Since the September 11 attacks, we've often heard the phrase "in
the national security." In the national security, we have lost many civil
liberties and many Arab and Muslim Americans have found themselves placed in
government custody, forced to report to immigration offices to answer questions
about friends, colleagues and trips. In the national security, racial profiling
has been re-defined as acceptable. In the national security, questioning the
administration's policies and decision regarding our invasion of Iraq
has been deemed unpatriotic.
But a number of retired leaders of the U.S. military forces have reminded us
that national security can be endangered by more than terrorists or despots.
National security can be undermined by our own policies and decisions. These
retired generals and admirals were referring to affirmative action and how it
is in the nation's national security interest to keep the policies which
have been legal since the days of President Nixon. They joined the University
of Michigan in its defense of its affirmative action policy which has come under
attack by President Bush and members of his administration and is now being
considered by the U.S. Supreme Court. The former leaders of our military deem
it in the national security to have a military force reflective of society and
they recognize that affirmative action continues to be the key to insuring that
diversity.
The brief on behalf of affirmative action was joined not only by retired military
leadership (it's difficult for current military leadership to oppose their
commander-in-chief), but also by 65 of the nation's top corporations,
many church leaders and educators and, of course, our civil rights organizations.
It seems that affirmative action is not only in the national security, but it's
good business sense and the right thing to do.
The Bush administration’s position is that affirmative action discriminates
against white students and that any special treatment should be based only on
economic status of students. Rather, they cite the programs of Texas and Florida
which are based on the top ten percent of high school students being accepted
into state universities. That argument only works well in "segregated"
school systems, where students of color are only competing with each other.
That argument ignores that 40 years of affirmative action for people of color
can in no way make up for the 200 years of affirmative action for white students.
Indeed, in many southern states African Americans were not even allowed to apply
for admission and where until the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision,
"separate but equal" (which really meant separate but unequal) was
the practice across the nation.
That argument ignores the fact that we continue to have affirmative action for
athletes, for children of graduates of the particular school and for children
of large donors, and for students from different regions than the school. (Indeed,
some say that without affirmative action for sons of Yale graduates that President
Bush himself would have had trouble getting into that venerable institution.)
That argument ignores the fact that the nation's inner city students (most
of whom are students of color) even today do not get equal education as their
suburban counterparts and therefore cannot compete on an equal playing field.
That argument ignores numbers which show that in states where affirmative action
has ended, while the total number of students of color has not decreased (except
in the first few years) the distribution of students of color in state universities
has changed so that there are very few of them in elite state higher education
institutions. Instead, they appear to be clustered in the community colleges
and less desirable four-year schools. That is bad news not only for the students
of color, but for the white students of these institutions who need to have
a multiracial higher education experience in order to function in a 21st century
multiracial world.
Sadly, President Bush has failed to realize that affirmative action is good
for America. In his statement opposing affirmative action (in which he proclaimed
that it is unconstitutional even though it is not the executive branch which
determines constitutionality), the President went out of his way to affirm diversity.
Yet he does not seem to understand that such plans as the University of Michigan's,
which use race as only one factor in determining admission, are the only way
that many higher education institutions, especially the elite public universities
and in private colleges, can guarantee that diversity.
Affirming diversity without affirming a way to have diversity just won't
work in the United States yet. There are still too many inequities, still too
many instances of racism, still too many advantages of white skin privilege.
It is as if President Bush sees the world like he saw the Republican convention
that nominated him. They had a few faces of color on the stage, but when the
camera swept across the delegates in the room, the faces were almost all white.
The 21st century is not about window dressing, it's about substance. Affirmative
action guarantees that substance.
Military leadership of our nation understands that. Corporate leadership understands
that. Academic leadership understands that. Let's pray that the U.S. Supreme
Court, as it deliberates this case, understands that. In the words of the N.Y.
Times, "[These] cases are not about minority rights, but about the kind
of society we want to be."