CNN NEWSROOM
TRANSCRIPT (Excerpt): Major Decision on Affirmative Action, with AAAA President ReNee Dunman and Ward Connerly
Aired July 1, 2007 - 19:00 ET
But next, the Supreme Court strikes down high school affirmative action programs. You'll hear from people on both sides of a divisive issue. You're watching CNN, the most trusted name in news.(COMMERCIAL BREAK)ROESGEN: It is a landmark decision on affirmative action. This week, the Supreme Court ruled that race cannot be a factor in assigning children to public schools. The court has struck down diversity plans in Seattle and Louisville, Kentucky. At the same time an affirmative action ban goes into effect tomorrow in University of Michigan, Michigan State and Wayne State University. Joining us now is Ward Connerly, an outspoken opponent of affirmative action, who led the campaign against it in Michigan. He's chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute. And Renee Dunman, president of the American Association for Affirmative Action. Ward, why have you made it your mission to stamp out affirmative action?WARD CONNERLY, AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS INSTITUTE: Well Susan, I believe, as most people in this country believe, and certainly the majority of those on the Supreme Court, that our country should be blind to the issue of a person's skin color. I think that just as Chief Justice Roberts said it best when he said that the way to get rid of discrimination in race, or race discrimination, is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. ROESGEN: Well, Renee, let's talk about that for a second. That has been the big rap on affirmative action, that these days affirmative action has really become reverse discrimination. Renee, what do you think about that? RENEE DUNMAN, AM. ASSN. FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Well, first, I'd like to say there's no such animal as reverse discrimination. Either you've been discriminated against or not. To suggest that we should not consider race at all is sticking our heads in the sand. It was Justice Blackmun who said in Bakke that indeed, in order to get beyond racism, you must first take into account race. And that's what these particular plans did. We believe that those plans were effective, that they were moderate and they were a constitutional. ROESGEN: Well, let me loft up something to both of you. If we remove the word "race" and replaced it with "opportunity," or "economic equality," then do we have an affirmative action plan that's OK? If we just take the word race out and we talk about a lot of our population, which is poor, a lot of the population that is economically disadvantaged, isn't that what we're really driving at here, not race, but economic social opportunity? DUNMAN: Yes. We're looking for educational opportunity when you think about this. And certainly, however we cannot ignore that we have to overcome some of our histories, segregation, and the court did in that case recognize it as a compelling governmental interest and said that you can use careful race-conscious means to address these issues. ROESGEN: Well, Ward, let me ask you about that. In the dissenting opinion here from the Supreme Court -- the dissenting opinion from Justice Stephen Breyer, was that, you know, this ruling will obstruct efforts by state and local governments to deal effectively with the growing re-segregation of public schools. Isn't that the danger here? Re-segregation after we've tried to come so far since the civil rights eras of the '50s? CONNERLY: Susan, I was born in Leesville, Louisiana, in 1939. I've lived under segregation. The fact that a certain neighborhood may have more black people or more white people than another group is not segregation. Segregation is by the government. And we're not living in a segregated era now by any stretch of the imagination. I think that the most beneficial part of these court decisions is that they force those who are uttering this, frankly, mindless blather about diversity and opportunity to share the burden, and to, in fact, satisfy the burden...ROESGEN: Hey, wait a minute. Mindless blather about diversity...CONNERLY: Yes, I think so. ROESGEN: Why is that mindless in a country where so many people are disadvantaged, so many minorities are disadvantaged? Renee, jump in here. CONNERLY: But there is a difference here. (CROSSTALK) CONNERLY: You didn't let me finish my point. There is a difference between...DUNMAN: As a beneficiary of affirmative action -- in fact, a proud beneficiary of affirmative action, I can't imagine removing the ladder that I used to climb to educational attainment and employment attainment opportunities, to then look down at a crowd of qualified individuals and say, let me pull this ladder up and say, you have no right to use this same ladder. ROESGEN: Well, Ward -- what I want to ask you, Ward, as a black man yourself, have you never been helped by affirmative action? CONNERLY: Susan, I think I have been helped by affirmative, I think the nation has been helped by affirmative action. But you're playing games with words here. The court didn't strike down affirmative action. The court struck down race preferences in discrimination. You need to be very careful about the language you use. And the court was very clear about that. Even Sandra Day O'Connor was very clear that she was talking about race preferences, not affirmative action, which comes in many forms. ROESGEN: Renee, race preferences, isn't that a form of affirmative action, Renee? DUNMAN: I find it funny that Mr. Connerly would say be careful with the language, because that is part of my unsettling opinion about his views is that he does trickery on the language in order to be successful on the ballots, in that there is a racial divide that he plays on when it's casting fear. It's like this Robin Hood theory that he pitches to white males, to make them believe that in order to have...CONNERLY: Well, that's baloney. DUNMAN: ... in order to have successful affirmative action...CONNERLY: That's just absolute baloney, Renee, and you know it. DUNMAN: ... that indeed you have to take from one to give to another. CONNERLY: There is nothing trickery when saying that everybody should be treated as an equal in this country. That's what the court says. That's what every one of our initiatives says. The way that Renee tries to get around this is by using terms like opportunity, and avoiding the fact that civil rights belong to everybody. Not just to black people. ROESGEN: Well, I think we can say, should and could and would in this country, certainly, we should be color-blind, we should have economic opportunity for all, but the point is, really, both Ward and Renee, that we don't have it. And the question is, how do we get there? And, Renee, you're saying that we should continue with affirmative action policies, certainly in the schools. Ward, you're saying no, we don't need it anymore, right? (CROSSTALK) CONNERLY: I'm saying that the Constitution -- as the court said it, the Constitution should be blind to the color of my skin. ROESGEN: But it isn't. In reality, life is not blind. CONNERLY: Well, but it should be. It should be. ROESGEN: Well, it should be. CONNERLY: And by not practicing that, Susan, we allow these programs to do what I say, and that is, engage in this mindless blather, using terms that are amorphous, that are not precise about their meaning. That's what the court really handed down on Thursday and said, you can't keep doing that anymore. DUNMAN: Actually, the court did say that you can use race- conscious methods to achieve diversity. And some examples they gave is in selecting new sites for schools, that you could consider the composition of neighborhoods, as well as drawing attendance zones and allocating resources and funds and targeting recruitment for faculty and students. So indeed, there is recognition for diversity, and they also endorsed the importance of diversity and inclusion in our nation's classrooms. ROESGEN: Ward, do you agree with that point of the ruling? Do you agree with that?CONNERLY: That's what Justice Kennedy said, Susan. One justice said that. The majority of the justices said that the Constitution is color-blind. And that you can use race-neutral measures, you can use race-conscious measures in the words of Justice Kennedy, as long as you don't discriminate against people by using "crude racial classifications." ROESGEN: OK.DUNMAN: Well, race does matter. ROESGEN: All right, Renee. I think we're finding that it certainly does indeed matter. Doesn't matter which side you fall on. Divided we still stand in this country. Thank you both, Ward Connerly and Renee Dunman, for joining us. CONNERLY: You're welcome.DUNMAN: Thank you.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/01/cnr.03.html
No comments:
Post a Comment