George W. Bush

George W. Bush is all for diversity, he explained last week, but he

doesn't 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

wasn't because of any academic achievement: his high school record was

ordinary. It wasn't because of his life experience - prosperous

family, fancy prep school - which was all too familiar at Yale. It

wasn't 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 Bush's 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: