-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/ace6fa93ac229135b17132b588acd19a.pdf
e4bd59e4063de5220c4bd72c0d3259bb
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number:
2006-0458-F; 20
FOIA
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Clinton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Communications
Series/Staff Member:
Don Baer
Subseries:
10134
OAIID Number:
FolderiD:
Folder Title:
Affirmative Action [2]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
s
90
2
6
1
�Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
001. memo
SUBJECTffiTLE
DATE
Michael waldman to Carolyn Curiel; Don Baer; RE: Speech Draft (2
pages)
n.d.
RESTRICTION
PS
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Communications
DonBaer
ONBox Number: 10134
FOLDER TITLE:
Affmnative Action [2]
2006-0458-F
db2l55
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act -144 U.S.C. 2204(a))
Freedom of Information Act- IS U.S.C. SS2(b)J
PI National Security Classified Information )(a)(l) of the PRA)
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office )(a)(2) of the PRA)
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute ((a)(3) ofthe PRA)
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
financ:lal information ((a)(4) of the PRA)
PS Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
and his advisors, or between such advisors )a)(S) ofthe PRA)
P6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted Invasion of
personal privacy )(a)(6) of the PRA)
b(l) National security classified information )(b)(l) of the FOIA)
b(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
an agency ((b)(2) of the FOIA)
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute )(b)(3) of the FOIA)
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
information )(b)(4) of the FOIA)
b(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy )(b)(6) of the FOIA)
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes )(b)(7) of the FOIA)
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
financial institutions )(b)(8) of the FOIA)
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
concerning wells )(b)(9) of the FOIA)
C. Closed In accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
of gift.
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
2201(3).
RR. Document will be reviewed upon request.
�Withdrawal/Redaction Marker
Clinton Library
DOCUMENT NO.
AND TYPE
001. memo
DATE
SUBJECTffiTLE
Michael waldman to Carolyn Curiel; Don Baer; RE: Speech Draft (2
pages)
n.d.
RESTRICTION
P5
COLLECTION:
Clinton Presidential Records
Communications
DonBaer
ONBox Number: 10134
FOLDER TITLE:
Affirmative Action [2]
2006-0458-F
db2155
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Aet -(44 U.S.C. 2204(a))
Freedom of Information Aet- (S U.S.C. SSl(b))
Pl National Security Classified Information ((a)(l) of the PRA)
P2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office ((a)(l) ofthe PRA)
P3 Release would violate a Federal statute )(a)(3) of the PRA)
P4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential co.mmerdal or
financial information )(a)(4) of the PRA)
PS Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
and his advisors, or between such advisors (a)(S) of the PRA)
P6 Release would constitute a dearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy ((a)(6) of the PRA)
b(l) National security classified information ((b)(l) of the FOIA)
b(l) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of
an agency ((b)(l) of the FOIA)
b(3) Release would violate a Federal statute )(b)(3) of the FOIA)
b(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
information ((b)(4) of the FOIA)
b(6) Release would constitute a dearly unwarranted Invasion of
personal privacy )(b)(6) ofthe FOIA)
b(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes ((b)(7) ofthe FOIA)
b(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
financial institutions ((b)(8) of the FOIA)
b(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
concerning wells ((b)(9) of the FOIA)
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed
of gift.
PRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.
2201(3).
RR. Document wiD be reviewed upon request.
�--.-
Above all, we must now show that it is possible for aiJ of us to pursue the
American dream and to do tha~ together. This demands a positive, purposeful economic
strategy of the kind this Administration is now pursuing -- a strategy for raising wages; by
expanding training and education for all our people, by putting Americans to work and by
helping every person reach his or her God-given potential. Part of that strategy-- one of
our tools-- is affirmative action. Wages will not go up any sooner if affirmative action
goes down, no matter what anyone tens you. Economic growth and economic justice go
hand in hand.
Obviously, it's fair to question the effectiveness of any particular government
program, including affirmative action. Many affirmative action programs have been in
place for nearly a generation and the time has come to take stock.
So let me be clear: Affirmative action is good for America. But that does not
mean it has always been perfect. And that does not mean that is should go on forever.
Affirmative action should be phased out when its job is done -- and I am resolved that that
dav will come. But it is not here yet. We have not fully realized the dream of a society
where people are judged by the content of their character. and that's why our nation still
needs atlirmative action. We must mend it. not end it. We must reaffirm it where it is
rieht and fix it where it is wrone:.
12
�For that reason, I ordered a review of affirmative action several months ago.
This review concluded that affirmative action remains an essential tool for
expanding economic and educational opportunity. The model used by the military- the
Army, in particular -- has been especially successful because it emphasizes training and
education to widen the pool of qualified candidates for promotion. The result has been
the most diverse and best qualified military leadership in the history of the United States-or of any nation, anywhere, at any time in the world.
Our review concluded that Education Department programs are responsible for a
substantial degree of diversity in our colleges in return for a relatively small investment just 40 cents of every $1,000 in federal student aid.
The Executive Order on employment practices of large federal contractors has
helped bring fairness and inclusion to the national workforce. We have used goals.and ·
timetables and prodded business to set higher expectations. But we did not and we will
not use rigid quotas that mandate an outcome.
, ,
Our review looked specifically at the way we award procurement contracts under
the program known as "set-asides.'' There is no question that this has helped build up
firms owned by minorities and women. It has helped a new generation of entrepreneurs to
13
�flourish, opening new paths to self-reliance and an economic growth in which all of us
ultimately sl.are.
But as with any government program, set-asides can be misapplied, misused, or
even intentionally abused. There are critics who exploit that fact as an excuse to abolish
all set-asides, no matter what their effects.
I reject that reaction. I regard set-asides
as~ good idea that needs to be reformed.-f
We will start by excluding entrepreneurs who do not quality as economically .
disadvantaged. We will tighten the requirement to move businesses out of programs once
they have had a fair opportunity to compete. There should be no permanent set-asides for
any company. We will insist that no agency run its program in a way that deprives a
nonminority small business of a chance to compete.
Next, we must and will comply with the Supreme Court's Adarand decision. In
particular, that means limiting set-asides to regions and business sectors where there are
still serious problems of discrimination. I have directed the Attorney General and the
agencies to implement this policy without delay. The Adarand d'ecision did not dismantle
set-asides, but it did set stricter standards. State and local governments were ordered
several years ago to implement such standards and the best set aside programs have met
them and survived.
14
�Affirmative action must be made consistent with our highest ideals of personal
responsibility and merit -- and our urgent need to find cornnion ground and prepare all of
our people to compete in a global economy. Today, I am directing federal agencies to
apply four standards of fairness to all our affirmative action programs:
•
First, no program can allow quotas, in theory or practice;
•
Second, no program can promote or permit illegal discrimination of any
kind, and that includes reverse discrimination;
•
Third, there can be no preferences or preferential treatment for people who
are not qualified.
