Wampum

If there is one image that George W. Bush likes to project it is that of a clear-eyed man of principle. He claims not to govern by polls. His political opponents, be they Anne Richards, Al Gore, or John Kerry are portrayed as wishy-washy politicians who put their finger into the wind to determine their positions. George Bush, according to Karl Rove, knows what he thinks, and takes principled positions regardless of the consequences. I have previously attempted to show that Mr. Bush is more of a flip flopper than he cares to admit. That does not mean he has no principles. He does, as the remainder of this post will show.

One issue on which Mr. Bush does the wishy-washy two-step is that of affirmative action. Take a peek at the following exchange from a 2000 Presidential debate and ask yourself which candidate knows what he believes and which is trying to fuzz the issue:

MEMBER OF AUDIENCE: Hi. How will your administration address diversity, inclusiveness, and what role will affirmative action play in your overall plan?

BUSH: I've had a record of bringing people from all walks of life into my administration, and my administration is better off for it in Texas. I'm going to find people that want to serve their country. But I want a diverse administration, I think it's important. I've worked hard in the State of Texas to make sure our institutions reflect the state with good, smart policy. Policy that rejects quotas. I don't like quotas. Quotas tend to pit one group of people against another. Quotas are bad for America. It's not the way America is all about. But policies that give people a helping hand so they can help themselves. For example, in our State of Texas I worked with the legislature, both Republicans and Democrats, to pass a law that said if you come in the top 10% of your high school class, you're automatically admitted to one of our higher institutions of learning, college. And as a result, our universities are now more diverse. It was a smart thing to do. What I called it, I labeled it affirmative access. I think the contracting business in government can help. Not with quotas, but help meet a goal of ownership of small businesses, for example. The contracts need to be smaller, the agencies need to be -- need to recruit and to work hard to find people to bid on the state contracts. I think we can do that in a way that represents what America is all about, which is equal opportunity and an opportunity for people to realize their potential. So to answer your question, I support, I guess the way to put it, is affirmative access. I'll have an administration that will make you proud. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Vice President Gore?

GORE: I believe in this goal and effort with all my heart. I believe that our future as a nation depends upon whether or not we can break down these barriers that have been used to pit group against group, and bring our people together. How do you do it? Well, you establish respect for differences. You don't ignore differences. It's all too easy for somebody in the majority in the population to say oh, we're just all the same, without an understanding of the different life experience that you've had, that others have had. Once you have that understanding and mutual respect, then we can transcend the differences and embrace the highest common denominator of the American spirit. I don't know what affirmative access means. I do know what affirmative action means. I know the governor is against it, and I know that I'm for it. I know what a hate crime statute pending at the national level is all about in the aftermath of James Byrd's death. I'm for that proposed law, the governor is against it. I know what it means to have a commitment to diversity. I am part of an administration that has the finest record on diversity. And incidentally, an excellent -- I mean, I think our success over the last eight years has not been in spite of diversity but because of it. Because we're able to draw on the wisdom and experience from different parts of the society that hadn't been tapped in the same way before. And incidentally, Mel Carnahan in Missouri had the finest record on diversity in any governor in the entire history of the State of Missouri. And I want to honor that among his other achievements here. Now, I just believe that what we have to do is enforce the civil rights laws. I'm against quotas. This is, with all due respect, Governor, that's a red herring. Affirmative action isn't quotas. I'm against quotas, they're illegal. They're against the American way. Affirmative action means that you take extra steps to acknowledge the history of discrimination and injustice and prejudice and bring all people into the American dream because it helps everybody, not just those who are directly benefitting.

MODERATOR: Governor, what is your -- are you opposed to affirmative action?

BUSH: If affirmative action means quotas, I'm against it. If affirmative action means what I just described what I'm for, then I'm for it. You heard what I was for. The vice president keeps saying I'm against things. You heard what I was for, and that's what I support.

MODERATOR: What about -- Mr. Vice President, you heard what he said.

GORE: He said if affirmative action means quotas, he's against it. Affirmative action doesn't mean quotas. Are you for it without quotas?

