Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Jan. 6, 2003 / 3 Shevat, 5763

Diana West

Diana West
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
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Bush must take a stand on affirmative action | Jan. 16 is a day that will make or break the Bush administration -- and the date has nothing to do with troop movements, weapons inspections or Iraq at all, for that matter. Instead, it marks the deadline by which the Justice Department must decide whether to file a brief in a landmark affirmative action case about admissions at the University of Michigan that will come before the Supreme Court in the spring. What the administration chooses to do -- either taking a stand opposing race-based admissions, or taking no stand -- will reveal more than just the outcome of a power struggle within White House circles.

Facing a choice of near-epic design, George W. Bush must decide between setting off an electrifying jolt of principle by opposing affirmative action, or yielding to heavy political pressure by saying nothing combustible -- particularly now, presidential aides say, in the aftermath of the Trent Lott firestorm. Mr. Bush's decision will be nothing less than a monument to his presidency.

It can't not be. The dedication to fostering a color-blind society by eliminating race-based criteria from American law has become a core tenet of the Republican Party -- one that wholly distinguishes Republicans from Democrats, whose efforts to preserve and expand racial preferences mark them as obsessively color-conscious. It's not just that racial preferences are unfair because they "prefer" one race over another. The impact of race-based rules goes way beyond shuffling people according to skin color.

When the law turns race, not to mention color and creed, into key factors affecting one's place in life, the law is also dividing people by race, color and creed. Such divisions pit Americans against one another in subtle and not-so-subtle ways, all of which undermine, rather than promote, interracial relations.

It's inevitable: Legalized inequities eat away at human beings, breeding the resentments of favoritism and the self-doubts of patronization. Relegating a woman to the back of the bus because she is black is a dehumanizing act, an overtly humiliating affront once codified in the laws of the segregated South. Turning down a woman for admission to law school because she is white (the matter at the crux of the upcoming Supreme Court case) doesn't lead to the systematic public degradations sanctioned by Jim Crow, but it is a sanction based on a hauntingly similar legal rationale: racial inequality. Is this the best legal foundation from which to reach for the ideal of a mutually respectful, multi-racial America?

Conservatives think not. I hope the president agrees and finds the political courage to allow his administration to say so, loud and clear. And that goes double in the fiery jet-trails of Trent Lott's crashed-and-burned Senate leadership. Why? In Mr. Lott's attempt to neutralize the impact of last month's apparent homage to Strom Thurmond's segregationist presidential bid, the former Senate Majority Leader decided to punt principle and play for politics. That is, instead of falling back on the tenets of color-blindness (which ended segregation long ago) to answer questions raised by his apparent gaffe, Mr. Lott decided, chameleon-like, to assume the intense color-consciousness of modern-day liberalism. Suddenly, Mr. Lott was declaring himself a supporter of affirmative action "across the board, " and apologizing for having voted against Martin Luther King Day -- as though there was no rationale besides racism for opposing either issue. It wasn't long before he was promising to shepherd a race-based agenda through the Senate.

Having not only failed to make the case for a color-blind society but having also abandoned the quest, Mr. Lott left behind a state of near-chaos in regard to the politics of race. The new Republican leader in the Senate, Bill Frist, is promising to "heal the wounds of division that have reopened" as a result. But healing (whatever that means) shouldn't require abandoning party principle and adopting a NAACP-approved agenda -- which is precisely what liberal activists, including Rev. Al Sharpton, a career race-baiter, plan to ask Republicans to do. Mr. Sharpton, who has never even apologized for promoting the hoax in which a band of white policemen was baselessly accused of raping a black girl named Tawana Brawley, put it this way: "In no way should anyone interpret the stepping aside of Senator Lott as the end of this matter."

He's right that far: It's not the end of this matter. And his demand that Republicans "clarify themselves" on civil rights issues is actually a good one. What better way to do so than to allow Attorney General John Ashcroft and Solicitor General Ted Olson to unveil an eloquent brief arguing the fairness of a color-blind society? Administration silence in such an important case is not golden; indeed, it would tarnish a sublime political ideal -- and sorely diminish the conservative agenda.

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

JWR contributor Diana West is a columnist and editorial writer for the Washington Times. Comment by clicking here.