•
Fourth, as soon as a program has met its goal, it will be ended.
As an American, as a Southerner, as President of the United States, and yes, as the
father of a talented young daughter, I have a con;unitment to see this nation continue the
work of equality.
I am not prepared to throw away the ideal that we don't have a person to waste.
15
�I am not prepared to yield to those who say they are against affirmative action but
favor civil rights-- an approach which would secure such rightsonly on paper, in law but
not in life. Many ofthe same critics opposed the historic civil rights bills ofthe 1960's
when they were first proposed.
No political advantage -- no election -- no office -- is worth a retreat or detour
from this nation's historic march toward liberty and justice.
For this above all is what has made as a model to the world of what is noble and
decent in human affairs.
From South Africa, to Northern Ireland, to the Middle East, ancient. bloody
divisions are giving way to at last to common ground. And we, the people of America,
are their beacon of hope.
And this, too, is the foundation of our national strength: In America, we are all
different and we are all the same, we all want freedom and fairness; the embrace of family
and community; the chance to be responsible and the opportunity to live up to the best of
our abilities.
Affirmative action is a tool, not a crutch. And we cannot abandon it unless and
until we can give the fight answer to the question President Kennedy asked in that summer
16
�of my youth in 1963: "Which of us would willingly trade places" with those whose legacy
is centuries ':If oppression and discrimination?
We were the first nation in history to say that ''all men are created equal." Let us
now reassert it and mean it that all men and women are created equal. Let us give new life
to the ideals contained on the fragile pieces of sheepskin conserved in these halls. For
when we live by them, we come closer to becoming the true sum or our parts, the America
that is both great and good, the dream and hope of the ages.
Thank you and may God make us worthy of this trust.
17
�draft, saturday, july 15, 1995, 12 noon
President William J. Clinton
Affir.mative Action
National Archives
July 19, 1995
In recent weeks, I have begun a conversation with the
American people about our need to overcome the forces that divide
us a nation, so that we can meet the future together.
Here, at the dawn of a new century, I believe our challenge
is two-fold: We must restore the American Dream of opportunity
and the American tradition of responsibility. And we must bring
our country together amid all our diversity in a stronger
community, so that we can find common ground and move forward as
one.
As your President, I realize better than ever that these
goals are inseparable. We cannot restore the American Dream
unless we find a way to bring the American people together. But
today, I want to discuss the other side of our challenge: That we
must not allow our very pursuit of the life and hopes we call the
American Dream to itself turn us one against the other.
Our ability to succeed as individuals and as a nation in the
face of a whole new world of possibility and obstacles requires
us to look ahead from the same mountaintop toward the same common
ground.
IL _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
It is fitting that we discuss this here at the National
---------------
�Archives. For within these walls are America's most sacred maps
to our common ground.
No paper is as strong as these words, so we put these
documents in a special case to protect
~m
the elements. No
building is as solid as these words; but we have tried to build
one, with doors of metal 11-inches thick, to keep safe these
documents. But the best place to hold these words and ideals is
where they will neither fade nor grow old or ever suffer from
neglect.
A!!pfat~~n
the stronger chambers. of our hearts.
America is beyond all else an idea. These documents have
given life to that idea -- the Declaration of Independence, which
was really a declaration of our inter-dependence; the
Constitution, less a prescription for governance than the
embodiment of our shared wish about ,the responsibility we expect
from e~y ~ion. And the Bill of Rights, our eternal pledge
to
~
about the liberty and freedom of every American.
The idea of America is enduring, much as the words we
believe in from the Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty
and the pursuit of Happiness."
2
�But we know the idea of America is never completed. Listen
to the words of the grandson of a slave, of Thurgood Marshall. He
·knew how much work we needed to do as a nation to live up to our
ideals, because he worked so hard in his life to make us better.
OJ-
Oj{the-200th anniversary of our Constitution, as
~e=
of oar
~ Supreme Court Justices, he said:
"The Government [our Founders] devised was defective from
the start, requiring several amendments, a civil ·war, and
momentous social transformation to attain the system of
constitutional government, and its respect for the individual
freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today."
That's another way of saying, the
eGnsti~M~i~n
may not be
perfect, but it can be renewed. More important, the American
people can be renewed.
From generation to generation, we have found the strength to
renew and better ourselves to meet changing times. It was 87
years after we declared our independence before Abraham Lincoln
signed the Emancipation Proclamation and opened the way to bring
blacks into our common purpose. It was [tk] years until we passed
the 19th Amendment, giving women the right to vote. It was a full
188 years until we passed laws to wipe out the last barriers to
the most basic right of citizenship -- the right to vote.
3
�I first came to this very spot 32 years ago this month, in
July of 1963. If nothing else happened that summer, it would have
been special for me, visiting Washington as I did, as a delegate
to Boys' Nation. But that summer was a defining time for far more
than a boy from a poor Southern state. It was another of
~
crucial moments in our long journey to define ourselves as a
nation. A generation ago, we looked at America and saw a need to
raise the valley to create common ground for all our people, to
give new meaning to our freedom, opportunity and community.
In June of '63, President Kennedy told the nation why respect
for the law and fundamental fairness required Alabama National
Guardsmen to enforce an order to allow two young blacks to enter
the University of Alabama.
"Every American ought to have the right to be treated as he
would wish to be treated," he said, "as one would wish his
children to be treated."
One month after my visit, Martin Luther King went to the
steps of the Lincoln Memorial, and told the nation he had a dream
of equality, freedom and justice. He captured our imagination and
our hope. He prodded our conscience. He moved our nation.
President Kennedy and Dr. King, each in his own way, for
their time, expanded the words of our Founders. :rR.ey \vere eHJents
4
�"'of o~al for:. tfl:ei:r 'Hme-. They simply asked that Americans
live
ey
what we alteady bei1eve. They
aske~
to be not like the
Pharisees in Scriptures, who preached one thing and did quite
another.
Today, it is our turn to be agents of renewal for our time,
to make our efforts work better and with more fairness, for even
more Americans. We must continue our dialogue in ways that are
civil, so we can
heal our nation and build on the work of those
who have gone so nobly before us.
We must face economic conditions that are changing as much
as anything we've seen in a century or more -- new technologies,
instant communications, an explosion of global commerce and a new
openness in the way we work.
All of that has created enormous opportunity. But I know it
has created a new kind of anxiety for our great middle class. And
that anxiety has strained for some Americans a sense of what is
fair.
