    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1997, Book II)]
    [December 19, 1997]
    [Pages 1802-1810]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks in a Race Initiative Outreach Meeting With Conservatives
    December 19, 1997

        The President. First, let me thank you for coming in what must be a
    busy time for all of you. What I think may be the most productive thing
    to do, although Governor Kean, since--[inaudible]--may interject
    something here. I think what I'd like to do to begin, is just to hear
    from you. I'd like to--on the question of ``Do you believe that race
    still matters in America and is still a problem in some ways?'' And if
    so, instead of our getting into a big fight about affirmative action--
    although if you want to discuss it, we can--what bothers me is that even
    I, who think it works in some ways, believe it works only when people
    who--it works predominantly for people who are at least in a position
    for it to work. A lot of the people

    [[Page 1803]]

    that I care most about are totally unaffected by it one way or the
    other.
        So what I'd like to talk about today is that I thought that we could
    at least begin by just getting a feel for where you are and do you think
    it's still a problem, and if so, what do you think we ought to do about
    it? And if you want to talk about affirmative action--[inaudible]--but
    I'm happy to do that.

    [Ward Connerly, chairman, American Civil Rights Institute, stated that
    the country has a serious and complex problem which does not lend itself
    to a Government solution. He indicated that the Nation could not move
    forward on the race issue without resolving the issue of racial
    preferences.]

        The President. What do you think we should do? Since there are--
    since various racial minorities are represented in groups of people that
    are at least not doing very well in this society, in numbers
    disproportionate to their numbers in the country as a whole, how should
    we respond to that?

    [Mr. Connerly stated that school choice, an overhaul of the K-12 system,
    smaller class size, and other educational initiatives were appropriate
    responses and parental involvement was a necessity. Former Bush
    administration adviser Thaddeus Garrett, Jr., associate pastor, Wesley
    Temple A.M.E. Zion Church, Akron, OH, stated that he hoped that the
    day's discussion would not get bogged down on affirmative action but
    rather address race and race relations. He indicated that mechanical
    programs would not change attitudes and that Americans did not relate
    well across racial lines. He commended the President for the Akron
    meeting on race and said that community leaders, beginning with the
    President, had to provide leadership to address the divide and that
    affirmative action only served to divide the Nation further.]

        The President. Maybe you can--[inaudible]--maybe for discussion's
    sake, let's assume we abolished them all tomorrow, and we just had to
    start all over. What would you do?

    [Former U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Staff Director Linda Chavez,
    director, Center for the New American Community, stated that affirmative
    action put the Government in the role of picking winners and losers on
    the basis of race and that under those circumstances the Nation would
    never get beyond racism. She stressed reaching the disadvantaged in
    society, citing a University of Maryland program not aimed at race but
    at students who are the first in their family to attend college. Mr.
    Connerly stated that in addressing the problem, labels should be
    abandoned and focus placed on people with something to contribute.]

        The President. Okay. Let me just say this, first of all. I think, if
    you imagine--forget about--think about what the world would look like 30
    years from now if things go well, that is, if all the threats to our
    collective security--[inaudible]--restrained and trade develops as we
    hope it should, and we develop a decent education system that embraces
    virtually everybody that will work for it. The fact that the United
    States is becoming--[inaudible]--multiethnic country that at some point
    in the next generation, in the next 50 years will, for the first time in
    its history, not have a majority of people of European origin, I think
    will make it an even more fascinating, even more interesting, and even
    more prosperous and successful place if we're not consumed or limited or
    handicapped in some ways because of our racial differences.
        So, to me, this is--I'm looking at this through the perspective of
    the future that I want to see our country make for itself. And I don't
    think anyone has all the answers about how we should make that future.
        If you look at--there is no question that--if you just take African-
    Americans, for example, the middle class is growing and a lot of good
    things have happened. But there is also no question that there are still
    pockets where crime is greater, incarceration rates are horrendous, that
    education systems are not working. And even the people who do have some
    level of it, who are highly industrious, and are dying to get into
    business very often don't have access to credit and don't have access to
    the networks. Affirmative action originally, I think, on the economic
    side was a kind of networking thing, and on the education side it was
    designed to do what you --the Maryland program you just described. I
    think if there was ever a shortcoming in college education--we ought to
    be focusing on people who are educationally disadvantaged without--
    [inaudible]--they didn't get the preparation and continuing support that
    they needed. The schools that have done that are much better.

