Return to Transcripts main page
Live From...
Interview With Center for Individual Freedom's Eric Schipper
Aired June 23, 2003 - 15:15 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.
JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: Well, affirmative action opponents had hoped that today's court decisions would end the use of race as a factor in government decisions. With me now from Chicago is Eric Schipper, he is president of the Center for Individual Freedom.
Mr. Schipper, you just heard what Mary Sue Coleman had to say. We know you're pleased with the undergraduate ruling. What about the law school ruling?
ERIC SCHIPPER, PRES., CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM: Well, we're very disappointed in the law school ruling. And I think the road map that Dr. Coleman was referring to is unfortunately a continued road map towards a de facto quota at the University of Michigan law school. And ultimately a road map to a de facto quota at the undergraduate admissions process as well.
WOODRUFF: How can you say that, though, when basically what the court is saying is that they believe that a program that promotes diversity, without resorting to a quota, is what they are supporting here, what the majority of the court is supporting?
SCHIPPER: Right. But if you look at the statistics, you will see that the law school program actually ended up admitting about the same amount of blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans as the undergraduate school program did, which was a clear-cut quota system, giving out bonus points.
And so now what you have is the law school is going to go sort of underground, if you will, with the wink and a nod system to basically say, OK, we want more blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans, and so what we're going to do is we're going to admit that amount that gets us our so-called "vague critical mass."
And that still amounts to a quota and it still amounts to unconstitutionally giving points or bonuses, but in this case not actual points, to certain members of a perfected class.
WOODRUFF: Let me read to you something that Justice Sandra Day O'connor wrote for the majority in the law school opinion. She said, "The policy promotes cross-racial understanding." She said it "helps break down stereotypes." And she said it "enables students to better understand persons of different races." What's wrong with that?
SCHIPPER: You know, there are more race-neutral policies that could work to achieve the same type of diversity than the programs that the University of Michigan's using. For example, in Texas, in California, they use a program where they guarantee admissions to the top 1 percent of students in classes across the state.
So you're going to the lower socio-economic income areas, you're going to the inner cities, you're going across a wide swath of territory in those states. You're going to be able to achieve diversity without doing it in such a way that violates the equal protection clause.
WOODRUFF: Well, whatever, in any event, let me ask you this. If you take today's rulings, along with the Bakke decision back in 1978, which struck down quotas but upheld the notion of race being considered as one factor, aren't you really dealing with a situation where you have a decision that is upholding affirmative action as something that is legally protected by the Supreme Court, colleges all over the country are going to go forward. Isn't this going to make it all the harder for you and others who share your views to try to overturn it?
SCHIPPER: Well, it's going to make it more harder from the standpoint that all the university has to do now is go behind closed doors in the ivory tower and essentially still follow policies where they're going to give preferential treatment to blacks, Hispanic and Native Americans. And it's going to be more difficult because they don't have written down on paper a bonus structure system, it's sort of the smell test, we'll know it when we see it.
And so challenging these types of programs is going to be a lot more difficult and it creates even more ambiguity in some ways than the original Bakke decision did 25 years ago, which is why that decision was so criticized for so long.
WOODRUFF: So what is your next legal recourse here? Do you go right back to court with the same case or similar cases?
SCHIPPER: Well, sadly, I think what has to occur is we have to prove, once again by the statistics that, in fact, preferential treatment is being given to blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans more so than other factors such as socio-economic or geographical, regional factors and those types of things, and then try to challenge it.
You know, this notion of a new compelling interest is novel under the Supreme Court precedent and I think it will be challenged again. Unfortunately, it's going to be on a case-by-case basis and it's going to be very difficult from here on out. The Supreme Court has laid a difficult path for opponents to follow.
WOODRUFF: Eric Schipper with the Center for Individual Freedom. Thanks very much for talking to us. We appreciate it.
SCHIPPER: Thank you.
WOODRUFF: Thank you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Schipper>
Aired June 23, 2003 - 15:15 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JUDY WOODRUFF, CNN ANCHOR: Well, affirmative action opponents had hoped that today's court decisions would end the use of race as a factor in government decisions. With me now from Chicago is Eric Schipper, he is president of the Center for Individual Freedom.
Mr. Schipper, you just heard what Mary Sue Coleman had to say. We know you're pleased with the undergraduate ruling. What about the law school ruling?
ERIC SCHIPPER, PRES., CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM: Well, we're very disappointed in the law school ruling. And I think the road map that Dr. Coleman was referring to is unfortunately a continued road map towards a de facto quota at the University of Michigan law school. And ultimately a road map to a de facto quota at the undergraduate admissions process as well.
WOODRUFF: How can you say that, though, when basically what the court is saying is that they believe that a program that promotes diversity, without resorting to a quota, is what they are supporting here, what the majority of the court is supporting?
SCHIPPER: Right. But if you look at the statistics, you will see that the law school program actually ended up admitting about the same amount of blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans as the undergraduate school program did, which was a clear-cut quota system, giving out bonus points.
And so now what you have is the law school is going to go sort of underground, if you will, with the wink and a nod system to basically say, OK, we want more blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans, and so what we're going to do is we're going to admit that amount that gets us our so-called "vague critical mass."
And that still amounts to a quota and it still amounts to unconstitutionally giving points or bonuses, but in this case not actual points, to certain members of a perfected class.
WOODRUFF: Let me read to you something that Justice Sandra Day O'connor wrote for the majority in the law school opinion. She said, "The policy promotes cross-racial understanding." She said it "helps break down stereotypes." And she said it "enables students to better understand persons of different races." What's wrong with that?
SCHIPPER: You know, there are more race-neutral policies that could work to achieve the same type of diversity than the programs that the University of Michigan's using. For example, in Texas, in California, they use a program where they guarantee admissions to the top 1 percent of students in classes across the state.
So you're going to the lower socio-economic income areas, you're going to the inner cities, you're going across a wide swath of territory in those states. You're going to be able to achieve diversity without doing it in such a way that violates the equal protection clause.
WOODRUFF: Well, whatever, in any event, let me ask you this. If you take today's rulings, along with the Bakke decision back in 1978, which struck down quotas but upheld the notion of race being considered as one factor, aren't you really dealing with a situation where you have a decision that is upholding affirmative action as something that is legally protected by the Supreme Court, colleges all over the country are going to go forward. Isn't this going to make it all the harder for you and others who share your views to try to overturn it?
SCHIPPER: Well, it's going to make it more harder from the standpoint that all the university has to do now is go behind closed doors in the ivory tower and essentially still follow policies where they're going to give preferential treatment to blacks, Hispanic and Native Americans. And it's going to be more difficult because they don't have written down on paper a bonus structure system, it's sort of the smell test, we'll know it when we see it.
And so challenging these types of programs is going to be a lot more difficult and it creates even more ambiguity in some ways than the original Bakke decision did 25 years ago, which is why that decision was so criticized for so long.
WOODRUFF: So what is your next legal recourse here? Do you go right back to court with the same case or similar cases?
SCHIPPER: Well, sadly, I think what has to occur is we have to prove, once again by the statistics that, in fact, preferential treatment is being given to blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans more so than other factors such as socio-economic or geographical, regional factors and those types of things, and then try to challenge it.
You know, this notion of a new compelling interest is novel under the Supreme Court precedent and I think it will be challenged again. Unfortunately, it's going to be on a case-by-case basis and it's going to be very difficult from here on out. The Supreme Court has laid a difficult path for opponents to follow.
WOODRUFF: Eric Schipper with the Center for Individual Freedom. Thanks very much for talking to us. We appreciate it.
SCHIPPER: Thank you.
WOODRUFF: Thank you.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Schipper>
