[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 97 (Friday, June 27, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1386-E1387]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




SUPREME COURT RULING ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IS A JUST, FAIR DECISION IN 
   SOCIETY WHERE RACIAL DISPARITY IS STILL THE ROOT OF MANY PROBLEMS

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. WM. LACY CLAY

                              of missouri

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, June 26, 2003

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my joy over the 5-4 ruling 
by the United States Supreme Court that favors affirmative action based 
on race. It is the right decision at the right time. The Supreme Court 
ruling on affirmative action is a just, fair decision in a society 
where racial disparity continues to feed problems rooted in racial 
injustice. It is the right decision at the right time.
  On Monday, the Supreme Court announced its ruling in a case where 
white applicants sued the University of Michigan law school, alleging 
the use of race was an illegal quota system. The case, Grutter v. 
Michigan, has been called the most important civil rights case in 25 
years because it challenged the use of racial preferences in school 
admissions.
  While we lost on points, or a point system used to help minorities 
compete for slots, the decision by the high court affirms the United 
States Constitution on the side of balancing the scales of fairness, 
not on the side of continuing the unfairness built into a system that 
allows the racially privileged to continue their reign.
  The white ruling class in America was built in large part on slavery 
and its aftermath--slave wages, and as long as America depends on the 
beneficence of gatekeepers who are insensitive to the history of this 
nation and the long-term effects of American apartheid, then the 
problem of racial disparity will continue.
  Affirmative action is one tool that can help make-up for years of 
deprivation by helping people of color hurdle racial pitfalls in less 
time than would normally take many more generations to remove,'' he 
said. To wait for the goodness of human nature to rise to the top and 
result in racial fairness, is not judicious governance. It took the 
courts to help undo segregation and it will take the courts to help 
maintain justice. Sometimes only laws compel people to do the right 
thing. Without compulsion, many people of all races will submit to 
whatever decisions that favors them, even decisions made at the expense 
of weaker, less fortunate, powerless people.
  Good law creates balance and for these times, affirmative action is 
good law. It addresses the needs of a disparaged group that has been 
historically discriminated against based on race. To overlook that 
reality is to impose a new form of segregation. According to Pete 
Williams, NBC news correspondent for MSNBC News, the 5-4 ruling that 
favored the university's law school, noted that ``race can be one of 
many factors that colleges consider when selecting their students, 
while, at the same time, knocking down a similar lawsuit over the 
university's undergraduate program.''
  An Associated Press summary said the two split decisions means 
``minority applicants may be given an edge when applying for admissions 
to universities, but limited how much a factor race can play in the 
selection of students. The high court struck down a point system used 
by the University of Michigan, but did not go as far as opponents 
of affirmative action had wanted. The court approved a separate program 
used at the University of Michigan law school that gives race less 
prominence in the admissions decision-making process.''

  In April, I noted that affirmative action today really means 
affirmative access for minorities, a group of Americans that was 
systemically denied access to education and society in general, for 
hundreds of years.
  What I don't think some people realize is that affirmative action is 
not new. While affirmative action seems like something out of the 
ordinary, historically, it is not new.
  Segregation was affirmative action for whites. And when it comes to 
getting into college, there is affirmative action (even quotas) for 
athletes, intellectuals, artists and the children of the rich, just to 
name a few categories. Only when minorities were added to the list of 
beneficiaries has affirmative action become a problem.''
  Former U.S. Education Secretary Richard W. Riley noted in mid-2002 
that a study published by the Educational Testing Service, entitled 
``Crossing the Great Divide,'' stated that

[[Page E1387]]

by the year 2015 the nation's college campuses will be missing 250,000 
African Americans and 550,000 Hispanic undergraduates, ``because we did 
not prepare them to do college-level work. (If) the economy continues 
to demand ever-higher skills for good jobs, minorities will have to run 
faster just to stay in place.''
  Mr. Speaker, we know we cannot easily legislate away racism in the 
heart and minds of people. However, you can legislate and interpret in 
the courts, a road map that bypasses individual racism and 
institutionalizes opportunity and affirmative access, for all. Racism 
in America does not exist in isolation. It's systemic existence calls 
for affirmative action regarding race if we are to keep the doors open 
for those who were once summarily denied entrance to a chance to live 
better lives.

                          ____________________