    [[Page 1804]]

    [Stephan A. Thernstrom, Harvard University Winthrop professor of history
    and coauthor of ``America in Black and White: One Nation Indivisible''
    with his wife, Abigail, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, took
    issue with two points made by Mr. Connerly. First, he stated that people
    now know each other better across racial lines than they did a
    generation ago and offered some examples. Second, he said he found the
    Akron meeting troubling and one-sided and gave examples of the lack of
    dialog. He commented that while most of the discussion was addressed to
    white racism, recent studies showed that among African-Americans, Asian-
    Americans, and Hispanic-Americans, each group had stronger negative
    stereotypes about the other two groups than whites did and that as these
    populations grew, the problems would become worse, concluding that the
    issue was not simply one of white racism.]

        The President. But if what you say is true--you say the crime
    problem is disproportionately African-American; that's like saying the
    college population is disproportionately white or the business
    population is disproportionately white. That doesn't justify an
    affirmative action program to--[inaudible]--like section 8 of the SBA
    program.
        The other day we had a group of African-American journalists in
    here. Every man in the crowd, to a person--there were, like, 20 of them
    here--every man in that office, every single, solitary one, had been
    stopped by the police when he was doing nothing, for no reason other
    than the fact that he was black. And you say that's because there's a
    rational fear because of the fact of what occurs in some neighborhoods.
    Nonetheless, that is a race-based public policy. I'm just saying, it's
    not as simple as----
        Ms. Thernstrom. No, we agree with that. We agree with that. It's
    unacceptable to me.
        Mr. Thernstrom. But doesn't it happen in Detroit, in Atlanta, in
    other States where----
        The President. All I'm saying is it's very difficult to get these
    things out of our society. And you just made one reason why. Let me give
    you another example. Because of the--a lot of work that's been done by a
    lot of people, there's been a dramatic increase in the capacity of the
    United States to limit the inflow of drugs into the country from the
    south by land and sea. But the consequence is that Mexico, which is a
    big, open country, has had enormous amounts of money invested there to
    try to undermine what little infrastructure there was to deter the
    influx of drugs. Five hundred million dollars was spent last year alone
    trying to bribe Mexican police. Now, as a result, over half of the
    cocaine in this country comes across the Mexican border. So, all right,
    fast forward. What do you do if you're a local police officer with a
    drug problem? That's what this whole profiling is about--[inaudible]--to
    stop people who are Hispanic if they're driving through town. That's an
    affirmative action program. That's a race-based affirmative action
    program. So how do you----
        Ms. Chavez. But Mr. President, some of us are opposed to that. I
    mean, Randall Kennedy has written, I think, very eloquently on exactly
    that issue. And those of us who oppose race preferences when they
    benefit groups are also opposed to them when they harm groups.
        The President. If you were running a police force and you were
    trying to figure out how to deal with the drug problem and you had a lot
    of people who were coming through your town on an interstate and you had
    a limited amount of resources and you couldn't stop every car, which
    cars would you stop?

    [Ms. Chavez stated that they should stop every third car and that police
    should be held to the same standard as business. Representative Charles
    T. Canady of Florida stated that it was pernicious for the Government to
    classify people by race because doing so sends a message that people
    should be judged on that basis, which reinforces prejudice despite the
    Government's good intentions.]

        The Vice President. Could I ask a question, Mr. President? If you
    lived in a community that was 50 percent white, 50 percent black and for
    a variety of historic reasons the level of income, educational
    attainment, and so forth was lower among the blacks in that community
    and the police force was 100 percent white, and the problems of the kind
    that we all deplore took place, and other problems took place and the
    community decided that the police force would be better able to do its
    job if blacks were much more represented on the police force because
    then the police force would have a much greater ability to relate to the
    community effectively and to do its job--under those circumstances, do
    you think that the community would be justified in making affirmative
    action efforts to open

    [[Page 1805]]

    up a lot more positions on the police force for blacks?

    [Mr. Canady stated that he favors community policing which requires
    people to live in the neighborhood they police but which doesn't require
    race-based selection. Vice President Gore emphasized that his example
    demonstrated a benefit to the whole community. Mr. Canady then noted
    that the Drug Enforcement Agency had a policy of using African-Americans
    as undercover agents on the theory that they would be more effective,
    but was sued for discrimination by African-American agents, concluding
    that efforts which start out making sense may end up doing harm.]

        The President. Let me ask you this. You don't quarrel with the
    fact--because I think this is very important. This is something that we
    really have to deal with all the time. You don't quarrel with the fact
    that, other things being equal, in cities that are highly racially
    diverse, it would be a good thing, if it could be done without race
    preferences, to have a diverse police department.
        Mr. Canady. Absolutely. I think we ought to have a police department
    that can work with----
        The President. But you just said that you like this whole idea of--
    that's what we're doing now at HUD. We're actually encouraging police
    officers to go back and live in the neighborhoods where they patrol and
    letting them buy HUD-foreclosed houses--where HUD's got the property,
    letting them buy houses for half price if they'll serve in the police in
    the neighborhoods where they live.
        I've thought of that, and every time I go to New York or any other
    big city, I always look at the police and see--so let me just say, I'm
    Irish--Irish immigrants got ahead and many of them in urban police
    departments. And many of their children and grandchildren and great-
    grandchildren are still in urban police departments. And I think--what I
    think we have to do is figure out--I think part of this problem will go
    away if we ask ourselves, are the criteria by which we are making this
    decision, whatever this decision is, really relevant? Are we really--
    whether it's college admission or--are we keeping score in the right way
    here?
        But it seems to me that we have a vested interest in the objective.
    If we agree that we need an integrated police department, and that it
    would be better----
        Ms. Thernstrom. We'd like to have an integrated police department.
        The President. ----that we would like to have one and that our
    society would function better if we had one, then we should ask
    ourselves, ``Okay, how are we going to get there?''

    [Ms. Chavez took exception to the Vice President's example, stating that
    statistics show significant numbers of African- and Hispanic-American
    police officers.]

        The Vice President. Partly because of affirmative action.

    [Ms. Chavez stated that, while minority representation was not
    proportional, it was close and that the issue should be whether or not
    there was discrimination in a police department, which no one favors.
    She said that the way to root out discrimination was training and
    recruitment. Mr. Thernstrom pointed out some of the complexities,
    stating that white communities are often well served by African-American
    police officers, who should not be forced to go back to predominantly
    black communities, and that while Asians do a good job of producing
    physicists and physicians, they are not very interested in law
    enforcement careers. He questioned the wisdom of making the police
    department look like the population. Former New Jersey Gov. Thomas H.
    Kean, president, Drew University, stated that the rising rate of
    immigration requires us to get to know one another. He noted that in his
    State, the largest college scholarship program was based on poverty, not
    on race, but still tended to help minorities. He observed that racial
    groups tended not to mix but that, when there were activities that
    crossed racial lines, such as athletics, race was less an issue and
    friendship flourished. Rev. Garrett stressed the need for different
    racial groups to get to know each other and gave examples. He also
    indicated that the media were part of the problem, pointing out the
    contrast in media coverage between the African-American Virginia couple
    who had six babies and the white Iowa couple who had seven. Ms.
    Thernstrom stated that all recognized that there was a long way to go on
    the road to racial equality but posed the question if the Nation was
    were going in the right direction. She added that the discussion had to
    focus more on facts and less on emotion,

    [[Page 1806]]

    stressing the racial gap in academic performance. She concluded that she
    thinks the failure of even one child is a national scandal.]

