Essay About Second Kind And W. Bush

George W. Bush
George W. Bush
George W. Bush is all for diversity, he explained last week, but he
doesnt care for the way they do it at the University of Michigan. The
Administration has asked the Supreme Court to rule the Michigan system
unconstitutional because of the scoring method it uses for rating
applicants. “At the undergraduate level,” said Bush, “African-American
students and some Hispanic students and Native American students
receive 20 points out of a maximum of 150, not because of any academic
achievement or life experience, but solely because they are African
American, Hispanic or Native American.”
If our President had the slightest sense of irony, he might have
paused to ask himself, “Wait a minute. How did I get into Yale?” It
wasnt because of any academic achievement: his high school record was
ordinary. It wasnt because of his life experience – prosperous
family, fancy prep school – which was all too familiar at Yale. It
wasnt his SAT scores: 566 verbal and 640 math.
They may not have had an explicit point system at Yale in 1964, but
Bush clearly got in because of affirmative action. Affirmative action
for the son and grandson of alumni. Affirmative action for a member of
a politically influential family. Affirmative action for a boy from a
fancy prep school. These forms of affirmative action still go on. The
Wall Street Journal reported last week that Harvard accepts 40% of
applicants who are children of alumni but only 11% of applicants
generally. And this kind of affirmative action makes the student body
less diverse, not more so.
George W. Bush, in fact, may be the most spectacular
affirmative-action success story of all time. Until 1994, when he was
48 years old and got elected Governor of Texas, his life was almost
empty of accomplishments. Yet bloodlines and connections had put him
into Andover, Yale and Harvard Business School, and even finally
provided him with a fortune after years of business disappointments.
Intelligence, hard work and the other qualities associated with the
concept of merit had almost nothing to do with Bushs life and success
up to that point. And yet seven years later he was President of the
U.S.
So what is the difference between the kind of affirmative action that
got Bush where he is today and the kind he wants the Supreme Court to
outlaw? One difference is that the second kind is about race, and race
is an especially toxic subject. Of course, George W.s affirmative
action is about race too, at least indirectly. The class of wealthy,
influential children of alumni of top universities is
disproportionately white. And it will remain that way for a long time
– especially if racial affirmative action is outlawed.
A second difference is that the Michigan system is crudely numerical,
whereas the favoritism enjoyed by George W. Bush is baked into the way
we live. Between these two extreme examples are all the familiar
varieties of preference: