Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Jan. 16, 2003 / 13 Shevat, 5763

Dick Morris

Dick Morris
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

End racism in affirmative action | The Bush administration and the U.S. Supreme Court now face the same quandary: how to handle the competing needs of the poor for affirmative action and the society for a racially neutral environment.

With two cases challenging affirmative action programs at the University of Michigan now on the court docket, the Supreme Court - and the Bush administration - has a chance to strike down race- and gender-based preference programs but, at the same time, permit objectively based efforts to help the poor and underprivileged.

Too often the debate on affirmative action is cast in a simplistic context. The parties' political positions on affirmative action are dogmatically pro and con, reflecting the needs of their political bases.

The Democrats are so heavily indebted for campaign contributions and political support to the official black and feminist organizations that are dependent on affirmative action set asides that they cannot act independently. The Republicans are reflexively captive of their base, which opposes any aid or advantage to anyone but themselves.

But public policy should militate toward a plague on both of them. We need a way to help the poor without being racist about it. Neither answer is the right one. It is morally, ethically, legally, constitutionally and democratically wrong to base preferences on race, gender, religion or any other immutable characteristic.

Reverse racism is still racism. Reverse gender bias is still bias. But it is just as misguided to end programs designed to level the playing field for those from poor families or who live in poor neighborhoods.

In a world where one of eight new admissions to Harvard are effectively reserved for the children of alumni, some kind of affirmative action is necessary to redress the balance and give the poor a chance at upward mobility.

But to base this access to opportunity on race or gender is un-American. The law must be color-blind and gender neutral. But it must not ignore the need to help those who are born into the underclass to move up the social and economic ladder.

Affirmative action is a good idea. It should be continued. It ought not to be struck down. But it should be based on objective measurements such as family income, impoverished background or residence in a poor neighborhood. All affirmative action programs, those that award admissions to schools and those that give the advantage to minority- or female-headed firms in government contracts, should be based on objective criteria.

The Supreme Court should strike down those programs that are based on race or gender, but leave the door open to affirmative action to combat poverty and deprivation.

One half of all poor children in the United States live in households headed by a white man. One in eight live in a home with only a white male adult. These poor people deserve the same consideration and the same advantages as we confer on families headed by women or by minorities. Poor is poor and it makes no difference what is the color or gender of the poverty.

It is particularly important that the Supreme Court close the door on preference programs which award a certain percentage of their construction and other contracts to firms headed by women or minorities. These programs too often reward companies only nominally run by a member of the protected class or, worse, give preferences to wealthy black, Hispanic, or female businesspeople in the name of fighting poverty.

These set-aside programs - which set aside a certain percentage of contracts for protected categories - should be based on only two criteria: Are the companies based in inner-city poor areas? And do they employ large numbers of poor people?

Democratic politicians regard set-aside programs as a political gravy train to reward minority and feminist constituents, many of whom need no help. By targeting the poor, rather than the female or the black, affirmative action can more nearly approximate its initial raison d'etre - to help the poor.

The Bakke decision, which has stood for two decades as the Supreme Court's word on affirmative action, was an unimaginative compromise which, while prohibiting quotas in university admissions, allowed pursuit of diversity in which race was considered as one of a number of factors. The public interest in enriching the university experience by having a diverse student body is minor compared to the need to use affirmative action to promote admission to elite schools as a way to shuffle the social deck and help the poor come out on top.

Conservatives rant against affirmative action as reverse racism. Insofar as it is based on the color of one's skin, they are right. But we should extend preferences to poor people who do not have a rich uncle or well-connected father to arrange jobs, interviews and university admissions for them. If we don't, we risk betraying the dream of upward mobility. But if we base these preferences on race and gender, we endanger the equally important dream of a color-blind and gender-neutral government.

Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

JWR contributor Dick Morris is the author of, among others, "Power Plays: Top 20 Winning and Losing Strategies of History's Great Political Leaders" Comment by clicking here.