Dreams and values that middle class Americans hold dear for
themselves and their children seem at risk. 'It's a fact that
while we are once again the most productive nation in the
worl~
,and while our economy has created 7 million more jobs, more
millionaires and new businesses than ever before, most Americans
5
~
�have seen 20 years of stagnant or falling incomes. They've worked
harder
~or
the same or lower pay. They feel more insecurity over
their jobs, retirement, health care and education. They have deep
doubts about whether they will be able to pass the American dream
on to their children.
We also face the problems of family and community breakdown,
teen pregnancy, crime and violence. Some people would have us
believe that these problems are solely the result of culture or
personality. But the fact is: A lot of people, across lines of
race, ethnicity and gender, are falling through the cracks as we
prepare to compete in the changing global economy. And the fact
is: We all have a stake in finding ways to expand economic
opportunity so we seal the cracks and protect the economic
security of all our people.
It's true that there is no substitute for hard work,
preparation and taking personal responsibility. But for the all
people who want to do all these things, there must be the real
promise of opportunity, in education, employment. and
~ntrepreneurship.
When an economy is evolving and adapting, as ours is, there
are growing pains, and it leaves us vulnerable to try to blame
someone for that pain. We can blame forces beyond our control
that have changed·the rules of competition in the global economy.
6
�But let us accept this true fact: The challenge and the enemy are
not our fellow Americans. The challenge is a new economy that
demands more skills in a stronger America. And the enemy is
anyone who would poison our atmosphere by encouraging us to blame
each other.
We have seen the human toll that this kind of division can
take on our nation. We did away with slavery. But in its place,
America allowed discrimination to marble our laws, segregating
schools, buses and even water fountains. For a long time,
intimidation tactics were allowed, keeping African-Americans and
Hispanics from participating in our democracy. And even as we
fbught in World War II to help free the world from fascism, our
nation separated black from white in our military and interned
Japanese-Americans on our own soil.
And we know the economic toll that occurs when we don't pull
together. For those who did not grow up in the segregated South,
it may be hard to understand how destructive that system was
not only for blacks, but for poor whites and for the whole
society -- not only destructive morally, but also destructive
economically. The lesson we learned was a hard one: When we allow
people to pit us one against the other, when we spend energy
denying opportunity based on our differences, everyone was held
back. It was no coincidence that the parts of the South that
worked to get past discrimination earliest, like the city of
7
�Atla~ta, which called itself "The City Too Busy to Hate," found
the best prosperity the soonest.
I wish my grandfather could have seen how much we've
changed. He more than anyone taught me that we don't have a
person to waste. He was poor. He ran a grocery store in a
predominantly black part of the small town I was born in. And
when others refused, he made sure that he served customers no
matter what their race was. Because he believed, as I believe,
that we must all work together, especially in times of strain. He
believed that we have much more that unites us than divides us:
Our love of the place we call home; our desire to make the most
of our own lives; our hope of passing better times on to our
children.
It was his lessons that inspired me, as a delegate to Boys'
Nation, to be one of only three Southern delegates to vote in
support of civil rights. It's hard to believe that only 32 years
ago, we had to have a fight like that. Progress may seem slow. to
us when we view it from our daily lives. Still, we forget
sometimes, how far three decades have brought us.
Thirty years ago, you didn't see people of color and women
making their way to work in the morning in business clothes,
serving in our Congress and at the White House, making decisions
every day in businesses. It wasn't so long ago, none of that
8
�existed. There were far fewer women and minorities as job
supervisors, or as firefighters or police officers or physicians
or lawyers or college professors or in many other jobs that offer
stability for families. You certainly did not
s~e
women or people
of color as television news anchors. Even professional sports
were off-limits.
I
Now that's changed. But it didn't happen as some sort of
random evolutionary drift. It took hard work and sacrifice and
countless acts of conscience by millions of everyday Americans.
It took the political courage and statesmanship of Democrats and
Republicans alike; the vigilance and compassion of courts and
advocates in and out of government, committed to the Constitution
and its requirement of equal protection. Some people put their
lives on the line; and some lost them.
The struggle for civil rights and voting rights and equal
employment opportunity rights changed the face of America; it
renewed our commitment to our .greatest ideals. It brought into
the fold of democracy the people who were outside or just on the
I
fringe, and they have contributed mightily to our prosperity.
People, historically excluded from our economy, have seen
new avenues opened. A true black middle class is emerging. Women
9
�became major breadwinners and have boosted incomes through twowage families. Higher education has been revolutionized, with
women and racial and ethnic minorities attending predominantly
white and onetime all-male schools, something that was once
unthirikable. A generation of professionals
doctors, lawyers,
and others -- are building on the progress by serving as role
models, educating still more women and minorities. In communities
across our nation, police officers now better reflect the makeup
of the communities they serve.
~~~~~~~
·~~~~~~~~
We now have Sally Ride, Ellen Ochoa and other women and
minorities in the space program; Colin Powell and more than 25
other African-American generals in the Army.
And despite what some people want you to believe, the
American people have lived through all this change and have
fundamentally transformed the way we judge one another and
recognize how much we must all share in the great harvest of
America.
According to one study, in the 1940s, just 45 percent of
Americans felt that blacks "should have as good a chance as white
people to get any kind of job." By 1972, 97 percent felt that
way. In 1981, according to another study, 69 percent of blacks
and 54 percent of whites said they had a "close personal friend"
10
�of the other race. Eight years later, in 1989, those percentages
went up: to 80 percent and 66 percent.
These changes are the dividends of our renewal and our
growth as a people.
We have been able to accomplish all this because Government
has worked in partnership with our citizens to build.up all of
America. And one of our most important tools has been what we
call "affirmative action."
Affirmative action has allowed our nation to face and
finally address the systemic exclusion of talent for
opportunities to perform, to achieve and to contribute to our
national enterprise. It encourages employers and universities and
even governments to find, recruit and promote minorities and
women who are qualified. It was designed to be a mild
alternative: a middle ground between no policy -- which would
have further entrenched enequities -- and a policy that would
have imposed draconian penalties on employers. It is flexible and
fair. And it works.
/)_ ;._ptV'
D ~ l.rc-v. ~
r •~.;
But let·me be clear about what affirmative action does not
mea~
It should not mean, does not mean and has never meant the
unjustified elevation of the unqualified over the qualified; nor
rigid numerical quotas; nor rejection or selection of any
11
�employee or student solely based on race without regard to merit.
~·And
remember, I said partnership between all of us and our
Government. Affirmative action starts with affirmative thinking.
Every one of us has to think harder. We have to express our
thoughts about what we each will do to end racism and
discrimination. It's not enough to claim that we will have a
color blind society; we have to think through and actively say
what we will do personally to make it so.
