIL A. LEWIS



WASHINGTON, Jan. 14 - President Bush has asked
administration lawyers to present him with a brief arguing
that the University of Michigan's programs for using race
in admission decisions go too far, officials said today.
The officials said Mr. Bush was prepared to have the
government file the papers with the Supreme Court on
Thursday, a move that would inject the administration into
one of the largest affirmative action cases in a
generation.

But the White House said Mr. Bush had not yet given the
final approval to move ahead. And it was unclear how
sweeping a stand the administration would take on the
fundamental question of whether race may ever be used as a
factor in higher-education admissions decisions.
The case has far-reaching political implications for Mr.
Bush. Conservatives fiercely oppose race-based preferences.
At the same time, Mr. Bush and the Republicans are trying
to court minority voters. The issues are further
complicated by the controversy over remarks by Senator
Trent Lott of Mississippi that were widely considered
racially insensitive and cost Mr. Lott his majority leader
post.

The administration has a variety of options even if it
decides to argue that the Michigan programs are
unconstitutional. Its lawyers could argue that the specific
programs and practices of the university rely on race too
much, leaving open the notion that universities might be
allowed other methods of assuring a diverse student body.
It could also state that any preference based on race or
ethnic status is unconstitutional and that universities'
claims that the goal is a diverse student body are not
enough to justify the race considerations involved in
affirmative action.

For weeks, Justice Department lawyers have deliberated with
the White House to reach a consensus on how far to go in
backing the case filed by white students challenging the
constitutionality of the university's admissions policies.
The issue has also been the subject of intense debate among
senior Bush aides.
Officials have been wrestling over the wording of the
brief, which they believe is critical in shaping the
political message Mr. Bush wants to send about his views on
affirmative action. As the governor of Texas, Mr. Bush
opposed racial preferences in public universities and
proposed instead that all students graduating in the top 10
percent of all high schools be eligible for admission.
The administration has a Thursday deadline to inform the
Supreme Court of its views if it wants to support the three
white students who challenged the university's admissions
policies in both the undergraduate and law schools. It is
not obligated to take a stand.

The Michigan cases have the potential to set broad new
guidelines on the heated issue of whether and how much race
should play a part in getting into the nation's best
universities. It comes a generation after the court's last
significant ruling on the issue, the 1978 Bakke case, in
which the justices invalidated the use of fixed racial
quotas but said that diversity was a worthy goal.
The University of Michigan is one of many institutions that
have tried to adopt procedures that would not run afoul of
the prohibition against strict quotas but would still allow
them to achieve greater diversity in the incoming classes.
Conservatives and other opponents of such affirmative
action programs have accused higher education officials of
simply evading the strictures and creating programs that
operate the same as quotas.

In the Michigan undergraduate case, the university awards
extra points to minority candidates, while the law school
uses race as one of many factors that could enhance an
applicant's chances.

Roger Clegg, general counsel for the Center for Equal
Opportunity, which opposes affirmative action programs,
said conservatives would not be satisfied by a less than
sweeping stand by the White House.
If the administration does not challenge the premise that
the search for diversity is a compelling reason to
discriminate, Mr. Clegg said, "It would change almost
nothing."

"If the door to discrimination is left ajar, colleges and
universities will drive a truck through like they have in
all the years since Bakke," he said.

The last president to confront a similar problem, Bill
Clinton, also had to weigh how to balance firmly enunciated
principles against political realities.

While the Clinton administration was philosophically
inclined to favor affirmative action, it was obliged to
take a middle road when forced to deal with a difficult
political case in 1997. The case involved a decision by the
Piscataway, N.J., school board to achieve needed budget
cuts by laying off a white woman who taught business
classes in favor of a black business teacher solely on the
basis of race.

The white teacher, Sharon Taxman, was an extraordinarily
sympathetic figure to much of the public and a stark
example of where affirmative action programs could lead.

In the end, the Justice Department said that firing Ms.
Taxman was wrong but that the justices should still allow
the use of affirmative action in hiring and promotions.

The Piscataway school board settled the case before it
reached Supreme Court arguments.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003....154&ei=">http://www.nytimes.com/2003....154&ei=</a><!-- m -->
1&en=0ecc65ef2e7209bc

Yeah, I was just reading about that...does this administration take a stand on anything (besides bombing Iraq?) So wishy-washy. You know Bush is certainly against affirmative action, but the Republican party is reaching out to black people more than ever, trying to bring them into the fold for so the party can survive in the future....so they can't piss them off.

