[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 94 (Tuesday, June 24, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H5799-H5800]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   MICHIGAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION CASES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the House and 
the United States of America with regard to the decision rendered by 
the Supreme Court that came down I believe it was yesterday in the case 
of Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, University of Michigan 
undergraduate school and the University of Michigan School of Law. I 
went over to the Supreme Court. I believe that case was heard on April 
19, and I was the only member of my conference to be there in that 
Supreme Court hearing room that day.
  This Constitution means something to me. I have dealt with 
affirmative action. I am a contractor by trade. I have done so for 28 
years. I have hired people of all different kinds of backgrounds and 
talents and ethnicities, and I have also done Federal contracts where I 
have run into a situation where there will be a certain situation quota 
or a goal assigned to me, and sometimes that is not available and we 
have had to drop contracts because we were not able to meet that 
requirement. So I paid real attention to this, and I think it is 
important that everyone have equal opportunity. That is what Martin 
Luther King asked for. That is what our Constitution calls for, and 
that is what we should provide by the laws that we promote here in this 
Congress and by the Supreme Court that meets over across the way.

                              {time}  2215

  I thought I went over there to hear a constitutional argument. In my 
naivete I expected that would be the bulk of the discussion that took 
place that day in that little over-2 hours of discussion. In fact, I 
heard very little constitutional argument. About two-thirds to three-
quarters of the comments and questions that were directed by the 
Justices had to do with the result, not the constitutionality, not the 
language, the definition, or the intent of Congress; simply the result 
of a decision that they might make.
  And an interesting thing: as I tried to find my way into the Supreme 
Court room, it was packed out front, and it looked like they let out 
the D.C. schools for the day to go demonstrate at the U.S. Supreme 
Court. They were carrying signs that said: ``Support equality, defend 
affirmative action.''
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I did not take a logic class, but those two things 
do not connect for me, and I do not think they connect for most 
Americans. We are either going to have equality or we are not going to 
have equality; but a preferential treatment program, by definition, is 
contrary to equality. And that is what affirmative action is, and that 
is what the case was there to be heard for.
  So I went to the oral arguments in those cases, and I am profoundly 
disappointed that the Supreme Court did not outlaw racial preferences 
in their decision in the Grutter and the Gratz cases, and in the lack 
of focus on constitutional arguments.
  As I left there, and I talked to attorneys about this, me not being 
one, and I told them that I was astonished that the Justices in the 
Supreme Court did not focus their arguments on the Constitution. They 
told me they were focusing their questions and their comments on 
Justice O'Connor, because well, all right, that is another issue then, 
and she has written the majority opinion. Apparently, they were 
focusing on her for the right reason. Apparently, she was not 
evaluating the Constitution, or we would have had an entirely different 
majority decision, certainly by the one that wrote the majority.
  But I did hear one reference to the Constitution. I actually heard 
more than one, but the one that stands out in my mind was Justice 
Scalia's reference, when he asked the University of Michigan attorney, 
he said, If this court rules against you and it results in one minority 
in the School of Law, 100 percent minorities are no minorities, what 
possible constitutional difference can that make? And my colleagues can 
check the record, Mr. Speaker. I do not think they will see that there 
is a logical answer to that. So we ended up with the decision that we 
got.
  Now, the Court got it right when they struck down the point system by 
the University of Michigan's undergraduate programs. University 
admissions should be color blind. A student's race should never matter 
more than a 4.0, a perfect SAT score, or a flawless essay.

[[Page H5800]]

  I am not a lawyer, but it does not take a lawyer to know that the 
Supreme Court missed the mark when they upheld the program at the 
University of Michigan Law School that relies on race and the law 
school admissions decision-making process. The race-based admissions 
policy violates Martin Luther King's call for a color-blind society. 
Admission should be determined based on criteria that reward 
excellence, not race. It is paternalistic for minority students to be 
given preferential treatment. All students should have the same 
opportunities to succeed, regardless of color.
  I agree with Justice Thomas when he said of the majority opinion in 
the Grutter case, ``For the immediate future, however, the majority has 
placed its imprimatur on a practice that can only weaken the principle 
of equality embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Equal 
Protection Clause.'' He then quoted the landmark case of Plessy v. 
Ferguson: ``Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor 
tolerates classes among citizens.''
  Justice Thomas hit the nail on the head when he wrote of the lack of 
principle in the majority opinion: ``I can only presume that the 
majority's failure to justify its decision by reference to any 
principle arises from the absence of any such principle.'' Justice 
Thomas, I agree. And I agree that the only principle in the majority 
opinion in Grutter was the principle of expediency to allow racial 
preferences. Certainly, constitutional principles were not involved. 
The Fourteenth amendment prohibits such race-based admissions 
decisions. Our Constitution is color-blind. Obviously, a majority of 
the Supreme Court is not.

                          ____________________