<:.-w ~ ~- ·~-llJ~
That means being civil toward one another; that means
embracing, not rejecting one another; that means reaching out and
making it possible in real terms to share in the promise of
America.
Like
ll-<
~
J4
~
\.._r..L\y\_
~ ~'t ~~
~~
~ \~~
v~
o
President~ ~and
v
)~
~ ~-~~
likeS~
Nixon, who led the way;
Congressional leaders of both parties through the years who have
c5/_.
reaffirmed that there is a real need for practical measures like
~
(
c51
these by voting for them; like the business leaders .and
university and college presidents who have seen their future in
our collective talent, I believe in affirmative action.
v~
~~.~
~4
As a public servant, I have always practiced affirmative
"Ji'
~~-
,£,.
action because I have seen that diversity is an asset. I am proud
of the make-up of my Cabinet and the rest of my Administration.
Nearly 60 percent of the Federal judges I have appointed have
12
-
---
---------
�been women and minorities -- more than the past three Presidents
combined. And, by far, my appointments include the largest
percentage to receive the American Bar Association's highest
rating -- proving that quality and diversity can go hand in hand.
,
Most economists generally agree that affirmative action has
been an important part of our progress in closing many gaps in
economic opportunity. But as a society, we still have a long way
to go. [have we really overcome if .... ]
The unemployment rate for African-Americans remains about
twice that of whites. Women have narrowed the earnings gap, but
still make only 72 percent as much as men. An average income for
a Hispanic woman with a college degree is less than that of a
white man with a high school degree.
According to the recently completely Glass Ceiling Report,
sponsored by Republicans: In the nation's largest companies, only
0.6 percent of senior management positions are held by AfricanAmericans; 0.4 percent are Hispanic and 0.3 percent Asian. Women
hold 3 to 5 percent. White males, who make up 43 percent of this
part of the workforce, hold 95 percent of the positions.
Last year alone, the Federal government received more than
90,000 complaints of employment discrimination based on race,
ethnicity and gender.
13
I
�Violence based on hate -- against Asians, Hispanics and
African-Americans -- is at an all-time high nationally.
We still face too many divisions of white versus black, men
versus women, arguing over who gets what.
At a time when we need to come together, some people are
hard at work, drawing sharp lines through our national community.
But if we are to renew our nation, if we are to build on our
progress, we must each take responsibility to drown out these
voices of division with an American chorus of unity.
That alone, though, is not enough. To beat back the forces
of division, we must show it is possible for us all to pursue the
American dream and to do that together. That goal requires an
economic strategy like the one my Administration is providing: a
strategy for raising wages, by expanding training and education
for all our people, by putting Americans to work and by helping
every person reach his or her God-given potential. Part of that
strategy -- one of our tools -- is affirmative action. Wages will
not go up any sooner if affirmative action goes down, no matter
what anyone tells you.
I will tell you that it is fair to question the
effectiveness of continuing our affirmative action programs, to
question whether they still are needed and whether they are doing
14
�~,-,
the job. They have been in place for nearly a generation, and
it's time to take stock.
So let me be clear:
e~
It.is not a never-ending process. It is a temporary
tool that should be retired when it's job is finished.
Affirmative
act~on
is not always perfect. But for now, our nation
still needs affirmative action. We must mend it, not end it. And
that is what we are doing.
I ordered a review of our programs several months
ago because I wanted to make sure our programs are working the
right way. This examination will not be the last.
We must make affirmative action consistent with our highest
ideals of personal responsibility and merit and our most pressing
needs for common ground and the preparation of all our people to
meet the global economy. So today, I am directing all our
agencies to monitor our affirmative action programs to make sure
each one meets these four strict standards for fairness:
•
First, it cannot allow quotas, in theory or practice.
•
Second, it cannot allow illegal discrimination of any
kind, and that includes reverse discrimination.
15
�•
Third, there can be no preferential treatment for
people who are not qualified.
•
And finally, as soon as a program has met its goal, it
must be retired.
In addition, all our programs are being further scrutinized
at the order of the Justice Department, to check for compliahce
with the Supreme Court's order in the Adarand case that they be
narrowly tailored. The results of that analysis will be available
in coming months.
Our review found that affirmative action remains a useful
tool for widening economic and educational opportunity. The model
used by the military -- the Army, in particular -- has been
especially successful because it emphasizes training and
education to widen the pool of qualified candidates for
promotion. That approach has given us the most diverse and best
qualified military leadership in the history of the United
States.
We found that the Education Department programs do a great
deal of good with a small investment, just about 40 cents of
every $1,000 in student aid awarded by the Department. [To put
this in perspective, I should note that there are many private
programs for higher education that benefit everyone from the
16
�descendants of Confederate soldiers and sailors to left-handed
freshmen.]
The Executive Order on employment practices of large federal
contractors also has helped to bring more fairness and inclusion
to the national workforce.
~ ~
0;vv6
Then there is the way we award procurement contracts under
the program known as "set-asides." There is no question that it
has helped to build up firms owned by minorities and women. It
has helped a new generation of entrepreneurs to flourish, opening
an important path to the American dream for many of our people -[people like Paul Gutierrez in Omaha, who owns Midwest
Maintenance. People like Kirkus Burks, who owns a steam-cleaning
business in Fresno, California. And people like Randy Uchida, who
owns a steel pipe and products business in Encino, California.
Because of set-asides, these businesses had a chance to compete,
a chance they would not have otherwise had.]
But as with any Government program, set-asides are open to
abuse by some people. For that reason, some say we should do away
with them. But we will do better if we reform set-asides to
minimize that risk of abuse and sharpen the way we address
discrimination and real need.
So, first, we'll start by excluding entrepreneurs who dci not
17
�qualify as economically disadvantaged. We will tighten the
requirements for businesses to graduate out of the programs once
they have gotten a fair opportunity to compete. And we'll make
sure that no agency runs its.program in any way that
.jnadvertently crowds out nonminority small businesses from a
chance to compete. I am committed to making sure that as soon as
the problem of discrimination ends, so does the program.
Affirmative action is a tool, not a crutch.
Second, we must make sure that we comply with the Supreme
Court's Adarand decision. In particular, that means limiting
.these programs to those regions and business sectors where the
serious problems of discrimination remain. I've directed the
Attorney General and the agencies to move forward with this
expeditiously.
the test will be
m~t
in many
cases, as it has been met by state and local governments
operating under the same kind of constraints ordered by the
Court's Croson decision 6 years ago.
And third, we need to do more.
[c~~d
focus] We must recognize that there are places in our country
where the free enterprise system isn't working to provide jobs
and opportunity. We must do more to help poor communities
directly, as we have with our Empowerment Zones, Community
Development Banks and other initiatives. That's why I've asked
that we explore what more can be done to create greater
18
�opportunity for businesses that locate themselves in these
distressed areas or hire many
o~
their workers from these areas.
