Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

President Weighs in on Affirmative Action Case

Aired January 16, 2003 - 07:36   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.


PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: We're going to move on to a different subject now, and this is a subject that is of a great deal of interest across the country and in particular to the president. He is now weighing in on an affirmative action case now before the Supreme Court. The president contends that the use of race as a factor for admission to the University of Michigan is unconstitutional.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yet quota systems that use race to include or exclude people from higher education and the opportunities it offers are divisive, unfair and impossible to square with the constitution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: The White House will present its position today in a legal brief to the Supreme Court.

Joining us now to debate this politically charged case, from Detroit, Frank Wu, a visiting law professor at the University of Michigan, and from Washington this morning, Armstrong Williams, radio talk show host and nationally syndicated columnist.

Good morning, gentlemen.

Welcome.

ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS, NATIONALLY SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Good morning, Paula.

FRANK WU, VISITING LAW PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Good morning.

ZAHN: Mr. Wu, I'm going to start with you first this morning. I know you believe there are two distinct basic issues here, first, whether the university can use racial diversity as a goal, and second, whether the University of Michigan's program was carefully designed to achieve that.

What do you think?

WU: That's right. That's what the Supreme Court has always said. You have to have both those pieces. And there's no question here. Everyone knows quotas are unconstitutional. They've been unconstitutional since the famous Bakke case. And so the folks at Michigan went back and they developed two very different programs, one at the college level, which uses points. Race is counted, points are added. Points are added for all sorts of things, whether you come from a rural area, whether your parents are graduates of the school. Points are added for many, many factors. And so race is just one among them.

And then at the law school, what they do is they review comprehensively every individual applicant and they do consider race, but they don't use a point system.

Now, these present every possible option. If these systems don't work, well, then pretty much you can't take race into account at all to remedy racial discrimination.

So though everyone agrees diversity is a terrific goal, the real question is what are we going to actually do to reach that goal?

ZAHN: Well, Mr. Wu, are you saying that constitutes a quota, then?

WU: No. There's absolutely no quota. If there were a quota, there would be no question. Then these programs would be unconstitutional. But the trouble is no matter how hard you work to ensure there isn't a quota but that you're working toward diversity, the programs end up being attacked. I know that reasonable people can disagree, but it's wrong to blame these programs for each individual applicant who is turned down. People are turned down, just as they're accepted, for many, many reasons, and the disappointed applicants in this case were not rejected the way that black students were at Ole Miss. in the 1950s when...

ZAHN: All right...

ZAHN: ... when just because of skin, they were turned down.

ZAHN: Let's give Armstrong a chance to react to that. You've heard Mr. Wu describe how he believes the program was set up to accommodate a wide berth of students. You weigh in now.

WILLIAMS: You know, I'm glad he mentioned about what happened at Ole Miss during the 1950s because those policies and those laws were morally bankrupt. And because blacks were disadvantaged and they're still affected by it today. So if those laws were morally bankrupt, you would have to say that what Michigan is doing is morally bankrupt. You cannot resolve a wrong with another wrong. And you may say, Mr. Wu, that you get many points, but if the goal is to at least score a hundred, because that's normally what it takes in order for a student to get into the university, and if you get 20 points just for being black, just for being Asian, just for being Hispanic, and then you get 12 points for a perfect score, not 1400, not 1250, not 1300, but you get 12 points for a perfect score on the SAT, there is something that is inherently wrong and for, especially for a parent who teaches their children to make sacrifices, to learn, to read, to be the best and the brightest, to achieve.

And then to take that SAT and score high on that SAT and then you get that letter in the mail telling you that just because you did everything that was required of you, you're going to be denied because of your race, that is morally bankrupt and it is unconstitutional and that is not the America that we live in and that is not the example we want to set for people to tell people that you don't have to achieve and we will still give, handicap the race and give you an opportunity.

It's insulting to African-Americans because there are so many African-Americans and minorities in this country who rise and fall on their own merit. You build a stigma around them. It's insulting to them and then you create victims by whites who become resentful and angry, who had nothing to do with what went on in 1950 and 1960.

It is a new day and the law should reflect that. It should be fair and it should be equal for all Americans.

