Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Today

Interview With Ted Shaw, Robert George

Aired January 16, 2003 - 10:33   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: Well, this is the most important affirmative action case to come before the Supreme Court in a quarter century, and the outcome of this could affect schools and students across the country.
So we want to get some more insight into what is at issue here, and for that we turn -- we turn now, rather, to Ted Shaw of the NAACP Legal and Educational Fund who, as we understand it, played a role in forming the University of Michigan's policy.

And we're also joined by Robert George from "The New York Post."

Good morning, gentlemen, thank you both for coming in and talking with us this morning about this issue. Appreciate it.

(CROSSTALK)

HARRIS: First of all, I want to begin -- I want to begin with the University of Michigan program as it is right now. Mr. Shaw, as I understand it, the way the plan is right now, and one of the reasons why there is so much opposition to it at the White House is because of things like the fact that it gives points -- it's a point system which gives an African-American student 20 points for just being an African- American, but it may give another student only 12 points for having a perfect SAT score -- now, how do you justify a system like that?

THEODORE SHAW, NAACP: Well, first, there are two cases before the Supreme Court: The law school case -- I taught at the law school for a few years, was on the law school faculty committee, and they don't use a point system. The undergraduate system does. And, the undergraduate system, while it could be constructed differently is defensible because of the fact that there are a number of other factors that the university takes into account, gives points for, that require, really, the university to do something, in particular affirmative, if it is going to be able to attract significant numbers of minority student who are conceivably (ph) qualified.

So, for example, there are the legacy points that are given. White, poor students can get points for being socioeconomically disadvantaged. Athletes get 20 points. So there are a range of things that are taken into account in achieving all kinds of diversity, and race is just one of them. The law school system does not use a point system, but simply uses race as one factor among many in admissions, as the Supreme Court said that it could do in Bakke.

HARRIS: All right. Let's go to Robert George. If you have a response to that, I want to hear it, but I would also like to hear how it is that you can do what Mr. Bush apparently set out to do yesterday by encouraging diversity, saying it is a good thing, but not saying anything at all about doing something to guarantee it.

ROBERT GEORGE, "NEW YORK POST": Well -- well, just in addressing some of the things that Mr. Shaw was referring to, many of the other factors that the University of Michigan looks at, whether it's being an athlete or whether it is legacy and so forth, these are not things that come with a whole body of constitutional law. Race is, unfortunately, a very unique -- is a very unique example, and one that in the determination of the president, in a sense, goes too far in terms of being an add-on for possible -- possible admission.

HARRIS: But how do you explain this? I mean, President Bush says that diversity is desirable, it is a good thing, but can you explain to me how you get diversity without taking race into consideration in the first place?

GEORGE: Well, in fact, in his -- in his remarks yesterday, the president referenced a couple of programs you've got in California, Florida, and in Texas, for example, where you allow, say, the top 10 percent -- between the top 4 and 10 percent of high schools across the state get automatic admission into the state university. That way, obviously, you're going to have -- that's going to include inner city schools which are predominantly minority, as well as suburban schools which aren't. And so, that's one way that you can address that.

HARRIS: Mr. Shaw, your thoughts on that?

SHAW: Well, Mr. George is recognizing that these programs, these percentage programs rely upon segregated high schools in order to produce diversity, but even more importantly, those plans don't do anything for institutions like Michigan law school. Graduate and professional schools don't benefit by and can't benefit by these percentage plans.

Look, if diversity is important, we should be unashamed about the fact that institutions and as a nation we want to do something to achieve diversity. This really is about opening up opportunities and continuing the work of Brown v. Board of Education and integrating America. That's what this is about.

HARRIS: Well, we are going to have to leave it there, gentlemen because we're out of time.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com







Aired January 16, 2003 - 10:33   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
LEON HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: Well, this is the most important affirmative action case to come before the Supreme Court in a quarter century, and the outcome of this could affect schools and students across the country.
So we want to get some more insight into what is at issue here, and for that we turn -- we turn now, rather, to Ted Shaw of the NAACP Legal and Educational Fund who, as we understand it, played a role in forming the University of Michigan's policy.

And we're also joined by Robert George from "The New York Post."

Good morning, gentlemen, thank you both for coming in and talking with us this morning about this issue. Appreciate it.

(CROSSTALK)

HARRIS: First of all, I want to begin -- I want to begin with the University of Michigan program as it is right now. Mr. Shaw, as I understand it, the way the plan is right now, and one of the reasons why there is so much opposition to it at the White House is because of things like the fact that it gives points -- it's a point system which gives an African-American student 20 points for just being an African- American, but it may give another student only 12 points for having a perfect SAT score -- now, how do you justify a system like that?

THEODORE SHAW, NAACP: Well, first, there are two cases before the Supreme Court: The law school case -- I taught at the law school for a few years, was on the law school faculty committee, and they don't use a point system. The undergraduate system does. And, the undergraduate system, while it could be constructed differently is defensible because of the fact that there are a number of other factors that the university takes into account, gives points for, that require, really, the university to do something, in particular affirmative, if it is going to be able to attract significant numbers of minority student who are conceivably (ph) qualified.

So, for example, there are the legacy points that are given. White, poor students can get points for being socioeconomically disadvantaged. Athletes get 20 points. So there are a range of things that are taken into account in achieving all kinds of diversity, and race is just one of them. The law school system does not use a point system, but simply uses race as one factor among many in admissions, as the Supreme Court said that it could do in Bakke.

HARRIS: All right. Let's go to Robert George. If you have a response to that, I want to hear it, but I would also like to hear how it is that you can do what Mr. Bush apparently set out to do yesterday by encouraging diversity, saying it is a good thing, but not saying anything at all about doing something to guarantee it.

ROBERT GEORGE, "NEW YORK POST": Well -- well, just in addressing some of the things that Mr. Shaw was referring to, many of the other factors that the University of Michigan looks at, whether it's being an athlete or whether it is legacy and so forth, these are not things that come with a whole body of constitutional law. Race is, unfortunately, a very unique -- is a very unique example, and one that in the determination of the president, in a sense, goes too far in terms of being an add-on for possible -- possible admission.

HARRIS: But how do you explain this? I mean, President Bush says that diversity is desirable, it is a good thing, but can you explain to me how you get diversity without taking race into consideration in the first place?

GEORGE: Well, in fact, in his -- in his remarks yesterday, the president referenced a couple of programs you've got in California, Florida, and in Texas, for example, where you allow, say, the top 10 percent -- between the top 4 and 10 percent of high schools across the state get automatic admission into the state university. That way, obviously, you're going to have -- that's going to include inner city schools which are predominantly minority, as well as suburban schools which aren't. And so, that's one way that you can address that.

HARRIS: Mr. Shaw, your thoughts on that?

SHAW: Well, Mr. George is recognizing that these programs, these percentage programs rely upon segregated high schools in order to produce diversity, but even more importantly, those plans don't do anything for institutions like Michigan law school. Graduate and professional schools don't benefit by and can't benefit by these percentage plans.

Look, if diversity is important, we should be unashamed about the fact that institutions and as a nation we want to do something to achieve diversity. This really is about opening up opportunities and continuing the work of Brown v. Board of Education and integrating America. That's what this is about.

HARRIS: Well, we are going to have to leave it there, gentlemen because we're out of time.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com