[I am making these changes based on our review because I am
not prepared to throw away the ideal that we don't have a person
to waste. I want to build on that ideal. If we ever doubted that
we must prepare all our children to compete, consider how our
nation will look 10 years from now. By the year 2005, white men
will make up 38 percent of the workforce; women will make up 47.7
percent; African-Americans 11 percent and Hispanics, 11 percent.]
We must do all of this as we strive to find better and
fairer ways to build up our economy and our national community.
We have so much to build on.
Today, as on most days in America, 150 racial and ethnic
groups co-exist in harmony and reinforcing tensile strength. That
is an achievement unmatched in all of human history. It makes us
the envy of the world.
From South Africa, to Northern Ireland, to the Middle East,
ancient, bloody divisions are giving way at last to common
ground. And we, the American people, are their beacon of hope.
There are still places that may see our light, but have not acted
on our dream, where ethnic violence remains a human tragedy. But
there's one thing I have learned that the people of the world
19
�•
know: The American way works.
We have a responsibility now to renew and strengthen the
American way -- a responsibility to give new faith to those
nations trying to emulate us; a responsibility to keep our light
shining for those who will yet follow in our path; and most of
all, as we look forward to a new century, we have a
responsibility to ourselves and to our children to make sure that
the promise of America will be strong and open to all our people.
In our national community, we are all different and we are
all the same. We all want liberty and freedom; the embrace of
family and community; we all want fairness, the chance to be
responsible, and an opportunity to live.and work to our best
ability. The voices of division would like you to forget all
that. Don't.
Remember instead the ideals contained on the fragile pieces
of sheepskin in these halls. When we live by them, we come closer
to becoming the true sum of our parts, the America that we must
always strive to be.
Thank you and God bless America.
20
��.
....~ ~ . ... ;,r
~~~~
~~..,1--v
~
Y'1
~
~
(_~
~/
~ '-0 ~ --?
~~ 7YfJ "'~. ~ ~. ~J_.
~s/~~''W.7 ~ ~;-------:)
~([
'~4~ ~-~
~~
»
pfl~ ~ . ~ pP~ ~
·. ~~Cll
· J~-1r!z; ~:? f~,mMi/ At!JJf 11·m Jd,oJ ~+d,IZ.J t')l rn"'/ - o:Jnoos e
P'-H
f'j
~ 5~nl'}j. #511 -!Jt'it- "", ~~ ~ (??"'J ("'~}) 950P.Mif-~9
.
- L _ ___,_4""-•-LL.:u:L:7_-r2~Lt!..J:J_{h
��.
'·
.
- - - - - - - - - - - - ------...
U~~~
r_
~~ f-- -~-
S~
W·
�l
�draft, March 31, 1995
General Principles:
Positive
a. •
Invest in opportunity-enhancing programs. Start with these; hope that these are
sufficient to produce inclusion. Build the pool.
b.•
Promote efforts by the private sector -- not just a government responsibility.
c.•
More effective anti-discrimination enforcement. Still necessary.
d.•
REGO Principles: reduce paperwork; focus on results; rely on incentives; etc.
e. •
Disseminate best practices.
But w/1en race- and gender-based measures are necessary, here's the test:
Flexible
I•
Avoid rigidity: When used at all, race should be only one of several factors.
2•
Avoid rigidity: Any numbers must be flexible -- no quotas and no de facto quotas.
No "numerical straight jackets."
3•
Avoid rigidity: Programs should be evaluated and reviewed at reasonable intervals.
Programs should have program-appropriate "sunset" or "hibernation" criteria built into
them.
4•
Balanced assessment: evaluate program impact on both beneficiaries and bystanders.
5•
Injury to vested, focused interests is worse than a diffuse burden on third parties.
Merit
6•
Unqualified cannot be preferred to the qualified. But qualifications must be defined
with reference to the full objectives of the institution in mind -- not some artificial
measure.
Broad
7•
Race should not be used if other characteristics, such as need, will suffice to achieve
practical inclusion. (??)
8•
Presumptions of disadvantage should be genuinely rebuttable.
9•
Large, multiple, concentrated benefits (Viacom; setasides without graduation) are more
problematic than measures which open opportunity to many.
Fair
�..
t --
..
Affirmative Action:
Recent Statements by President Clinton
PRESS CONFERENCE
(Marcb 3, 1995)
Q
Thank you, sir.
I'd like to ask you a question, if I
might, about affirmative action.
I know your administration is
now reviewing all of those affirmative action regulations, but
there's some concern that this might be the prelude to a backing
off of those policies.
In fact, Jesse Jackson earlier this w.eek
expressed the opinion that maybe if you did, he might even run
against you. But my question, really, on that issue is, what
about the many Americans who really feel that they have been
punished by affirmative action? And I'd like to get your
comments on that.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me tell you about the review I've
ordered and comment on the affirmative action thing.
First of
all, our administration is against quotas and guaranteed results,
and I have been throughout my public career.
I have always been
for trying to help people develop their, capacities so they could
fully participate. And I have supported things -- when I was a
governor.
I supported, for example, minority scholarship
programs -- in my public life, I have done that.
I want to make a couple of comments here. First, I have
asked for a review of all the federal government's so-called
affirmative action programs because I think it's important that
we analyze, number one, what they do and what -- a lot of times
people mean different things when they use affirmative action.
For example, I take it there is virtually no opposition to the
affirmative action programs that are the most successful in our
country, which are the ones adopted by the United States
military, which have not resulted in people of inferior quality
or ability getting preferential treatment, but have resulted in
the intense effort to develop the capacities of everybody who
joins the military so they can fully participate and contribute
as· much as possible, and has resulted in the most integrated
institution in our society.
So I want to know what these programs are, exactly.
I want
to know whether they are working.
I want to know whether there
is some other way we can reach any objective without giving a
preference by race or gender in some of these program. Those are
the three questions we need to ask.
this
that
that
that
And let me make a general observation.
I asked myself when
debate started, what have we done since I've been President
has most helped minorities. And I think that -- I would say
the things we have done that have most helped are things
have benefitted all people who needed them -- expanding the
-1-
�.
.
it exists.
I want to continue to give people a chance to develop
their capacities where they need help.
I want us to emphasize
need-based programs where we can because they work better and
have a bigger impact and generate broader support. But let me
finish what we're doing here, and then I will try to answer all
the details.
Q
Mr. President, forgive me for pressing you on this, but if
I'm not mistaken, you've always been in favor of affirmative
action, and in fact, you have practiced it. Why now the
hesitation?
·
THE PRESIDENT:
I have always -- that's right.