ZAHN: Mr. Wu, you want to respond to that? And then Armstrong, you'll get the final word here.

WU: Sure. The real question here is if we say we value racial diversity, what will we do to ensure that the flagship campus of a public university system that bears the name of the state in a state with a city that's highly segregated, that's just 45 minutes away from this campus, what will we do to make sure that there is more than a token number of African-Americans? And if we want more than a token number, then we have to remedy persistent racial discrimination and significant racial disparities.

ZAHN: And Armstrong, how would you...

WU: Taking race into account is how to do it.

ZAHN: How would you guarantee that?

WILLIAMS: You do it by exactly what they are doing in Florida, in Texas and other states. You take the best and brightest from high schools no matter where they are, in the inner city, the rural, no matter. And no matter what they're saying have the best grades...

ZAHN: But, Armstrong, aren't those kids in inner city schools, particularly, well, you know which urban centers we're talking about, at a distinct disadvantage? How are they going to get the top 10 percent scores coming out of some of the schools they're coming out of?

WILLIAMS: But, you know, Paula, the point is no matter what the standing of the school is, if your students are the best and the brightest from those schools, they get in these universities. That's all that matters. And, also, Paula, you cannot undermine achievement and merit in America. And it goes much deeper. Because by the time a kid is in high school or college, it's too late for affirmative action. Affirmative action should take place in the grade school level when they are just beginning, because if you don't reach those kids by the time they reach eighth and ninth grade, it is too late. That's where real affirmative action can make a difference. But it should be based on merit and race should not be a factor.

Yes, you can use other areas like rural and other points to give people, but it should not be a based on a race thing. You know why? Because it is your race that says the least about you, and that should be reflected in our law. That's is another kind of racism and it is wrong.

ZAHN: Gentlemen, we're going to have leave the debate there this morning. We'd love to have the two of you come back because we're going to be talking about this a lot. Obviously, what the president files in this brief today will have a tremendous impact on other public universities and private schools that accept public funds.

Frank Wu, Armstrong Williams, thank you for both of your perspectives this morning.

WU: Thank you.

WILLIAMS: 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







Aired January 16, 2003 - 07:36   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: We're going to move on to a different subject now, and this is a subject that is of a great deal of interest across the country and in particular to the president. He is now weighing in on an affirmative action case now before the Supreme Court. The president contends that the use of race as a factor for admission to the University of Michigan is unconstitutional.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yet quota systems that use race to include or exclude people from higher education and the opportunities it offers are divisive, unfair and impossible to square with the constitution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAHN: The White House will present its position today in a legal brief to the Supreme Court.

Joining us now to debate this politically charged case, from Detroit, Frank Wu, a visiting law professor at the University of Michigan, and from Washington this morning, Armstrong Williams, radio talk show host and nationally syndicated columnist.

Good morning, gentlemen.

Welcome.

ARMSTRONG WILLIAMS, NATIONALLY SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Good morning, Paula.

FRANK WU, VISITING LAW PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Good morning.

ZAHN: Mr. Wu, I'm going to start with you first this morning. I know you believe there are two distinct basic issues here, first, whether the university can use racial diversity as a goal, and second, whether the University of Michigan's program was carefully designed to achieve that.

What do you think?

WU: That's right. That's what the Supreme Court has always said. You have to have both those pieces. And there's no question here. Everyone knows quotas are unconstitutional. They've been unconstitutional since the famous Bakke case. And so the folks at Michigan went back and they developed two very different programs, one at the college level, which uses points. Race is counted, points are added. Points are added for all sorts of things, whether you come from a rural area, whether your parents are graduates of the school. Points are added for many, many factors. And so race is just one among them.

And then at the law school, what they do is they review comprehensively every individual applicant and they do consider race, but they don't use a point system.

Now, these present every possible option. If these systems don't work, well, then pretty much you can't take race into account at all to remedy racial discrimination.

So though everyone agrees diversity is a terrific goal, the real question is what are we going to actually do to reach that goal?

ZAHN: Well, Mr. Wu, are you saying that constitutes a quota, then?