        The President. I do, too. I think what Chicago has done--tells
    everybody that you've got to go to summer school if you don't measure
    up, and if you don't measure up a second time, you can't go ahead; your
    self-esteem will be hurt more when you're 50 and you can't read than it
    will be when you're 16 and you have to stay back another year--I think
    that's great.
        But let me just say, first of all, I think what you generally just
    said is absolutely right. The reason I wanted you to come here today is
    that I hope there will be another series of meetings where we'll get an
    even more diverse group--I mean, diverse by opinion. Because what I'm
    trying to get to is--here's my theory about this: I think if we could
    ever get to the point where we would ask ourselves, can we agree on the
    objective, and then talk about what means will work, and then look at
    the things we don't like and say, well, did it do any good and what harm
    did it do?
        For example, what I think about affirmative action, a lot of these
    economic--let's just take the economic affirmative action. What I
    honestly believe is that it did a profound amount of good for the people
    who got into the programs who might never have had a chance to be
    successful business men or women. But I believe the problems with it are
    twofold. Number one is, once you get in and you start doing it, it's
    hard to graduate out. This whole theory about graduating out and moving
    through, going out into the private sector--that theory never really
    worked very well. And we ought to fess up; those of us who were for it
    ought to say that's one of the problems that didn't work. The other
    problem is it doesn't reach the vast majority of the people who have a
    problem because it doesn't reach down into basically the isolated urban
    areas with people in the economic underclass.
        So if we say, okay--you know, we can all say, ``Okay, here are the
    facts. It was a pretty good thing, but it didn't do everything it was
    supposed to do.'' So should we argue about getting rid of it; should we
    argue about doing something else; should we argue about what's going to
    happen to these people? I mean, I think there's a lot to be said for
    that.
        Let me go back to what Steve said about the composition of the
    police force when you got into the tete-a-tete with the Vice President.
    Let me just mention three things because Governor Kean mentioned this.
    The seven white septuplets were delivered by two African-American women
    doctors. Two days later, two black kids were rescued in a Chicago fire
    by a white fireman. Nobody feels anything but good about that. Why is
    that? Or why do all these rich white Republicans pay to go down and
    watch some black guys play basketball at the MCI Center? I would argue
    there is something that all these things share in common that don't
    necessarily get answered in the police--[inaudible].
        One is, in the case of pro basketball, here I am--I don't have a
    doubt in the world that, if I'd been good enough, I could have played
    pro basketball. I don't; if I'd been good enough, by God, I could have
    played. I was short, fat, and slow by today's standards. [Laughter] I
    couldn't play. Doesn't have anything to do with my race; I don't have a
    doubt in the world. If I have a child, I don't have a doubt in the world
    that my child can play if he or she is good enough. So that's the first
    threshold. Without regard to race--I think we can all agree with that.
    In whatever setting, people have to know if they're good enough, they
    can play; and if they need a hand up to prepare themselves, that they
    can get it.
        The second thing is, in the case of the black women doctors who
    delivered the septuplets--which is not always the case in the case of
    police, which is why I agree with the Vice President--in the community
    which was of a different race, there was no question about whether they
    could do their job in a way that would be fair to everybody. In the case
    of the white fireman who risked his life to go in and get the last two
    black kids in the Chicago fire, he made a statement that was louder than
    any words I will ever utter, that he was in tune with the people in that
    community. He was in tune enough that he was willing to lay his life
    down to save those two little children. Nobody will ever care again
    whether that guy is on their fire or sitting idly out in front of the
    fire station, as I hope he will be.
        So there's two criteria. One is, can you play if you're good enough,
    whatever the thing is? Two is, does everybody in the community have
    confidence that the people in the positions, whatever they are, have
    sufficient concern about them, are consistently involved with them, that

