Newspaper Page Text
Uommentary
ALONG THE COLOR LINE By Dr. Manning Marable
G.W. Bush: Affirmative action baby
Several days before last
month’s national holiday cele
brating Dr. Martin Luther King
Jr’s birthday, the Bush adminis
tration came out forcefully
against affirmative action poli
cies initiated at the University of
Michigan, which soon, will be
under Supreme Court review.
To his credit, Secretary of State
Colin Powell informed the
media that he continued to
express “support for the policies
used by the University of Michi
gan.”
Condoleeza Rice, Bush’s
national security adviser, unfor
tunately lacks Powell’s integrity:.
She at first claimed that she
agreed with her boss’s ridiculous
charge that Michigan’s policy of
giving preferences to black and
Latino applicants who came
from racially oppressed commu
nities is a “quota system.” Then
in a series of contradictory expla
nations Rice admitted that her
career had indeed “benefitted
from affirmative action.” She
also acknowledged that race
could be “a factor in university
admissions,” but not to the
extent used in the University of
Michigan’s admissions policies.
Compounding Bush’s deci
sion to oppose affirmative action
was his renomination of Charles
W, Pickering Sr., of Mississippi,
to the federal appellate court.
Pickering’s conservative history
on racial issues, such as his
efforts as a judge to reduce the
_ - Where: 1223 Laney-Walker Boulevard, Augusta, GA 30901
» When: February 23-26, 2003
= . Guest Preacher:
1 Reverend Dr. Charles E. Booth |
\,4 Pastor, Mt. Olivet Baptist Church
o - Columbus, Ohio ‘
£ Time: Sunday, February 23,2003, 11:00 AM
Rev. Dr. Charles E. Booth j
- Monday-Wednesday
' -~ February 24-26, 2003, 7:00 PM
Pou are inbited to join us as we renetw our spirit in Christ
I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of .
| ' everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. _
L e " Romans 1:16 NIV, ; A S ;
sentence of a man convicted of
burning a cross outside the
home of an interracial couple,
guarantee strong opposition to
his ratification in- the Senate.
‘Given the Republican Party’s
embarrassment in the wake of
Senator Trent Lott’s resignation
late last year, why would Bush
seem to go out of his way to
alienate the African-American
electorate? New York Senator
Charles Schumer spoke for
many when he informed the
press, “I'm still scratching my
head in amazement that they
actually (re)nominated him.”
The controversies over both
affirmative action and Picker
ing’s renomination led many
columnists to question the
administration’s commitment
to civil rights. One of the most
thoughtful commentaries to
appear was by author Roland S.
Martin, which appeared in USA
Today on the Martin Luther
King Jr. holiday. Posing the
question, how would King have
viewed Bush’s rejection of affir
mative action, Martin observed:
“President Bush opposes the
University of Michigan’s admis
sions program because he views
it as a quota system.” “Yet he is
proud to call himself a Yale grad
uate, even though he benefitted
from a quota system because of
his family’s history at the Ivy
League school. That’s right. Our
own president is an affirmative
action baby.”
Growing up, little G.W, was at
best a mediocre student. Accord
ing to New York Times colum
nist Nicholas D. Kristos, Bush
was denied admission to St.
dJohn’s, an elite private academy
in Houston. He managed to get
into Andover Academy, an elite
prep school in the Northeast
only because “it wanted Texans
to diversify its student body,
which was heavily from the
Northeast. In addition, using
just the kind of point system
that Mr. Bush now derides as
quotas, Andover gave George
three extra points on a2O point
scale.”
I think two points are crucial
here. First, Bush’s “legacy” pref
erence he received is “a higher
percentage than a Michigan
applicant gets for being black.”
Second, Bush’s admission
knocked out of Andover another
(probably white male) student
who had better grades, and was
better qualified than he was.
The same pattern of medioc
rity followed Bush into college.
He never made the honor roll at
Andover during his years in
high school. His SAT cumulative
scores in verbal and math were
about 150 points below the
median scores of students
admitted in his class at Yale.
Martin asks the logical question,
“Maybe Bush should ask him
self whether someone with bet
ter grades was denied a chance
to get into Yale” because he was
AUGUSTA FOCUS
selected. “If so, would he consid
er switching places with him or
hertoday?”
If Martin Luther King Jr. was
with us today, he would probably
tion’s racial strategy as “sym
bols without substance.” King
would certainly applaud Bush’s
appointments of blacks in high
level administrative positions,
such as Powell and Rice. He
would have commended the
President’s criticism of Lott’s
outrageously offensive state
ments, celebrating Strom Thur
mond’s 1948 presidential cam
paign on the Dixiecrat segrega
tionist ticket. But King would
deplore and condemn the
administration’s ugly pandering
to racist, conservative extrem
ists in our country by falsely
describing “preferences” as
“qllotas.”
King would perhaps cite a
recent study published in Acad
eme, the journal of the American
Association of University Pro
fessors, that shows that minori
ty students actually have less
access to college today relative to
white students than they did a
quarter of a century ago. Affir
mative action programs have
expanded access to college for
black and Latino students, the
study confirms, but these gains
have been “offset by policies that
give an advantage to white
applicants.”
From page 8A
Iraq began in September of
last year, and not earlier.
“From a marketing point of
view,” he said, “you don’t
introduce a new product in
‘August.”
“From a marketing point of
view,” the “new product” was
a great success.
From a moral point of view,
it was shameless.
It served to obscure the ero
sion of our civil liberties,
assaults on justice and equali
ty, the failing market, the
evaporation of pensions and
retirement benefits, the shift
in our economy from surplus
to growing deficit, the calami
ty of corporate crime, and it
concealed record unemploy
ment. 4
On September 12, Presi
dent Bush spoke here in New
York before the United,
Nations, reassuring our allies
and enemies alike that multi
lateralism and cooperation
would be hallmarks of his
approach to Iraq. :
But eight days later, on Sep
tember 20, the administration
announced a frightening new
doctrine — preemption —
erasing for the first time the
distinction between preemp
tive and preventive war. And
erasing our moral standing
across the globe.
A perhaps chastened
administration was forced
back to the United Nations,
where there emerged the res
FEBRUARY 20, 2003
olution requiring Iraq to hand
over a declaration of all
nuclear, biological and chemi
cal stocks.
The United Nations Resolu
tion declared a failure to do so
to be a “material breach.”
The question is whether that
breach is a license to go to
war.
We answer no!
Not when an attack on Iraq
may result in the use of
weapons of mass destruction
on our troops, Iraq’s neigh
boring states, or United
States facilities abroad.
Not when an invasion may
induce Iraq to transfer
weapons of mass destruction
to terrorist groups.
Not when Iraq does not
appear to present an immi
nent threat — and while
Osama bin Laden still does!
Since the Gulf War, the
United Nations has weakened
and contained Iraq’s program
of developing weapons of
mass destruction.
In lieu of unilateral attack,
we ought to support the rein
troduction of an intrusive,
unfettered inspection regime
into Iraq, preventing materi
als for the development of
weapons of mass destruction
from entering Iraq and pre
venting those weapons from
being used against other
nations.
In opposition to unilateral
war against Iraq, we join a
distinguished group of patri
otic Americans.
9A