12/30/02: Questions for reflection on 2002
12/16/02: The pre-emptive war goes Hollywood
12/09/02: Protest Augusta? Why not Sudan?
11/25/02: Something to contemplate this Ramadan
11/08/02: Does Eminem now fit in?
11/04/02: No time for gloating
11/04/02: What's in a name when the name is Muhammad?
10/28/02: Jihad as a First Amendment right
10/21/02: When speaking out isn't allowed
10/14/02: Terrorism in Maryland and abroad
09/30/02: So long urgency, hello indulgence
09/24/02: That one, sturdy, missing word
09/17/02: Fingerprinting, finally
09/09/02: When 'healing' overshadows reality
09/04/02: Tales from the Techno Valley and Forest
08/16/02: Elvis shall rise again
08/14/02: War with Iraq won't harm war on terror
08/06/02: Clinton snaps over Somalia
08/01/02: 9-11 anniversary shouldn't come with apology
07/27/02: An unstable common ground
07/25/02: Hillary fights hard for soft money
07/12/02: Goretheus unbound
07/10/02: Rosie takes a shine to Republicans
07/08/02: Are you still shocked, Sami?
07/02/02: Can Britney win hearts of the Middle East?
06/28/02: A war on terror or Islamists?
06/25/02: Blame the murderer, and the messenger
06/21/02: Up front and personal with Atta
06/18/02: Terrorism at the United Nations
06/11/02: Who's policing the INS?
06/07/02: Spa Gitmo
06/04/02: Can rock gods save the queen?
05/31/02: Hillary's war
05/29/02: Have you forgotten we're at war?
05/24/02: An antiquated luxury of the past
05/21/02: From terrorists to tourists
05/19/02: Hate U.
05/07/02: Western self-loathing numbs us to violence
05/03/02: Pioneering television
05/01/02: Western self-loathing numbs us to violence
04/29/02: It's the misconduct, stupid
04/24/02: Medal of diss-honor
04/17/02: Holy sanctuary or terrorist shield?
04/12/02: Egyptian clerics solicit martyrs for murder
04/09/02: Defining terrorism down
04/05/02: The Wilder life
04/02/02: Acting, equality and the Academy
03/31/02: Speeding to conclusions
03/25/02: Hard to remove blood (libel) stains
03/21/02: The tale of Nixon's tapes --- again
03/19/02: The Big Lie lives on
03/15/02: The tunnel vision of '9/11'
03/13/02: The American Auschwitz?
03/08/02: Hating the indoctrination of hate
03/05/02: Clinton and Enron: Old friends
03/01/02: Pickering doesn't polarize, the process does
02/26/02: Destiny's prefabricated child
02/22/02: The White House heist
02/20/02: Making the grade
02/11/02: Studying student visas
02/06/02: Understanding arrogance
02/04/02: The professor's war
01/29/02: Disconnected dialogue
01/23/02: Anti-Indiscrimination
01/18/02: How much is enough?
01/15/02: Oh brothers, where art thou?
01/10/02: Air on the side of caution
01/04/02: Blacks seeing red at Harvard
01/02/02: Clinton's campaign continues
12/26/01: A tale of two exhibitions
12/24/01: Taliban Idyll
12/19/01: Right is right
12/17/01: Hillary strikes out
12/13/01: Lost files, lost presidency
12/10/01: Revolutionaries never grow up
12/05/01: Immigration reform talk is not just for 'haters' anymore
12/03/01: A new symbol of justice
11/30/01: Beyond morality
11/26/01: Can't keep a good man down
11/20/01: Tough talk at the United Nations
11/19/01: Hollywood's other battle
11/14/01: What's the matter with Sara Jane?
11/09/01: A beef with bin Laden's Beef Noodles
11/07/01: Facing up to the FBI's past mistakes
11/02/01: A school that teaches patriots to shutup
10/30/01: The gap between Islam and peace
10/26/01: The ties that bind (and gag)
10/24/01: This war is more than Afghanistan
10/22/01: The fatuous fatwa
10/19/01: Left out
10/16/01: Whose definition of terrorism?
10/11/01: Post-stress disorder
10/08/01: How the West has won
10/01/01: Good, bad or ... diplomacy
09/28/01: Drawing a line in stone
09/21/01: Prejudice or prudence?
09/14/01: When our dead will finally rest in hallowed ground
09/07/01: We want our #$%^&*() audience back!
08/24/01: The transformation from Green Mountain State to Green Activist State is all but complete
08/17/01: Enlightenment at Yale
08/10/01: From oppressors to victims, a metamorphosis
08/03/01: Opening the dormitory door: College romance in the New Century
08/01/01: How-To Hackdom: The dubious art of writing books about writing books
07/20/01: Hemming about Hemmings
07/13/01: Justice has not been served in the Loiuma police brutality case
06/22/01: When PC parades are too 'mainstream'
06/22/01: When "viewpoint discrimination" in our schools was not nearly so gnarly a notion
06/15/01: Lieberman flaunts mantle of perpetual aggrievement
06/07/01: Is graciousness the culprit?
06/01/01: The bright side of the Jeffords defection
05/29/01: Campus liberals should be more careful
05/18/01: 'Honest Bill' Clinton and other Ratheresian Logic
05/11/01: Dodging balls, Bugs, and 'brilliance'
05/04/01: Foot in mouth disease and little lost Tories
04/20/01:The last classic Clinton cover-up
04/20/01: D-Day, Schmee-Day
04/06/01: For heaven's sake, a little decency!
03/30/01: The sweet sound of slamming doors and clucking feminists
03/23/01: America's magazines and the 'ick-factor'
03/09/01: Felony neglect
03/02/01: Who's sorry now?
02/23/01: 'Ecumenical niceness' and other latter-day American gifts to the world
02/16/01: Elton and Eminem: Royal dirge-icist meets violent fantasist
02/12/01: If only ...

© 2001, Diana West