WU: No. There's absolutely no quota. If there were a quota, there would be no question. Then these programs would be unconstitutional. But the trouble is no matter how hard you work to ensure there isn't a quota but that you're working toward diversity, the programs end up being attacked. I know that reasonable people can disagree, but it's wrong to blame these programs for each individual applicant who is turned down. People are turned down, just as they're accepted, for many, many reasons, and the disappointed applicants in this case were not rejected the way that black students were at Ole Miss. in the 1950s when...

ZAHN: All right...

ZAHN: ... when just because of skin, they were turned down.

ZAHN: Let's give Armstrong a chance to react to that. You've heard Mr. Wu describe how he believes the program was set up to accommodate a wide berth of students. You weigh in now.

WILLIAMS: You know, I'm glad he mentioned about what happened at Ole Miss during the 1950s because those policies and those laws were morally bankrupt. And because blacks were disadvantaged and they're still affected by it today. So if those laws were morally bankrupt, you would have to say that what Michigan is doing is morally bankrupt. You cannot resolve a wrong with another wrong. And you may say, Mr. Wu, that you get many points, but if the goal is to at least score a hundred, because that's normally what it takes in order for a student to get into the university, and if you get 20 points just for being black, just for being Asian, just for being Hispanic, and then you get 12 points for a perfect score, not 1400, not 1250, not 1300, but you get 12 points for a perfect score on the SAT, there is something that is inherently wrong and for, especially for a parent who teaches their children to make sacrifices, to learn, to read, to be the best and the brightest, to achieve.

And then to take that SAT and score high on that SAT and then you get that letter in the mail telling you that just because you did everything that was required of you, you're going to be denied because of your race, that is morally bankrupt and it is unconstitutional and that is not the America that we live in and that is not the example we want to set for people to tell people that you don't have to achieve and we will still give, handicap the race and give you an opportunity.

It's insulting to African-Americans because there are so many African-Americans and minorities in this country who rise and fall on their own merit. You build a stigma around them. It's insulting to them and then you create victims by whites who become resentful and angry, who had nothing to do with what went on in 1950 and 1960.

It is a new day and the law should reflect that. It should be fair and it should be equal for all Americans.

ZAHN: Mr. Wu, you want to respond to that? And then Armstrong, you'll get the final word here.

WU: Sure. The real question here is if we say we value racial diversity, what will we do to ensure that the flagship campus of a public university system that bears the name of the state in a state with a city that's highly segregated, that's just 45 minutes away from this campus, what will we do to make sure that there is more than a token number of African-Americans? And if we want more than a token number, then we have to remedy persistent racial discrimination and significant racial disparities.

ZAHN: And Armstrong, how would you...

WU: Taking race into account is how to do it.

ZAHN: How would you guarantee that?

WILLIAMS: You do it by exactly what they are doing in Florida, in Texas and other states. You take the best and brightest from high schools no matter where they are, in the inner city, the rural, no matter. And no matter what they're saying have the best grades...

ZAHN: But, Armstrong, aren't those kids in inner city schools, particularly, well, you know which urban centers we're talking about, at a distinct disadvantage? How are they going to get the top 10 percent scores coming out of some of the schools they're coming out of?

WILLIAMS: But, you know, Paula, the point is no matter what the standing of the school is, if your students are the best and the brightest from those schools, they get in these universities. That's all that matters. And, also, Paula, you cannot undermine achievement and merit in America. And it goes much deeper. Because by the time a kid is in high school or college, it's too late for affirmative action. Affirmative action should take place in the grade school level when they are just beginning, because if you don't reach those kids by the time they reach eighth and ninth grade, it is too late. That's where real affirmative action can make a difference. But it should be based on merit and race should not be a factor.

Yes, you can use other areas like rural and other points to give people, but it should not be a based on a race thing. You know why? Because it is your race that says the least about you, and that should be reflected in our law. That's is another kind of racism and it is wrong.

ZAHN: Gentlemen, we're going to have leave the debate there this morning. We'd love to have the two of you come back because we're going to be talking about this a lot. Obviously, what the president files in this brief today will have a tremendous impact on other public universities and private schools that accept public funds.

Frank Wu, Armstrong Williams, thank you for both of your perspectives this morning.

WU: Thank you.

WILLIAMS: 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