    [[Page 1807]]

    whatever is supposed to be done is going to get done?
        I think in the case of the fireman and the doctors and the
    basketball players, the answer is yes. I think in the case of huge
    numbers of urban police departments, huge numbers of the business
    sector, huge sections of higher education, you can't say that the answer
    is yes. That's why I'm hung up about it. But I don't think that--I think
    the reason that I'd get frustrated if the debate is only about
    affirmative action, is if we win 100 percent of the debate, we're
    talking about 10 percent of the people. If you win 100 percent of the
    debate, we're still just talking about 10 percent of the people. What
    about everybody else?
        Ms. Chavez. That has been our argument.
        Ms. Thernstrom. But, why don't you have confidence that we can train
    policemen the way we train firemen so that when a policeman shows up at
    the door, it doesn't matter what the race of that policeman is?
        The President. What I don't have confidence in is that in the police
    departments where there is not affirmative action, that there is a
    selection process that is not race-based.
        Ms. Thernstrom. Why not go after the problem instead. It's like
    college admissions; instead of going after the problem of the failure of
    our schools in the K-12 years, we say, ``Okay, we're going to shut our
    eyes to that problem, and we're going to preferentially admit them and
    hope something----
        The President. What about all the people who are sitting around
    waiting for that to happen? Are we just going to let them drift away?

    [Former Peace Corps Director Elaine Chao, senior fellow, Heritage
    Foundation, commended the President and Vice President for their
    initiative and leadership in the area of race relations but stated that
    the debate left out Asian-Americans almost entirely. She related her
    experience as an immigrant and said that her family got through by
    knowing they would not always be in that condition. She stated that it
    was disheartening to find that equal opportunity did not always mean a
    level playing field and gave examples of affirmative action programs
    working against Asian-Americans. Mr. Connerly urged that, given the
    brief time available, the discussion not focus on affirmative action but
    on the broader subject of race and suggested that the overall timeframe
    for the national debate be extended. Ms. Thernstrom stated that the
    President's Advisory Board on Race was too monolithic. The group then
    discussed the diversity of the board.]

        The President. Go ahead. Lynn, you haven't talked enough.

    [Former Representative and former Secretary of Labor Lynn Martin stated
    that average Americans are really further along than they are given
    credit for, but that diversity implies differences in perception which
    people must move beyond. She advocated moving forward with a moderate
    checklist and reasonable goals.]

        The President. One thing--let me just ask you all to think about
    this because I agree--one of the things I do agree with, what Ward said,
    is that I--before you came in here I was holding my head saying, ``Oh my
    God, those people are coming in here, and we've got to stay here for 4
    hours--[inaudible].'' But let me--nearly everybody agrees that the laws,
    that are on the books, against discrimination based on race against
    individuals should be enforced.
        Ms. Thernstrom. Everybody agrees with that.
        Ms. Chavez. Everybody in this room.
        The President. We are grossly under--we have never properly funded
    the EEOC, but to be fair, we also need to look at--and this may be kind
    of a bridge between what we've been arguing about and what we agree on--
    there's a lot of interest--and Chris has given me some information on
    this--about trying to develop some sort of way the EEOC can get rid of
    its backlog in part by drawing up consent orders that would go beyond
    litigation and would change the way people treat their employees, not
    necessarily on a race--not a race-based treatment but the way you
    develop, the way you recruit, the way you reach out. And one of the--to
    go back to Lynn's checklist--one of the things we would like to get
    everybody to agree to is a certain approach on that, on kind of a
    comprehensive approach to getting rid of the accumulated backlog of race
    claims and where you go from there.
        The other thing I would like to just say, because I know we're going
    to have to wrap up pretty soon, is I agree with you, we need a structure
    for the discussion which permits us to continue to talk, sharply
    identify in a non-rhetorical way our differences, and ask if there