BUSH: I may not be for your version, Mr. Vice President, but I'm for what I just described to the lady.

GORE: Are you for what the Supreme Court says is a constitutional way of having affirmative action?

MODERATOR: Let's go on to another --

GORE: I think that speaks for itself.

Mr. Bush is in a hard political position because his base is dead set against any form of affirmative action but Mr. Bush also wants to make inroads with minority voters. That progress is unlikely if he takes a hard position against affirmative action.

Those competing and conflicting concerns lead Mr. Bush to take positions with respect to affirmative action that are neither fish nor foul.

Ward Connelly, a prime opponent of affirmative action notes Mr. Bush’s reluctance to take a firm position:

On the issue of "affirmative action," which is symbolically the most important issue to the black establishment, Bush has triangulated with the skill of Bill Clinton. He has never expressed a position regarding Proposition 209 (California's seminal initiative to end "preferential treatment" based on race). He has supported "affirmative access," and maintained more than an arm's length distance between himself and those who promote an end to race preferences and other forms of government paternalism.

I will discuss Mr. Bush’s advocacy of “affirmative access” in more detail below, but for now please allow me to note Jacob Weisberg’s definition of it:

Affirmative Access: Meaning unclear; either affirmative action or eliminating affirmative action...

In order to straddle the issue without offending either his base or minorities, Mr. Bush pursues a dual strategy. First, to avoid offending minorities, he professes beliefs that lead many to favor affirmative action.

For instance, Mr. Bush professes to believe that racial discrimination is a cause of poverty. In his Katrina speech, President Bush said the following:

As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action. So let us restore all that we have cherished from yesterday, and let us rise above the legacy of inequality.

Mr. Bush not only acknowledges that past discrimination has resulted in the poverty that we all saw in the wake of Karina, he is not a member of the Dinesh D’Souza position that racism is a thing of the past. Bush acknowledges that racism still exists. It is not much of a leap from those two facts to believe that currently existing racism results in an unfair playing field today. After all, if past racism has caused poverty and racism still exists, is it not logical to believe that the current racism, unaddressed, will result in the creation, or continuation, of poverty?

Mr. Bush also professes belief in the value of racial diversity. In the debate quoted above, Mr. Bush said “I going to find people that want to serve their country, but I want a diverse administration. I think it’s important.”

Mr. Bush talks about the value of diversity and he talks about it A LOT. The following snippets are from a single 2004 speech:

You believe there ought to be diversity on the editorial pages of America. I agree. You believe there ought to be diversity behind the managing editor's desk. I agree with that, too.

***
I believe that the benches ought to reflect, as best as possible, the diversity of our country. And I believe my administration ought to, too, and I've fulfilled that commitment. I've got people from all walks of life who advise me. My Cabinet is diverse. The people who walk into the Oval Office and say, Mr. President, you're not looking so good today, they're diverse…And I'm better off for it. I'm better off for listening from people from different walks of life.

***
When I was the governor of Texas, there was concerns (sic) that our big institutions were not -- big educational institutions were not diversified enough….

***

I have a responsibility to work for diversity, as well, in the administration. I've met the obligation. If you look at my administration, it's diverse….

***

We've got a diverse Cabinet. I've got a diverse administration. Hopefully, that sets an example for people when it comes to hiring, including news organizations….

***
and I think colleges need to work hard for diversity… I support colleges affirmatively taking action to get more minorities in their school…

***

I support diversity…

Not only does Mr. Bush support diversity in the abstract but if race neutral admissions criteria do not produce such diversity, Mr. Bush is in favor of policies that do result in diversity even if that includes using race as a factor. From the same speech:

If they don't work, to achieve an objective which is diversification, race ought to be a factor. I agree with that assessment. I think it's very important for all institutions to strive for diversity, and I believe there are ways to do so. … I support colleges affirmatively taking action to get more minorities in their school.

All that talk of racial discrimination causing poverty and the need for racial diversity might cause heartburn for certain members of Mr. Bush’s coalition. For those people, Mr. Bush relentlessly attacks quotas.

