Talk condemns affirmative action

Clint Bolick played a key role in halting Law Professor Lani Guinier's ascent to attorney general. Crouched forward in their seats, expressions of intense concentration painted across their faces -- sometimes mixed with a look of disdain, sometimes enlightenment -- an eclectic collection of Penn Law students gathered last night to listen to Clint Bolick, vice president and director of litigation for the Institute of Justice, discuss affirmative action. The talk, organized by the Penn Law Republicans, was well-attended -- due to both the controversy of the topic and the stature of the speaker. Perhaps best known for his role in halting Penn Law Professor Lani Guinier's nomination for U.S. attorney general, Bolick wrote the infamous Wall Street Journal editorial that helped turn public opinion against her. In explaining his position, Bolick said Guinier's "use of the law? [would have] further racially polarized society." Bolick is currently fighting on behalf of the California Civil Rights Initiative -- more commonly known as Proposition 209 -- which, after being approved by voters in November, languishes in the courts under a barrage of legal challenges. The initiative outlawed all forms of affirmative action in state-run programs or contracts. Bolick said he remains "very confident it will go through." Noting that times have changed, Bolick began his lecture by expressing his appreciation for the opportunity to voice his dissent on affirmative action. "Ten years ago, disagreeing with affirmative action was not an acceptable position," he said. Bolick then explained that despite the growing tolerance of varying viewpoints, as far as civil rights are concerned, society is "back at the same place where it started." As an example, he mentioned a young African American boy -- one of his clients -- whose skin color prevented him from going to a nearby and superior Kansas City public school. "Due to racial quotas, implemented in hopes of bringing in suburban kids, two white children were required for every three black children which enrolled," Bolick explained. Since an insufficient number of white children were enrolled, the boy was forced to go to another school. Such an example, Bolick explained, is reminiscent of "the situation before Brown [v. the Board of Education of Topeka] was enacted." Forty-three years later, as "the government classifies people on the basis of race," skin color has once again become "a tool for distributing benefits and burdens in society, not only regarding where one goes to school, but where one votes, works, even adopts children," Bolick said. Furthermore, he explained that affirmative action does not help the ones who need help most. He described the policy as both "over-inclusive and under-inclusive." Affirmative action programs are over-inclusive in that they help those "most likely to succeed" -- the affluent, well-educated African Americans. But they are under-inclusive because they remain "stunningly irrelevant" to the poorest people in society." Bolick described affirmation action as "trickle-down benefits, distributed to those at the top in the name of those at the bottom." He explained that he agreed with supporters that "glaring inequalities" exist in American society but felt that "classification based on race allows for -- rather then gets rid of -- discrimination." In place of race-based preferences, Bolick advocated what he described as "class-based," or socio-economic-based preferences, aimed at those who are "economically disadvantaged." Such policies can end up helping the same people, he said, explaining that of "the disadvantaged children [he worked with] in Milwaukee, 98 percent were African American or Hispanic." In discussing the push for diversity, which is not as easily attained through class-based programs, Bolick warned against the "easy, cosmetic approach" and implored the audience to look for "true diversity." Ending his talk, Bolick encouraged the law students to try to change the world, even when "the battles seem like David vs. Goliath." "Today, the revolutionaries are often lawyers," he said. While he received loud applause, the response of those who stayed afterwards to discuss and drink the provided beer was mixed. Craig Hymowitz, vice-chairperson of the Penn Law Republicans, called the talk "tremendous -- I admire his dedication to his work and his devotion to the fight for equality." But first-year Law student Sharif Street found flaws in Bolick's proposal for ending affirmative action. "I feel like that would be leaving the situation of African Americans to the goodwill of those who created their situation in the first place," he said.