    [[Page 1808]]

    is some way to build on this, so we can actually get something done.
        I talked to J.C. Watts on the phone; he called me last night, and I
    was out of pocket, and I called him this morning, and we talked for 20
    to 30 minutes because he was--[inaudible]--and it was an interesting
    conversation. I just think, if you're willing, I'm willing to make this
    not a one-shot deal but to continue to work on this. I really sympathize
    with how the immigrant--Asian immigrant--particularly first generation
    Asians feel with the shift in criteria.
        Ms. Chao.  We're just learning the rules, and goddamn it, they
    change them on us. [Laughter]
        The President.  The real issue here is, if you go back, there's lot
    of thought being given in the private schools and universities--and
    Governor Kean, who runs a great one, can talk about it--that a lot of
    these private universities are thinking, okay, now, what if the
    colleges, if all the public institutions end affirmative action in their
    admissions process and they don't really--the State doesn't come up with
    a comprehensive alternative they'd like, where you've got all the
    colleges maybe taking over public schools, in effect, in terms of their
    college prep, so you get to--you maintain the diversity of the student
    body population with non-race-based policies; then will the private
    institutions basically have to carry the burden of educating a more
    diverse student body--or unless we're going to resegregate higher
    education like we once had?
        So there's a reexamination about whether--I'm not saying that what
    you said is--how you described it, that that's the right way to do it,
    but there is a genuine, I think, reassessment about whether test scores
    plus grades should be the only predictor of success in college and
    success later, the only definer of merit, and whether we can assume that
    there is somehow an absolute character to that. As a matter of fact, the
    test scores were--[inaudible]--they have been a pretty good rough
    indicator.
        But you know, look at what Texas is doing. It's interesting when you
    look at Texas, I mean, it's this desperate attempt, I think--desperate
    sounds critical; I'm not being critical. But people are looking around
    and trying to find a way to honor America, be fair, and still have a
    society where everybody's got a chance. Keep in mind, go back to
    basketball and our view of the doctors in Iowa, the people have got to
    believe everybody had a chance.

    [Ms. Chavez stated that it was not good public policy to have different
    rules for different groups and that the agreed criteria must be equally
    applied to every individual.]

        The President. You wouldn't be opposed to affirmative efforts that
    were not race-based, would you?
        Ms. Chavez. That's right. I wouldn't because----
        The President. And if they're not race-based, they----

    [Ms. Chavez stated that affirmative action efforts that were not raced-
    based but aimed at educational disadvantage, social disadvantage, or
    economic disadvantage would be acceptable but should involve more than
    just letting people in the door. She said she resented the assumption
    that minorities were incapable of meeting the same standards. The Vice
    President said that while human nature was vulnerable to prejudice,
    people have the ability and the national responsibility to overcome this
    vulnerability and its consequences. He stated that cross-cultural
    contacts were obviously rewarding, that opportunities for them should be
    more available, and that affirmative efforts must keep going forward.
    Mr. Canady stated that conservatives did not want to end the effort but
    did want to stop classification based on race.]

        The President. Let me ask you a question. One of the things that
    tickled me about--since I grew up in the South, in addition to being--
    [inaudible]--or the race problems in the country, we were all so
    obsessed with athletics. One of the things that tickled me about the
    California affirmative action vote was that there was--preference vote--
    is that there was an exception made for athletes. So you can give a
    preference for athletes to get into Berkeley, so Berkeley can have a
    nice football team and a nice basketball team.
        The Vice President. Alumni giving.
        The President. But the A student who doesn't get into Berkeley, the
    Asian A student who doesn't get into Berkeley is just as hurt because he
    didn't get in so everybody could be tickled at the next basketball game
    as he would have been hurt if some A student who grew up in a black
    family in Oakland and didn't go to a good high school and therefore
    didn't make quite as high a score on the college board--he still loses
    the opportunity. He just loses it

