Losing the race: the politics of civil rights
Mike Marchand
Undistinguished Alumnus
It seems like every year about this time there's some sort of race-related scandal to perfectly coincide with the holiday devoted to America's greatest civil rights leader, Martin Luther King. Last year I wrote about a planned World Trade Center Memorial that would have placed racial sensitivity above the FDNY firefighters who raised the American flag over Ground Zero, and also how Notre Dame would have been perceived as racist if they didn't hire Tyrone Willingham. (By the way, Athletic Department: good call.)
Now, another disastrous duo of political shockers have splashed the front pages around the first of the year. The fallout for one was deserved, though perhaps a little sensationalized, but the outcry over the other is entirely misguided.
On Dec. 7, then-incoming Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said the following at a celebration of retiring senator and living mummy Strom Thurmond, "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years."
By itself, it was not a racist comment. But of course, any student of American political history knows the context: Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign came after he split with the Democratic Party over civil rights for African-Americans. Continued segregation was at the top of the "Dixiecrat" agenda.
Whether Lott truly meant to applaud Thurmond's legacy of segregation, advocate a more benign platform of decentralization of government or simply patronize an old geezer on his birthday may never be known. But it was very irresponsible and idiotic of him not to uncouple the racist baggage from that statement. Such verbal diarrhea should not be tolerated by a leadership member of any party, and so Lott stepped down under intense pressure from within the Republican Party.
In his apoplexy of apologies to try to maintain some damage control, Lott went on Black Entertainment Television and advocated numerous minority-sponsored programs, including affirmative action. And it was on that front where a new storm brewed about a month later.
On Jan. 15, President Bush decided to file a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court concerning admissions policies at the University of Michigan which favor minorities for the sake of "diversity." Predictably, the backlash came swiftly: "They have to decide whether they're for civil rights and diversity, or not," was the response of Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle. Rev. Jesse Jackson labelled Bush, "the most anti-civil rights president in 50 years."
Bush argued that Michigan's policies were "fundamentally flawed," and he's right, for multiple reasons. First, admissions points are only awarded to minorities who are black, Hispanic or Native American. Asians, Arabs, Jews and Lithuanians are given no preference. Some "diversity."
Second, diversity is given more weight than academic excellence — being a member of the chosen races nets 20 points, but having a perfect SAT score garners only 12.
Opponents argue that giving weight to "legacies" is just as racist because of African-Americans' disproportionately low enrollment in universities over the decades. But this argument doesn't hold up at Ann Arbor, since legacies are given only a few points (four), compared to minorities.
If a university decides only to allow people whose parents or grandparents attended there, or bassoon players, or people with a Z in their name, or people with a working knowledge of Thai, the Constitution says nothing. But the 14th Amendment specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of race. Michigan's system, which uses points to achieve desired goals of "diversity," is a de facto quota system and therefore unconstitutional.
Academic diversity is not a bad thing, but it's also not the be-all and end-all of higher education. There are several fine all-black universities in America; NAACP chairman Julian Bond graduated from one, Morehouse College. And Notre Dame needs only look across the street to find brilliant students from a campus that prohibits 49 percent of the population from enrolling from the outset. Nobody clamors for those schools to be opened. But jury-rigging enrollment policies to ensure diversity at the expense of academic achievement shouldn't be tolerated.
Opponents of the party of Trent Lott and George W. Bush will seek to capitalize on these events (only one of which deserves criticism) in the 2004 election. That year, of course, marks the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so what better stage to do a little political grandstanding? It is my sincere hope that we can live the words of a landmark event that also will celebrate its 40th anniversary, in August: that all Americans "will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Unfortunately, if civil rights continues as nothing more than a platform to bash Republicans, I may have to write a similar column again next year.
But I can dream, can't I?
Mike Marchand, `01, thought Oakland would defeat Tampa Bay in the Super Bowl, 38-24. For sports or political discussion, or just to say hi, e-mail him at Marchand.3@alumni.nd.edu.
The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.
All Viewpoint Stories for Monday, January 27, 2003