01/13/03: The new swing voter
01/10/03: Political e-mailing comes of age
01/07/03: In Dem race: Home field no advantage
12/31/02: Hey, Hillary: Want to appear like a stateswomyn? Stay silent
12/19/02: Kerry in the lead
12/19/02: Lieberman the frontrunner
12/17/02: In defense of Lott
12/02/02: An issue for Bush: Drugs
11/27/02: Women gone wobbly?
11/25/02: The U.N. over a barrel
11/15/02: Gore's suicide
11/15/02 One-party control is an illusion
11/13/02 The House of Extremes
11/08/02 I have egg on my face
11/01/02 Is Bush losing control over events?
10/25/02What is causing Bush's free fall?
10/25/02: Anybody sense a trend?
10/23/02: A deadline for Iraq
10/18/02: Only sure bet of 2002 elections is voter angst
10/16/02: Endangered incumbents
10/11/02: Why multilateralism doesn't work
10/09/02: Hey, Dems: Believe NYTimes polling at your own risk
10/03/02: Dem suicide: Let's count the ways
09/30/02: The Dems just can't stop themselves
09/26/02: The perils of polling
09/19/02: W. boxed in the U.N.
09/19/02: Welfare reform: Keep on keeping on
09/12/02: Are Dems insane on Iraq?
09/09/02: Twin shadows of Election '02
09/05/02: GOP should triangulate
08/28/02: Trust the military
08/22/02: It's not the economy, stupid
08/09/02: As America unites, Gore goes divisive
08/01/02: Bush must focus on big picture
07/23/02: Election 2002: Advantage Dems
07/19/02: Rudy for SEC tough cop
07/17/02: The investor strike
07/15/02: Door open for drug testing students --- go for it, GOP!
07/12/02: Dubya looking out for No. 1?
07/03/02: The DNA war for Bush's soul
06/21/02: Why are conservatives winning?
06/19/02: Learning to love the feds
06/14/02: Hey, journalists and Dems: Dubya is doing just fine
06/12/02: It's terrorism, stupid!
06/10/02: Sanctions are a potent weapon
06/04/02: Al Qaeda's more dangerous new front
05/31/02: Why '04 looks tough for liberal Dems
05/24/02: Democratic self-destruction
05/22/02: The Clinton failures
05/15/02: Pataki positioned to win
05/08/02: A wakeup-call for American Jewry
05/03/02: Give Bush back his focus
05/01/02: Immigration fault li(n)es
04/25/02: It's the war, stupid
04/17/02: Bush goes small bore
04/12/02: Bush must be a gentle partisan
04/10/02: In defense of polling
04/08/02: Focus on Iraq, not the Palestinians
04/01/02: Only Internet will bring real campaign finance reform
03/27/02: Where W's drawn a line in the sand
03/22/02: Enron scandal will not trigger a wave of economic populism
03/20/02: Term-limited --- by war
03/15/02: Europe doesn't have a clue
03/11/02: Bush popularity = GOP win?
03/01/02: Will America be forced to chase its tail in its war on terrorism?
02/27/02: The Arafat/Saddam equilibrium must be destroyed
02/21/02: Campaign finance reform won't hurt GOPers
02/13/02: Dodd scurries for cover
02/11/02: U.S. 'unilateralism'? The Europeans don't have a case
02/06/02: WAR: What women want
02/01/02: They all talk in the end
01/30/01: The odd couple: Chris Dodd and Arthur Andersen
01/22/01: His father's son? Bush better get an 'Act II' fast!
01/18/01: Dubya & the 'vision thing'
01/14/01: The Rumsfeld Doctrine 01/03/01: A President Gore would have been a disaster
01/03/02: Clinton's priority: Political correctness over fighting terror
12/27/01: Terror network grew out of Clinton's inaction, despite warnings
12/24/01: Call 'em back, George
12/18/01: What Bush did right
12/13/01: Libs worry too much
12/11/01: "Open Sesame": Feinstein's proposed bill allows 100,000 non-immigrant students from anti-American countries to our shores
12/07/01: The non-partisan president
12/05/01: Both parties are phony on stimulus debate
11/29/01: When terrorists can enter legally, it's time to change the laws
11/21/01: Go for the jugular!
11/16/01: You are all incumbents
11/14/01: Clinton's failure to mobilize America to confront foreign terror after the 1993 attack led directly to 9-11 disaster
11/12/01: To the generals: Don't worry about losing support
11/08/01: The death of the white liberal
11/07/01: Our leaders are being transformed in a way unprecedented in post-World War II history

© 2002, Dick Morris