That is what we want, John. The only caveat is, "You just can't discriminate."
Doesn't work that way, Bill. The whole selection process is based on "discrimination." I suppose you are objecting to race as a factor in the discrimination process. I gather you see that, in doing so, you disagree with Condelezza Rice. Interesting? No?
No one takes your position. (1) Bush, in his public statement, which confuses the issues no end, but was an obvious political statement meant to appease his base, rather than a thoughtful statement as to what the country should do, said the issue was "quotas". Presumably, one could use race just not as quotas. It's been sometime since I checked the literature, but I recall that's a rough and ready version of the Bakke decision. That was so convoluted that it's hard to remember just what. Of course, Bush, as is usual, is wrong on this point because Michigan did not use a quota system. You have to do some intellectual gymnastics to get from its points system to the notion that it is a quota system.
(2) Rice, in her statement, said race was an acceptable factor but Michigan had just given race too many points, 20. Now the interesting thing about that position is it's actually something one could argue about. The Michigan system gave 20 points for being a "scholarship athlete", 20 points for "socio-economic disadvantage," 20 points for "underrepresented racial-ethnic minority identification or education", 10 points for being a Michigan resident, 6 points for coming from an underrepresented Michigan county, 4 points for legacy. And so on. So you could argue with their scheme.
Or (3) the Bush administration brief itself which, at least in the NYTimes quotes, takes a more sweeping position in opposing race as a criterion but did not ask for a reversal of Bakke, which they the position would seem to call for.
Take your pick which you think is the Bush position. A little like North Korea right now. No? |
