|
 lavery
was wrong. Segregation was wrong. It is also wrong for the government
to prefer one individual over another solely on the basis of that
individual's skin color or ethnic affiliation. In fact, this principle
has been encoded in federal law in the landmark Civil Rights Act
of 1964; expressing what for the majority of the American people
today is a simple matter of fairness and justice. But does the president
of the United States believe that racial and ethnic preferences
are wrong? Apparently not. Earlier this month, President Bush ordered
his Solicitor General to defend a federal race-based preference
program before the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme
Court had already found that program unlawful.
The case involves
Adarand Construction, Inc., a family-run company in Colorado that
specializes in highway construction. In 1989 Adarand came in with
the lowest bid on a federal highway contract. Adarand lost the bid.
The reason is that its owner, Randy Pech, is white and non-Latino.
Mr. Pech sued arguing that he had suffered unlawful discrimination.
The case eventually reached the Supreme Court and Mr. Pech won.
Rather than implementing the court's decision Clinton used delaying
tactics in order to accommodate the demands of one of his most important
political constituencies.
Eventually
the case reached the Supreme Court again. George W. Bush was faced
with the choice of either supporting the Clinton argument, or opposing
federal programs based on racial and ethnic preferences. Bush chose
preferences. His apologists say that his decision represents a simple
continuum of a long-standing federal case. But what about leadership?
A courageous president would have come out four square in favor
of individual rights and equality before the law. For example, Bush
has the authority to issue an Executive Order ending such practices
in the federal government. Instead, Bush remained silent until forced
to make a decision. He chose the Clinton argument rather than equality
before the law. Leadership requires ignoring the easy route and
doing what is right. Mr. Bush failed the test of leadership.
Perhaps Mr.
Bush opted for defending racial preferences instead of equality
because he thought it was smart politics. If so, the president was
wrong. Since the 1970s poll after poll shows that the American public
believes racial and ethnic preferences are wrong. The latest example
is the Zogby Cultural Poll taken in 2001. Zogby asked Americans
what they thought about racial preferences. The majority in every
group sampled in the survey opposed them, whites, blacks, Latinos.
Also, ballot initiatives opposing racial and ethnic preferences
have won by wide margins in California (Proposition 209) and in
Washington State (I-200). This makes it clear that opposition to
quotas and preferences is indeed a winning political issue.
The majority
of the people who support preferences are members of what can called
"the grievance industry." This industry is comprised of
race hustlers like Jesse Jackson who make their living by exploiting
racial tensions. They preach that the American Dream is a lie. Those
who buy the argument of the grievance industry will never vote for
Mr. Bush. By supporting racial and ethnic preferences Mr. Bush ignores
his own constituency in favor of people who under no circumstances
would ever vote for him. George W. Bush also fails the test of political
savvy.
But then Bush's
actions in the Adarand case may possibly express neither
a failure of leadership nor clumsy and ineffectual pandering. The
evidence indicates that Bush does indeed feel comfortable with preferences,
perhaps even morally obliged to defend and advance them whenever
possible. As governor of Texas he never opposed a quota bill, thus
winning him accolades from the Texas grievance industry. During
the presidential campaign he blurred his position on preferences.
He gave lip service opposing quotas and preferences but also promised
as president he would pursue a policy of "affirmative access."
Is "affirmative access" another euphemism for government
enforced quotas and preferences? The evidence so far indicates that
it is.
The nation
deserves more than mixed signals from the president on the issue
of race preferences. If the president opposes racial preferences
and quotas, he should put actions behind his words. Randy Pech and
millions like him should know they have a president who will work
to ensure we all receive equal protection before the law.
|