From the 2004 speech:

I think quotas are discriminatory by nature. They discriminate -- I think they discriminate on the bottom, and I know they discriminate on the top. And so I agreed with their assessment that a quota system was an unfair system for all.

***

I don't support quotas. I think quotas are wrong. I think quotas are wrong for people, and so do a lot of people.

From the 2000 debate:

I've worked hard in the State of Texas to make sure our institutions reflect the state with good, smart policy. Policy that rejects quotas. I don't like quotas. Quotas tend to pit one group of people against another. Quotas are bad for America…

***
I think the contracting business in government can help. Not with quotas,…

***
If affirmative action means quotas, I'm against it.

Mr. Bush’s firm opposition to quota systems is more than a bit disingenuous. Being against quotas is not really very helpful in determining where Mr. Bush stands on affirmative action. Quotas in higher education admissions were found unconstitutional in the Bakke decision. Bakke was decided in 1978. Thus, Mr. Bush’s opposition to quotas addresses an issue that has been settled for 27 years. It is as if a Democratic politician asked about his position on tax cuts answered that he opposed the 90% top marginal rates of the Eisenhower administration. It is, perhaps, true but it long ago ceased to be relevant.

Mr. Bush’s opposition to quotas combined with his support for diversity leads to some awkward moments. When the University of Michigan law school affirmative action case made its way to the Supreme Court, the administration was pressured to decide whether the Solicitor General would support or oppose the program. The administration dithered but, finally, the SG’s office filed a brief opposing the program. The basis for the opposition was that the Michigan law school affirmative action policy was, in fact, a quota system.

Before the Supreme Court ruling Mr. Bush said:

At their core, the Michigan policies amount to a quota system that unfairly rewards or penalizes prospective students based solely on their race.

After the Supreme Court upheld the law school admissions policy, Mr. Bush said:

I agreed with the Court in saying that we ought to reject quotas. I think quotas are discriminatory by nature. I think they discriminate on the bottom, and I know they discriminate on the top. And so I agreed with their assessment that a quota system was an unfair system for all.

According to Mr. Bush, the Michigan law school admissions policy was a bald faced quota system. Mr. Bush opposes quotas. The court upheld the policy. Mr. Bush agreed with the Court that quota systems should be rejected. I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer but all of those things can not be true.

Mr. Bush’s efforts to appease both minorities and his base on the affirmative action issue cannot work unless he has an alternative to traditional AA programs. For Mr. Bush, that solution is “affirmative access.”

His Texas policy of affirmative access allows college admission to Texas Universities for the top 10% of each High School class. Mr. Bush describes it:

We can have affirmative programs that enhance people’s chance to access the middle class without quotas and without pitting race against race. We were the first state to put a rule in place that the top 10% of each high school class could go to a state university. I call it affirmative access.

It is hard to see how affirmative access improves upon the Michigan law school plan as approved by the Supreme Court. As I have previously noted, affirmative access is similar to affirmative action in some ways but also combines the worst of both affirmative action and quotas into one bad bundle. In particular:

- like affirmative action, affirmative access is designed (pdf) to promote racial diversity on campus;

- unlike affirmative action, the Texas statute implementing affirmative access specifically recognizes that unqualified students will be admitted;

- because Texas residential housing patterns are segregated, and becoming more so (pdf) , affirmatire access implements an actual quota for minority admissions;

- Affirmative access encourages students to stay in bad schools so as to gain admission to Texas Universities;

- Affirmative access admits less qualified students over more qualified students in order to promote racial diversity;

- Instead of counting standardized test scores for 12 of 150 points, as Michigan did, those scores count for nothing in Texas;

- Affirmative access, unlike affirmative action, depends on segregation to accomplish its objectives.

Thus, Mr. Bush, in order to avoid having to favor or oppose affirmative action, has advocated a policy that combines the worst all worlds.

All of the above is intended to prove that Mr. Bush’s supporters are correct when they argue that he is a man of principle. The only principle he cares about is political advantage. His position with regard to affirmative action is perfectly designed to promote that principle.