Quote:In the Michigan undergraduate case, the university awards
extra points to minority candidates, while the law school
uses race as one of many factors that could enhance an
applicant's chances.

Oter preferred status at this fine university, which will win as much favor as being part of an underrepresented population:

-- Being a man applying to the nursing school
-- Being a woman applying to engineering
-- Being an athlete, especially a football player.
-- Knowing a Provost, Regent, or Dean.

Free admit, all of these, and worth just as much in the evaluation process as racial minority standing.

Let's see the season ticket holders oppose athletic recruitment.

Also add to that list being IMPECUNIOUS. :-D

Growing up in the inner city also gets you the score.

I tried to do just links, but they didn't want to work.

Last stuff I'll post, I promise.

--------------------------

Bush wary of race-based admissions

White House weighs politics and policy

By Mike Allen and Charles Lane
THE WASHINGTON POST


THE OFFICIALS said Bush, who faces a deadline tomorrow for registering opposition with the high court, plans to pay tribute to the value of racial diversity in higher education. But he plans to argue that Michigan’s approach is flawed.

The issue is politically sensitive and legally complex, and top administration aides last night were unable to provide crucial details about the brief’s legal arguments, which are still the subject of discussion by top presidential advisers. For example, it was unclear whether the brief’s praise of diversity would go so far as to assert that achieving racial diversity is so important that it justifies college admissions officials to consider race, in some fashion.

“Not all the decisions have been made,” an official said. The decision could come as early as today, the official said.

The aides said Bush plans to point to an “affirmative access” program he championed as governor of Texas. It guaranteed state-college admission to the top 10 percent of each high school graduating class, regardless of race.

The Michigan case presents Bush with one of the thorniest political questions of his administration. The administration is eager to placate its conservative base, which generally opposes racial preferences, while also continuing to woo Hispanic voters, a growing percentage of the electorate.

Meanwhile, administration officials said they were aware of the sensitivities of African American voters after the furor over remarks by Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) last month, when he praised a 1948 segregationist presidential campaign. The comments cost Lott his job as Senate Republican leader.

Conservatives said they worry that a compromise brief from the administration will send an equivocal signal to the justice generally considered to hold the swing vote in the case, Sandra Day O’Connor. Generally inclined to take modest steps on the most controversial issues before the court, she could take a fudge by the administration as a cue to issue a middle-of-the-road opinion of her own, conservative activists said.

----


SHOWDOWN OVER MICHIGAN CASE


At Michigan, applicants who are “underrepresented minorities”— blacks, Latinos and Native Americans — receive a 20-point bonus on a 150-point scale used to rate aspiring undergraduates.

[Splat note: Actually, 160 points are possible.]

At the law school, admissions officers strive to admit a “critical mass” of minority students, a goal that is not specifically defined, but has generally produced entering classes that are 12 percent to 20 percent minority. Conservative critics of the programs say they are tantamount to quotas, and thus violate the constitutional ban on racial discrimination by the states.

Both administration officials and conservative opponents of affirmative action depicted Bush’s planned position as a political compromise forged amid intense negotiation. Justice Department lawyers, led by Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, lobbied the president hard for a brief that would categorically declare that not even diversity can justify the use of race. White House political adviser Karl Rove and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, sensitive to the need to expand the Republican base to include minorities, pushed in the other direction, the officials said.

“It’s a hard brief,” an administration official said. “You can say it touches all the political bases or you can say everyone’s going to hate us anyway.”


--


BUSH’S PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said Bush, who leaves such decisions to the Justice Department in lesser cases, had taken deep personal involvement in preparing the administration position. “It’s something the president has continued to focus on,” Fleischer said yesterday. “He’ll likely focus on it some more, and it remains a question under review.” The case’s key legal issue is whether achieving a diverse student body is such a ‘compelling interest’ that it justifies otherwise impermissible state government actions: considering college applicants’ race in deciding whom to admit.

A day earlier, Fleischer said Bush “views matters of race as some of the most important, sensitive matters in our country.” He said Bush is sensitive to “giving opportunities to people from a variety of backgrounds, while also giving opportunities in a manner for one and for all in our country.”

The case’s key legal issue is whether achieving a diverse student body is such a “compelling interest” that it justifies otherwise impermissible state government actions: considering college applicants’ race in deciding whom to admit. Even if diversity is “compelling,” any use of race must be “narrowly tailored” to achieve it-meaning it must do a minimum of harm to other societal and individual interests.

Since the Supreme Court’s divided and ambiguous 1978 ruling in the case of University of California v. Bakke, universities have operated on the assumption that the Constitution permits them to use race as a factor in admissions, as long as they do not set rigid quotas. However, in recent years lower courts have issued contradictory rulings as to whether the Bakke case actually did establish the principle that diversity could justify using race, even as one factor among many.

