Vinay Harpalani: Playing the wrong card

Last week, President Bush took a public stand on affirmative action, one of the most hotly-debated issues in America. The president stated his opposition to the University of Michigan's admissions policy, which takes an applicant's race into consideration. Bush's position does not acknowledge the vast racial inequality in American society. But this does not mean he is ignorant of race altogether. In fact, Bush is a master of subtle manipulation on issues of race. While opponents of affirmative action decry those who "play the race card," it is actually the president who has done so in multiple ways. Currently, the legal status of affirmative action varies around the country. Later this year, the Supreme Court will decide this matter for the entire nation. There are numerous arguments in favor of affirmative action. The educational benefits of diversity are well known. Studies also show that affirmative action benefits society in the long run. For example, black and Latino professionals are much more likely to serve poor communities than their white counterparts in areas such as medicine, law and education. Also, vast racial inequity persists in America, rooted in centuries of oppression by white Americans. And while Bush sometimes does recognize this fact, he does not take this into account in his policies. For example, when criticizing Senator Trent Lott, Bush stated, "Every day our nation was segregated was a day that America was unfaithful to our founding ideals." Yet American schools are more racially segregated today than they were in 1954, when the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation was unconstitutional. Factors such as poverty and "white flight," rather than laws, have maintained segregation in schools. And this is readily apparent in Bush's home state of Texas. Bush's proposed solution to the affirmative action debate is to replace race with class. As governor, he signed into law a plan that grants public high school seniors in the top 10 percent of their classes -- including those in low-income neighborhoods -- admission to the University of Texas. The president contends this will maintain racial diversity. However, evidence shows that it is not working. Minority enrollment still lags behind numbers in the early 1990s, when race-sensitive admissions were still legal in Texas. Moreover, not all racial disparities are financial. Poverty is not solely a function of income; community resources also matter, and this makes a difference with regard to racial equality. For example, 70 percent of African Americans living in poverty reside in highly impoverished communities where the vast majority of residents are also very poor. In contrast, only 30 percent of impoverished whites live in such areas; they have more affluent neighbors, and this creates a different social climate for their children. Moreover, poor and middle class white families generally have access to more wealth because they have more family members who are financially stable. This gives them an advantage over black families when paying a mortgage or financing their children's college educations. Racial stereotyping and profiling also occur across income groups. So while affirmative action should include class, this cannot be a substitute for race. All of these arguments rely on real world evidence. In contrast, most critics of affirmative action present abstract, philosophical arguments based superficially on the ideal of a colorblind society. Clearly, this view is not consistent with reality. Beyond the arguments, though, is the Bush administration's manipulation of the issue by using race. Within a few days after Bush's statement, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, the two highest-ranking African Americans in the Bush administration, released statements favoring the use of affirmative action in college admissions. Neither Rice nor Powell would have done this without the president's permission. By employing his black Cabinet members in this way, Bush is trying to appease African Americans while pursuing a conservative agenda. But even more striking is Bush's hypocrisy on the matter. Anyone who has heard him speak knows that he did not get accepted to Yale without a little help. As a legacy admission, Bush capitalized on a preference that is granted almost exclusively to whites. In fact, legacies make up a far greater percentage of students admitted to elite colleges than minorities admitted through affirmative action. Thus, Bush has no problem accepting a preference for rich, white kids, but he opposes giving such opportunities to poor black and Latino children. Recognizing this hypocrisy, some have called Bush's upbringing as a form of "affirmative action" for white males. I disagree, as this gives a bad name to a necessary policy. In fact, my view is just the opposite. George W. Bush's rise to the presidency, accomplished largely by playing the white race card, shows precisely why we need affirmative action. Vinay Harpalani is a Ph.D. candidate in Education and a Master's candidate in Bioethics from Newark, Del.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.