I'm glad you
asked.
I have always practiced it. But let's look at how I
practiced it. Look at my appointments to the federal bench, ones
for which, I might add, I've been regularly and roundly
attacked for trying to achieve diversity here in this community.
I read something in the paper about once a month, people jumping
on me because I've appointed more women and more minorities to
the federal bench than my predecessors combined at this point in
our terms -- my last three predecessors combined. And, oh, by
the way, they sometimes say, his appointees also have the highest
rating from the American Bar Association of the last three
Presidents.
I have practiced affirmative action here the way that I
perceive the United State military has practiced it.
I have made
an extra effort to look for qualified candidates who could serve
with distinction and make a contribution to this country and make
the federal bench reflective of the American population.
I have
not done it with any quota system in mind, and I have not
guaranteed anybody a job.
I have made an extra effort to do
that.
The military starts before that. They have made an extra
effort to develop the capacities of people who come to them with
great raw ability, but maybe a disadvantaged background.
Is that
wrong? I don't think it is. And I'm not backing off of that.
The question is -- here is the narrow question -- the
question is:
If we're not for quotas in results, and we are for
developing everybody's capacities, what do we do with all those
rules and regulations and laws that really are in a gray area,
that are really in a gray area where there is, let's say, a
minority scholarship or a contracting set-aside ·that Maura asked
about, that really is often got around because of the way they
are written?
I want to review those.
I do not want to see us stop trying
to develop the abilities of all Americans.
I do not want to see
us move away from trying to concentrate our resources in the
-3-
�.- .
areas of greatest need.
But I would say again, I think most minorities have been
helped most by the programs in this country that have been
targeted toward broad-based needs. And, ironically, if you go
back to the beginning of this whole affirmative action debate, it
started in the late '60s and many civil rights leaders at the
time argued against affirmative action programs because they
thought we'd wind up in the debate we are now having 25 years
later.
I think we need to look at the programs, look at the facts,
and ask the questions I just asked: How does this work? Is it
fair? Is it necessary? Is there an alternative way to achieve
the objective? But in terms of taking aggressive initiatives to
develop the capacities of people, should we keep doing that? You
bet we should. How should we do it in the law? That's the
question.
- - - ·- - - -
- - -
- - - - -
-
-
REMARKS AT COLLEGE PRESS FORUM
(March 23, 1995)
Q
Yes. My name is Peter McKay.
I'm a sophomore at
Florida A&M University~ And my question deals with the White
House review of affirmative action that's been going on for
several weeks now. What is the status of the review, and what
conclusions have you reached about affirmative action?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, the status is ongoing.
I'll
talk a little about where we are now, but I want to emphasize
that the review is still underway.
And let me urge you -- I know there must be a lot of
discussion about this on college campuses as it affects
admissions policies. But I want to emphasize to begin you, if
you spark a debate about this it's important to know what people
are talking about when they're talking about affirmative action.
There are policies of the government and policies in the private
sector that affect admissions to colleges, availability of
financial aid to schools, admissions to workplaces and
promotional policies within the workplace, and access to
contracts in the public sector; and, sometimes, in the private
sector as well, like big companies contracting with smaller ones.
So you're basically talking about a range of programs.
When there is evidence of past discrimination, as found in a
court, then there can be more strenuous rules and regulations.
Otherwise, there are actually a lot of strictures on how far
-4-
�.
..
~
affirmative action can go in giving preferences to people based
on race or gender.
But let me back up a little bit and again talk about a
little history. When I was your age and I began to work in
political campaigns, which I know was a long time ago -- almost
30 years ago now, but it's not so long in the life of the country
-- th~re were still courthouses on squares in county seats in my
state that had segregated restrooms ~- in my lifetime, when I was
your age, in the mid-'60s, there were still older African
Americans in my state who did not know that they could vote
without buying a poll tax, because it had only been abolished by
the Supreme Court a couple of years before.
I can remember when
there were no women in any number of jobs now where we take it
for granted that women will be.
The point I want to make to you is that we have made a lot
of progress in this country.
It has been inexact, it has been
imperfect, there are still problems. We have made a lot of
progress because we tried to take action to open up more
opportunities to people without regard to their race or gender.
/ And all of us, including white males, are better off because of
that.
If you look at the countries around the world today that are
being absolutely ripped apart because of violence based on ethnic
or religious or racial disputes, and sometimes also related to
the role of women, if you look at the countries that are
struggling to become modern today where there's still regularly
violence against women -- the general point I want to make to you
is that it is in everyone's interest to see that everybody gets
the best chance to live up to the fullest of their abilities.
On the other hand, it is in no one's interest to see that
people get positions if they're completely unqualified to hold
them. So the question is: How do we now go forward? And let me
tell you the questions I've asked my folks to answer.
I've said,
firs-t of all, how do these programs work, and do they have a
positive effect? Okay, that's the first qu~stion. Secondly,
even if they work, are they sometimes, at least, unfair to
others? Could you argue that in some cases there is reverse
discrimination, and if so, how? Thirdly, are there now others in
need who are not covered by affirmative action programs?
Keep in mind that's really what's fueling this whole thing.
You've got 20 years in this country where most hourly wageearners have not kept up with. inflation. Most Americans are
working harder for lower wages than they were making 20 years
ago.
If so, how are we going to deal with them?
And, finally, let's look at what clearly works, and I'll
give you three examples.
I don't think anybody in America would
-5-
�.- like us to suspend what we are doing in the military -- the
system that produced not only General Powell, but countless other
generals and colonels who are not only African Americans and
Hispanics and Asian Americans, but also women, doing things that
never were available before. How does that system work? Why
does nobody reject it? Because nobody thinks anyone unqualified
gets promoted.
What do they do? They work as hard as they can to develop
the capacities of everybody who signs up, they do their very best
to see that each level in the promotional pool, there is a mix of
people that reflect ~he population in the rank just below, and
then nobody -- nobody gets promoted who is not qualified. But
they really work hard to give everybody a chance and develop
everybody's capacities.
A second example -- this is self-serving, but I'll give it
to you, anyway.
I have appointed at this point in my tenure to
thi~ point in the two. years, more judges to the federal bench who
were women or members of racial minorities than my three
predecessors combined, I believe. But my judges have. the highest
ratings, on average, from the American Bar Associations of any of
the last four presidents. So no one suggests that I am not
promoting quality in the federal bench.
Fourth example: My Deputy Chief of Staff, Erskine Bowles
was, before he came to the White House, the head of the Small
Business Administration. And he spent 20 years helping people
finance small business. And I said, we've got to bring
enterprise into the depressed areas of. this country, we have got
to do it. So in one year, there was a huge increase in the
volume of loans given to African Americans, Hispanics and women
under the Small Business Administration without, in any way,
discriminating against qualified white males, and every one of
the loans was to a qualified person. Now, I don't believe any
American would object to those three things.