Staff writer Amy Goldstein contributed to this report.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

ikeapunk?

if by facist you mean politician, then yes he is. it appears to me that he is doing anything and everything in his power to make it look like he cares for the american people...all he really wants is to stay in office. to think that we are going to war because sadam mistreats his people is silly...but also to think that it has solely to do with oil isn't accurate either. If I recall the numbers correctly, Iraq only produces 10% of the oil we import, which is a very small number, I think Mexico provides more than that to us...it is a ploy to stay in office, make it look like he is playing tough with "terrorists" and keeping us safe. Sure, sadam is a dick, and a bad guy, but he isn't bin laden, who should still be public enemy #1, and who we should be concentrating on finding...but you can't stay in office chasing one guy...

Quote:Iraq only produces 10% of the oil we import

yes, but it has the second largest oil reserves in the world, think of how long we can ride in our gas-guzzling suv's if we seize those fields.

Here's a really good article that discusses various reasons why this war is imminent: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/1560820.php">http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/01/1560820.php</a><!-- m -->

i don't mean to sound like a flower waving hippy but when is everyone gonna learn that we are all dependent on each other. im as much a patriot as the next guy but we are as much to blame for getting into this war as Iraq is. friends one day, enemies the next all because of economics. it seems like north korea is a more immediate threat but its not getting the same attention afghanistan and iraq are getting.

Quote:to think that we are going to war because sadam mistreats his people is silly...but also to think that it has solely to do with oil isn't accurate either.

... Norman Schwartzkoff signed a ceasefire with represenatives of the Iraqi government during their desert meeting in 1991, which ended the Gulf War. The conditions which Saddam Hussein agreed to were that he would disarm, destroy all chemical and biological weapons, not develop any weapons and to provide proof that he had complied. If he did not comply, that would break the ceasefire agreement. Saddam Hussein is the one and only person who must provide proof that he is complying with that ceasefire. The fact that he told weapons inspectors where they could and could not go, then told American weapons inspectors to leave, then told all weapons inspectors to leave is evidence that he does not want to prove his compliance with the ceasefire. Also, the fact that the UN had to come up with resolution after resolution after resolution for Iraq is evidence that Saddam could not meet the terms of the original ceasefire. The reason we will go to war with Iraq is because Saddam Hussein has not proven himself in compliance with the ceasefire.

... he does treat his people like shit. He enforces fear into his people. If you live in Iraq, and it comes time to vote "Yes or No" to Saddam being president, you will vote yes, or else he kills you and possibly your family. He stamps cigarette butts and pours acid onto people's skin. He has a professional RAPIST. He is an evil man, YET, we cannot go to war over this. WE CAN go to war over him breaking the ceasefire, and killing this evil man happens to be a side benefit.

... And there's still no evidence that President George W. Bush is willing to draw the United States into a war in order to get oil contracts....

Quote:but he isn't bin laden, who should still be public enemy #1, and who we should be concentrating on finding...but you can't stay in office chasing one guy

... we have the best military in the world... we have one of the largest in the world.... it's insulting to the United States to think that the military can't walk and chew bubble gum AND hold an M-16 at the same time...there is news of the US capturing terrorists and sleeper cells every two weeks at the most.... we can fight terrorism and Saddam Hussein at the same time... Hell, throw Korea into there, we can fight them too if they feel like starting shit... we've been at war with them for over 50 years now, if they want some attention, we can shine some light on them... it'll just be the type of light that generates the type of heat you find near the surface of the sun....

how is our assumption that we are going to war because g.w. has oil interests in mind any worse than the assumption that iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

WE have weapons of mass destruction, what makes us any less accountable?

Quote:how is our assumption that we are going to war because g.w. has oil interests in mind any worse than the assumption that iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

... The US runs under the assumption that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction because Saddam has not proven otherwise. Because he has not proven himself, he is in violation of the ceasefire, which means we can resume war. ... Like I stated earlier, the fact that President Bush made his money from oil before he was president is not evidence that he is willing to bring the United States into war so that he can get oil contracts... If there was evidence of that, the Democrats would use it and Bush would probably be impeached and forced to leave office at the most, and at the very least he would lose the next election.

Quote:WE have weapons of mass destruction, what makes us any less accountable?

... Our posession of weapons of mass destruction does not breach our ceasefire agreement with Iraq or with any other country.

you are talking politics, i'm talking common sense which politics are devoid of.

