01-15-2003, 04:30 PM
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
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