The last thing I want to say is, I have also asked where
does discrimination still exist among people who are not poor, or
not economically distressed, in the traditional definition, based
on race or gender. We just had the Glass Ceiling Report issued
this last week, which was originally initiated, I believe, by
Senator Dole, which said that there is still evidence of
discrimination in promotional practices in large enterprises.
So I want to review all this, I want to make the best
decision I can, and I've given you the questions.
I want to close with just two points.
I'm against
discrimination, I'm against giving people opportunities who are
unqualified. But we all have an interest, including white males,
in developing the capacities'of all of us to relate to one
-6-
�. -- another --because our economy will grow quicker, i t ' l l be
stronger, and in a global society, our diversity is our greatest
asset. We must not let this debate be another cheap political
wedge issue to divide the American electorate. We can use this
to come together, and that's what we ought to do.
Q
Margretta Sundelin, from Brigham Young University.
It
seems the United States is a nation founded on -- and prided upon
its diversity. However, in the course of the last few years, it
seems its diversity is dividing us. What I want to know is, in
your presidency, what have you done to bring cohesion back to the
nation and to settle the unrest?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I've tried to do many things, but let
me emphasize two or three. The first thing I've tried to do is
to focus on initiatives that would provide opportunities to all
Americans; that would unite us in getting more opportunities by,
first of all in economic terms, but bringing down the deficit and
expanding trade opportunities for American products, by working
to create more jobs for the American people. Secondly, in
education, by increasing everything from Head Start programs to
college loans.
I have tried to offer broad-based opportunity.
The second thing I've tried to do is to demonstrate to the
American people that you could have diversity and excellence at
the same time. That's what I just mentioned -- if you look at
the people I've appointed to high public office, the people I've
appointed to the federal judgeships, and the things that I have
tried to do that I think are important.
The third thing I have tried to do is to emphasize the
importance of uniting the American people around shared values.
That's what welfare reform is all about. That's what the
attempts of the crime bill to clean up our,streets from violence
are all about. We should all be able to agree that we are going
to pursue policies that promote family, that promote work, that
strengthen communities, that look to the future.
These are the
things that I have tried to do.
And I believe that the American peqple would think more in
these terms -- I know that a lot of people _are so bewildered by
the changes and they feel so threatened by the changes going on
today, that it's easy to lash out at someone who is different
from us. But if we would focus on those three things I think
we'd come together more.
-7-
�UNITED.STATES DEPARI'MENT OF EDUCA1ION
1
1HE DEPUTY SECRETARY'
To: President Clinton via Chris Edley
From: Madeleine M. Kunin
· (
Re: Affirmative Action speech
~'_ ,p-~.·
April 9, 1995
~./
-·
CONTEXT'
I suggest that the affirmative action speech be placed in a
larger context--one that will enable the 1--resident to inaugurate a
new chapter in the movement towards equal economic opportunity and
social equality in America.
It is most important to cast the speech not as a retreat from
affirmative action, nor an affirmation for the status quo, but
rather, a recognition that we live in different times than when
affirmative action was launched--in many ways, the
status of
minorities and women have improved, in other ways, they have not, .
and in some areas, even regressed. It is important to acknowledge
that contradictory co~ditions can e'xist simultaneously and that is
why, in part, the debate is so heated. Depending on where you look,
affirmative action has done its job, or it has failed.
·
.The President can acknowledge that one can find confirmation
for opposing conclusions, but as long as inequality of opportunity
exists- in any form, to any degree in the United States, for any
individual or group, the country is not living up to its promise
and therefore, the President is unalterably committed-to rectifying
that inequity with all the tools available to him.
Examples of conflicting results:
-- Schools in the south are more integrated than they were; in
the north more segregated, not only by race, but also by poverty
and ethnicity. And it is impossible'to conclude that the education
_received by minorities throughout this country, is equal to whites.
-- A strong black middle class has emerged, but at the same
time, the poverty rate and incarceration rate of African Americans
remains disproportionate+.y high.
-- Women outnumber men in coLlege and in graduate school, but
there r.emains an earnings gap, as well as a gap in women in science
and technology, and 95% of the Fortune 1000 top managers continue
to be white males.
There should also be an acknowledgement that affirmative
action is·but one part of a larger dynamic of social and economic
DETERMINED TO BE AN
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
400
loofARYLANI) AVE., s.w. WAsHINGTON. D.C. 20202 ~
INITIALS: #
DATE: . ¥61/of
'ZDO~- D~S'I·'
S/Z"d
J3S Alnd3a JO 3JIJJO
~2E:01
S6, vl
.
~d~
�2
change in this country---and that we must simultaneously commit
.ourselves to other strategies that increase opportunity, such as
expanding access to quality education at all levels and supp9rting
strong families.
·
However, affirmative action remains a vital tool that we will
not''·diacard. It has proven its effectiveness (cmd use examples).
Conside~ including the largest affirmative action programs--though
this may be too controversial--veteran's preference, and small
business set asides.
·
It has also proven to be effective for women and minorities
(examples). If Title IX is defined as affirmative action, it's a.
good example of the dramatic expansion of women's athletics in the
last 20 years, while pointing out the continuing disparity.
TONE
It is critical that this speech convey· a high moral tone,
that it: come as close as possible to Lincolnesque, with poeticlanguage and quotations.
The challenge to the President is to elevate the debate above
the divisiveness polar-izing the country.
The President can
position himself in contrast to those who thrive on fanning the
flames of division.
·
He must be seen as the healer, as the President who appeals to
the beat and highest motives of human nature, who 'reminds us of our
generosity, our sense · of community and tells us that we are
personally diminished when any amongst us is deprived.
Finding a way to show his courage in this respect by taking
. bigotry head on~ either though an event or a person, quotation,· or
even what is considered to be "popular opinion" would be
advantageous. Lincoln did face a nation divided ---to the death-although there were no polls to· say so.
A combination of careful use of language plus strong inner
passion, drawing on his personal experience (as he began to do this
weekend) in Arkansas, and what 'forces and experiences shaped him to
become a civil rights minded southern politician·.
He can describe what struck him as unfair as a child, and what
.remains unfair to him today. He can also draw the contrast between
what the world was like (for example, the number, if any, of
African American politicians he had known about) and what it is
like today (the number of African American elected off~c:ials) .
If comfortable with the idea, he can use his mother's odyssey
to des.cribe how hard it w~s for women to receive an education and
J3S Alnd30 jQ 3J!jjQ
~2E:0l
S6, vl
~d~
�3
how different it is_now and bring in Hillary's generation. And he
can boast about the women in the administration, in contrast to his
predecessors.