... I am giving the reason that we are going to war... common sense dictates that if you can prove something to be true, then it true. The assumption that we are going to war over oil cannot be proven to be true, thus, it is not true until it is proven...

do you feel we are justified in going to war, cause I sure as Hell don't, not on these terms.

the only right we have to enforce our will upon Iraq is the one that has been behind the fall of great civilizations like the Roman Empire, and that is that might means right. you think Iraq is the only country being ruled by a dictator who treats his citizens like pawns? you think our country is any less accountable for its own actions because of a lack of a "ceasefire agreement". there might come a day when this country simply doesn't have the political and economic clout to buy and sell the rest of the world into agreeing to our agenda. its not just our fault but the fault of every nation in this world that fails to look at the bigger picture and blindly follows whoever the toughest kid on the block is.

Quote:... The US runs under the assumption that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction because Saddam has not proven otherwise. Because he has not proven himself, he is in violation of the ceasefire, which means we can resume war.

He's in violation of the ceasefire that he was forced to sign, or else we would've wiped out his entire country. Saddam's a scumbag, yes, you won't get many arguments that he isn't. But he's a scumbag who never posed any sort of threat to the United States. He's a scumbag who had the support of the United States government, even when he was gassing his own people (and we still to this day support states who similarly practice ethnic cleansing - Turkey and Israel, for example). Only when he invaded Kuwait, and threatened to fuck with part of our OIL supply, did we officially decide that he was a scumbag. Gas your own people, but don't fuck with our oil. Of course, Bush wasn't stupid enough to explicitly say that we were in it for oil - that would mean major backlash from the American population, and other allied nations. So it was done under the pretense of liberating the poor oppressed Kuwaiti and Iraqui civilians, people who we didn't give a fuck about when we had no reason to. So we bombed Iraq and bombed Iraq until they had no choice but to sign the treaty. This is a country that fought the most powerful military in the world - more powerful than the next 10 nations combined - using SCUD missiles.

Do they have nukes? Doubtful. Do they have bio and chemical weapons? Probably, almost certainly. Do they have the means use those weapons against the United States? Not against the mainland, not against any territories - only potentially against US troops in the area. Troops stationed, for example, in Saudi Arabia - our good buddy, that beacon of harmony and freedom.

Quote:... Our posession of weapons of mass destruction does not breach our ceasefire agreement with Iraq or with any other country.

We'd never give them up unless forced. Nobody can force us.

Quote:common sense dictates that if you can prove something to be true, then it true. The assumption that we are going to war over oil cannot be proven to be true, thus, it is not true until it is proven...

It also hasn't been proven true that Saddam has nukes, bio, or chemical weapons. It also hasn't been proven true that bin Laden was directly connected to 911 for that matter. You said earlier something to the effect of, Saddam not cooperating with inspectors essentially proves his guilt. Wouldn't Bush's pandering to the oil industry work the same way, logically?

Quote:It also hasn't been proven true that Saddam has nukes, bio, or chemical weapons. It also hasn't been proven true that bin Laden was directly connected to 911 for that matter. You said earlier something to the effect of, Saddam not cooperating with inspectors essentially proves his guilt. Wouldn't Bush's pandering to the oil industry work the same way, logically?

... Here's where I get to use the bullets button for the first time :thumbs-up:

<ul>The US doesn't even need to prove that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. Saddam has to simply prove that he does not have weapons of mass destruction, that he has destroyed all facilities, and that he is not re-arming. If he cannot prove that, we can resume war.

I alluded to earlier that is is suspicious that the FBI has not added the September 11th attacks to the numerous list of crimes that Osama bin Laden is wanted for. If there is that evidence, how come the FBI still only wants him for the embassy and Cole bombings?

Because Saddam Hussein did not cooperate with weapons inspectors, he does not wish to prove himself. If he does not prove Iraq has abided by the ceasefire, then he is in breach of the ceasefire and we can resume war. It proves that Saddam Hussein is guilty of not cooperating with weapons inspectors. That is in breach of the ceasefire. President George W. Bush pandering to oil companies makes him guilty of pandering to oil companies, which is not in breach of the cease-fire. It does not make him guilty of going to war with Iraq over oil. </ul>

Now, if there was evidence that this war was about oil, I would then be against it, because oil is an outdated form of energy, a product which causes pollution and put our economy in the hands of dictators, terrorists, and racists. Oil is not a reason to go to war. But, it has yet to be proven that this war is about oil.

... awww, man, that's false fucking advertisement... the button has a bulleted list, yet all it does is indent the paragraphs.... mother fucker....