Bush’s Preferences
The Adarand case.

By Glynn Custred & James Stockdale. Glynn Custred is co-author of Proposition 209 a ballot initiative that ended racial and ethnic preferences in the public sector in California. James Stockdale is a long time Republican political consultant.
August 29, 2001 9:00 a.m.

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.