Jeffrey Toobin has an OpEd in today’s New York Times highlighting, and singing the praises of, the instrumental role of former president Gerald Ford — with the assistance of his former House aide, James Cannon — in securing the brief by retired military officers supporting racial preferences that proved to be an important contribution to the University of Michigan’s victory in Grutter.
Mr. Cannon had served on the Board of Visitors of the Naval Academy, and both he and Mr. Ford knew how important affirmative action was to the military, especially its officer corps. Mr. Cannon had been told many times by the Navy’s top brass that they did not want ships full of enlisted men, who tended to be heavily minority, to be commanded exclusively by white officers. Affirmative action wasn’t social engineering, it was military necessity; and Mr. Cannon and Mr. Ford wanted to make sure the justices heard that message.
They did, in spades, citing the military brief often during oral argument, and, Toobin points out:
Justice O’Connor’s opinion quoted [the military] brief at length and then, in an extraordinarily rare tribute, adopted its words as part of the court’s opinion: “To fulfill its mission, the military ‘must be selective in admissions for training and education for the officer corps, and it must train and educate a highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps in a racially diverse setting.’”
The court, Justice O’Connor said, agreed with Mr. Phillips that “‘it requires only a small step from this analysis to conclude that our country’s other most selective institutions must remain both diverse and selective.’”
Among the various problems with this argument is that its rationale, if taken seriously and applied diligently, would all but obliterate the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the bar against racial norming in the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment as it applies to racial discrimination. If racial preference is not “social engineering” but a “military necessity,” and if all “our country’s other most selective institutions” have that same “necessity,” then the difficult time- and expense-consuming charade of pretending that race is “but one of many factors” being considered should be discarded forthwith in favor of enforceable “goals.” Surely we shouldn’t let devotion to the old-fashioned, abstract, and formlistic belief that everyone should be treated “without regard to race, creed, or national origin” stand in the way of such overwhelming “necessity.” To do so would be as subversive as, say, allowing the First Amendment to stand in the way of banning the advance publications of troop movements or, for that matter, banning political speech before an election because its expense creates the fear of corruption.
Besides, insisting that we’re only talking about “goals,” not quotas, would preserve enough of the old charade to satisfy all but the committed curmudgeons (who should be committed anyway). I believe that dumping principled non-discrimination for “diversity” is exactly what the Grutter majority had in mind. Consider:
To the lawyer representing the plaintiff, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, “May I call your attention in that regard to the brief that was filed on behalf of some retired military officers who said that to have an officer corps that includes minority members in any number, there is no way to do it other than to give not an overriding preference but a plus for race.”
Of course, if having a sufficiently “diverse” officer corps is a “military necessity,” then achieving that “diversity” would trump whatever faint and fading resistance we have to giving race not just a preference but an “overriding preference.”
In fact, anyone who can describe the role of race in admissions at the University of Michigan and similar institutions as a “plus” and deny that it is “an overriding preference” is … just whistlin Dixie, just as BAMN and the ACLU’s litigation and the foot-dragging of Michigan universities and towns in implementing Prop. 2 mimics the old Southern massive resistance and “with all deliberate speed” delays in implementing Brown.
President Gerald Ford, in hindsight, was something that probably couldn’t exist today on a National level…
A Pro-Affirmative Action Republican.
Need more proof?
>>>”To eliminate a constitutional affirmative action policy would mock the inclusive vision Carl Sandburg had in mind when he wrote: “The Republic is a dream. Nothing happens unless first a dream.” Lest we forget: America remains a nation with have-nots as well as haves. Its government is obligated to provide for hope no less than for the common defense.”
http://www.ford.utexas.edu/library/speeches/990808.htm
John writes:
>>>”Of course, if having a sufficiently “diverse” officer corps is a “military necessity,” then achieving that “diversity” would trump whatever faint and fading resistance we have to giving race not just a preference but an “overriding preference.””
Of course, you’re glancing over history with these statements, and the learned opinion of some of the leading military minds in the country.
>>>”Based on decades of experience, amici have concluded that
a highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps educated and
trained to command our nation’s racially diverse enlisted
ranks is essential to the military’s ability to fulfill its principal
mission to provide national security. The primary sources for
the nation’s officer corps are the service academies and the
ROTC, the latter comprised of students already admitted to
participating colleges and universities. At present, the
military cannot achieve an officer corps that is both highly
qualified and racially diverse unless the service academies
and the ROTC use limited race-conscious recruiting and
admissions policies. Accordingly, these institutions rely on
such policies, developed to comport with this Court’s
instruction in Regents of the University of California v.
Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).”
http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/legal/gru_amicus-ussc/um/MilitaryL-both.pdf
So it wasn’t just President Ford on this issue. Look at the supporters of the amicus brief in the Mighigan case:
>>>”LT. GEN. Julius W.
Becton, JR., ADM. Dennis Blair, MAJ. GEN.
Charles Bolden, HON. James M. Cannon, LT.
GEN. Daniel W. Christman, GEN. Wesley K.
Clark, SEN. Max Cleland, ADM. Archie
Clemins, HON. William Cohen, ADM. William
J. Crowe, GEN. Ronald R. Fogleman, LT. GEN.
Howard D. Graves, GEN. Joseph P. Hoar, SEN.
Robert J. Kerrey, Adm. Charles R. Larson
Sen. Carl Levin
Hon. Robert “Bud” Mcfarlane
Gen. Carl E. Mundy, Jr.
Gen. Lloyd W. Newton
Lt. Gen. Tad J. Oelstrom
Hon. William J. Perry
Adm. Joseph W. Prueher
Sen. Jack Reed
Hon. Joseph R. Reeder
Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf
Gen. John M.D. Shalikashvili
Gen. Hugh Shelton
Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan
Gen. Anthony Zinni”
Now, I’ll leave the READERS to determine whether these people might actually know anything about this issue. Their warnings in the brief were explicitly clear:
>>>”In the 1960s and 1970s, however, while integration
increased the percentage of African-Americans in the enlisted
ranks, the percentage of minority officers remained extremely
low,2 and perceptions of discrimination were pervasive. This
deficiency in the officer corps and the discrimination
perceived to be its cause led to low morale and heightened
racial tension. The danger this created was not theoretical, as
the Vietnam era demonstrates. As that war continued, the
armed forces suffered increased racial polarization, pervasive
disciplinary problems, and racially motivated incidents in
Vietnam and on posts around the world. “In Vietnam, racial
tensions reached a point where there was an inability to
fight.”
http://www.vpcomm.umich.edu/admissions/legal/gru_amicus-ussc/um/MilitaryL-both.pdf
I don’t know, but I think I trust the recommendations of the MILITARY LEADERS on this one. With recent events, we know all too well what happens when their counsel is ignored.
–Cobra
yikes. what’s wrong with requiring AA in the military? i’m not sure how this is going to sound, but if someone is going to command a platoon of young black men to go kill themselves for whatever reason, it would be more appropriate, to me at least, if that person were a black commander. again, this is a horrible thing to say, but i’ve always found it perfectly reasonable. the flipside of this arrangement — i.e., where a white commander tells his black platoon to go kill themselves in the name of this or that — just seems wacky to me. these are extreme examples obviously but i’m sure you get the point
Chauncey,
Of course your examples make sense. You’re examples are echoed by the pantheon of military leadership I listed in the above post.
–Cobra