    [[Page 1809]]

    to a basketball player instead of a kid with thick glasses who struggled
    late at night in Oakland to make good grades but didn't quite make a
    high enough college board score to get in. What's the difference? Why is
    it justified? Why is athletic discrimination so wonderful and the race
    discrimination----
        Participant. Well, you can get rid of it. If you want to sign an
    Executive order----
        Participant. And alumni discrimination as well.
        Mr. Connerly.  Mr. President, I have to say that this has been a
    great party until now, but just as we're--the clock is ticking, we're
    ready to go out the door, you ruined my weekend with those very--
    [laughter]----
        The President. Is that not true? If it's not true, I don't want to
    falsely accuse you.
        Mr. Connerly. ----very loaded questions, very loaded statements that
    command far more than the 5 or 10 minutes we have left. Our Founders--
    they talked for hours about human nature as the basis of what kind of
    Government we were going to develop. And it's frightening to me--it is
    truly frightening to me, at the characterization of human nature, Mr.
    Vice President, that you portray, because it suggests that we cannot
    rise above it----
        The Vice President. No, I said specifically, we can.
        Mr. Connerly. ----unless Government is there demanding, demanding,
    that we be held accountable. The presumption of our people, the
    presumption of our Nation is that we're good people, that we can be
    fair, and that we will do the right thing. There are going to be some
    out there that are going to do wrong, and we'll bring those into line.
    But it's not that we are prone to do bad. And the whole question here
    about athletes and alumni, my God, any of us can be athletes or alumni.
    It has nothing to do with our skin color.
        The President. I didn't say anything about alumni.
        Mr. Connerly. Well, he did. But there are just certain traits here
    that we as a society are making a judgment about----
        The President. The only point I made--[laughter]--don't get our two
    speeches mixed up. The only point I'm trying to make is, if you ever
    have any--if you decide what the criteria of academic merit is, and
    let's say you decide the criteria is the grades plus the college
    boards--this is the only point; I'm making a narrow point. If you decide
    the criteria is the grades plus the college boards, and then you
    decide--you make a decision, which I think you could make a compelling
    argument is a legitimate decision, that athletics is an important part
    of university life, that it enriches the lives of all the other students
    who are there; you can make that argument--but the point is, once you
    make that argument, that's the argument you could also make for having a
    racially diverse student body. I was making a very--I'm not making a
    wholesale assault.
        Now, here's my problem with this whole deal--I know we've got to go,
    so I want to give you a chance to say what we really said before, which
    is, how do we give structure to this and what do you think the next step
    should be? And I'll give anybody else a chance. Look, when I was a
    Governor, I became the first Governor in the history of the country to
    sponsor legislation to require--[inaudible]--certified. I believe I
    passed the first law requiring kids in the whole State to have to pass
    an exam before they could actually go on to high school, because I
    didn't like the high school graduation--I thought that was closing the
    barn door after the cattle left. The reason I have consistently
    supported affirmative action programs--but I really have tried to change
    them and make them work--is not because--I basically think all that
    stuff you said is right. I am sick and tired of people telling me poor
    minority kids who live in desperate circumstances, that they can't make
    it. I think they should be told they can make it but they have to work
    harder to make it, and then I think we should give them a hand up to
    make it. I am tired of that. The reason I have supported affirmative
    action programs is very different, is--I have done it because I didn't
    want to see all these kids be sacrificed to a principle that I agree
    with, because the practice of life would not be fixed in time to give
    them a chance--number one.
        And number two, I have had the same feeling about police departments
    and fire departments and business environments and university admissions
    that I felt about the athletes--that I really thought that the
    institutions were better off and the white majority or whoever else, was
    better off if there was some intermixing because of the world they're
    going to live in.
        But I am always--I think we should all be uncomfortable, those of us
    who support this,

    [[Page 1810]]

    for giving something to somebody when we deprive somebody that was
    otherwise more deserving, by the traditional criteria, of getting it.
    But I think on balance, that's why I've been very strongly--but I have
    never wanted to not have high standards, not be demanding, not do
    things. I mean, I've paid a pretty good price for this--[inaudible]--and
    I'm not ashamed of having done it. I think that the kids in my State are
    better off because of it.
        But we need to figure out, to recognize that what we'd really like
    is for people without regard to their race to be able to do the kind of
    business, go to the kind of schools, have the kind of public service
    jobs, and live in the kind of integrated environment that they choose if
    that is the choice they make, because there would be no differences in
    traditional measures of merit and how they did, so that people would be
    making their own choices and having their own choices. I think that's--
    we all agree that that's the world we want.
        So I'd like to know what you think the next step should be. If you
    want to stay involved in this, you want to keep talking to us, you want
    to keep working with us, and you want to get some more different kind of
    people in here, what do you think we ought to do now?

    [Gov. Kean explained that he accepted the invitation to sit on the
    President's Advisory Board on Race because he believed it was the first
    time in his life a President was willing to take on this issue and to
    try to establish a dialog, and he believed it could do some good. He
    said that initially he believed the board had been too narrow, but that
    it was opening up to a broad spectrum of ideas. Ms. Thernstrom said she
    thought this was a wonderful meeting and that if this continued, it
    might go somewhere.]

        The President. That's what I think.
        Ms. Thernstrom. Yes. We're feeling each other here. We're kind of
    making--it's a first kind of stiff beginning, but that we might really--
    --
        The Vice President. I resemble that remark. [Laughter]
        The President. If you all are willing to do it and you will help us
    figure out a way to structure it, I'll do it. Let me just give you--I'll
    just give you one--outside this door, probably sitting there--I don't
    know if she's still there--is my diarist for the White House who has
    lately been in the paper because--[inaudible]--[laughter]--her name is
    Janis Kearney. Her daddy was a sharecropper, and her mother was a
    domestic. And they had 17 children; 13 of them have college degrees, 5
    of them are lawyers, and all 17 of them have a first name that starts
    with the letter ``J''--I don't know how they--[laughter]--most of them
    went to school in Arkansas. One of them went all the way to Harvard. And
    some of them had affirmative action, and some of them didn't, and they
    all did fine.
        Look, somewhere in here there's a way that we can get to where we're
    trying to do--stop talking past each other and start working together. I
    cannot believe that 90 percent of the people in this country don't want
    the same kind of country in terms of racial matters. And I will do my
    best to find a way for us to move beyond the--[inaudible]--honestly and
    respectfully state our differences and figure out a way to work
    together. Because it is obvious, if you do not believe that there is any
    inherent, God-given difference among people based on race, then the
    differences that we have today must have been rooted in the mistakes
    that have been made in the past or the breakdown of social institutions
    or personal institutions like the family, the education system, and the
    networking of people in business and others. There has to be a way to
    rebuild those institutions, and we have to do it together.
        I think it would be a shame if we didn't try to do this together.
    I'm trying to put this beyond partisan politics. I'm not trying to use
    you. I said that deal about the athletics because I might have voted for
    the athletic thing, too, but I've always been with the race is like
    athletics and not different from athletics. That's all. So we need to
    go.
        If you have--in addition to your suggestions, which Governor Kean is
    for, I want to know if you've got process ideas about how we can
    discipline this debate and to move it forward.

    Note: The President spoke at 2:43 p.m. in the Oval Office at the White
    House. In his remarks, he referred to Christopher Edley, consultant to
    the President's Advisory Board on Race. This outreach meeting was part
    of ``One America: The President's Initiative on Race.'' A portion of
    these remarks could not be verified because the tape was incomplete.