These examples should convey two ideas:
1. the President is a strong supporter of affirmative action
in keeping with his life long commitment to civil rights. And he
will not retreat, and neither can we as a·nation until our work is
done (most important not to be· viewed as an expedient value
modification) .
2. That opportunities have changed for minorities and women,
much to the better, but far from good enough. So our work must
continue, but not precisely in·the.same way. (Would be interesting
to find a parallel situation in history where we have stuck to our
principles but changed the means of achieving them.)
,
The fundamental principles upon which any such strategies are
based, remain unchanged. It is the means, not the ends, which must
be updated.
POLICY THEME
I-t would be helpful to have an overarching theme which
indicates a progression (as the chart shows) from expanding
opportunities, increasing the talent poo~ to enable everyone to
compete fairly, to- -as a ·last step-- direct government intervention
through set asides, etc.
If we do our job right in the first
place, .by giving all children art eqtially good and demanding
education, we won't need race based scholarships by the time they
apply to college ..
Example of a theme: Achieve maximum opportunity with minimum
government intervention.
Would have to followed by a statement that the· President would
not hesitate to intervene, when other remedies are ineffective.
The idea of using progressively more seringent means of
achieving equity is very attractive, accompanied by the concept of
affirmative action as a transition phase. It implies there is an
agreed upon goal and end point.
The difficulty is finding consensus on what that end point is
in a·manner that meets a·legal definition and conforms to public
perception, which is what the debate is about now.
· J3S ,Und30 ..:lO 3JI..:l..:l0 WI::IEE :~'t
S6, t''t ~dl::l
�""
..
. ...
.
4
FAIRNESS
The concept that equal opportunity should be achieved without
creating undue burdens on the rest of society should be conveyed
without holding up the white male as a new vic~im. This resonates
badly with women and blacks whose experience is· all to the contrary
and also plays into the idea that the election is the driving force
here, and unnecessarily legitimizes the opposition's view.
Keeping . that part of the question at· a more general level
would be better, and turning it upside down, would be even betteri.e., as a society, we are all disadvantaged when we are deprived
of the talent and productivity of individuals who are unable to
achieve their potential as a result of r~cial and gender barr;ers.
PRESIDENT
A$
TEACHER
The speech· is a great opportunity for the President to
describe how affirmative action works, what it does and does not do
and what it should do.
Also, the President can describe the nature. of bias, boeh
conscious and unconscious, that you do:Q.' t have to be a bigot to
continue to hire people who act and look like' you do.and went to
the same schools, but that you do have to be prodded, sometimes, to
look beyond your circle, and that too--is affirmative action. ·
S/S"d
J3S Alnd30
~0 3JI~~O W~EE:0l
SG. vl
~d~
�MEMORANDUM TO
FROM
DATE
SUBJECT
LIST (below)
CAROLYN CURIEL, x62777
APRIL 13, 1995
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION SPEECH
This is a first, wide swing. It incorporates much of the
President's own words, both publicly and in meetings, in
describing where we are. Structually, it resembles the outline
some of you saw a couple of weeks ago.
Please guard your copy of this draft and do not make duplicates.
Thank you.
List: Deval Patrick
Chris Edley
Maggie Williams
Bill Galston
Gene Sperling
Don Baer
�draft, 4/13/95, 2 p.m.
President William J. Clinton
Remarks on Affirmative Action
Site
Date
Good evening. I want to begin a conversation tonight, a conversation with
all Americans, about opportunity for all Americans, and about what that means in
the world we live in.
In this conversation, we must all talk, and more important, we must all
listen. We must leave behind the distortion of anger and the high-pitch of hate. We
must take up the common purpose we have as Americans.
We share a turbulent history, we share concerns about the present and we
share expectations for the future. We Americans are the sum of our experiences.
I and others of my generation came of age as Americans were awakening to
the injustices that our nation had allowed for centuries against many of our
citizens. When I was growing up in the South, schools were segregated, roads in
black neighborhoods went unpaved, African-Americans could not vote freely,
restrooms were marked "white" and "colored."
1
�More than indignities, these were affronts to democracy. It was a time when
freedom came with limits, and with those limits came fear. For these Americans,
recalling the past is not always a reason for nostalgia.
Imagine an America that would have allowed segregation to continue. We
would be much poorer economically. We would be bankrupt spiritually. We
certainly would not be the model that we are to a world that in too
mr~ny
places is
scarred by violence based on ethnic, religious or racial differences.
America made a commitment 40 years ago. We said that opportunity would
not be limited, hindered or withheld because of color.
So we eliminated the separate drinking fountains and restrooms and the
"whites only" signs.
We eliminated many of the barriers to political participation that people of
color faced. In most places now, African-Americans can register and vote without
challenge. African-Americans are mayors, Members of Congress, and for the first
time, an African-American [Carol Moseley-Braun] sits in the United States Senate.
We eliminated many of the barriers to education and employment that kept
African-Americans out of the economic mainstream.
2
�We expanded opportunity and commited ourselves by law to respect civil
rights, and because we did, African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians and women have
risen to high levels in government and the military.
As a nation, we grew richer and more productive. Our middle class grew,
and its ranks included blacks and families boosted economically by a second breadwinner as more women were able to pursue higher-paying careers.
We planted the flag for civil rights, but our victories must always be
guarded. To do that, we have depended on the vigilance of courts and advocates
committed to the Constitution. But we cannot legislate the workings of the human
heart. Every day the rights of individuals depend on how another person is
prepared to treat them. By and large, the American sense of fairness triumphs. But
not always.
Three decades ago, Martin Luther King Jr. shared with us his dream, where
all our children are judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their
character. But that dream is still waiting to be realized.
Our cities remain segregated, in fact, if not by law. For the children in these
cities, life is bereft of opportunity.
3
�Every year, the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department receives
thousands of reports of discrimination in employment, housing, voting and
education. Last year alone, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
received 90,000 complaints of bias in the workplace. For women and minorities,
the door may have been opened, but inside the workplace, they often find a glass
ceiling.
Across our country, hate crimes are at an all-time high.
It is clear that four short decades have not erased three centuries of
discrimination. It is clear that our ideal of a colorblind society remains an ideal that
we must continue to pursue.
In our pursuit, we have had to use tools. Affirmative action is one of these
tools. It came about because leaders of both parties saw a need to move beyond
intention. to make more equal opportunity, without regard to race or gender, closer
to reality. In that respect, affirmative action has worked. But it's not perfect, and
that's why I have ordered a review of all Federal programs employing affirmative
action.
I want these tools to be sharpened so that we as a nation can better develop
the capacities of all Americans. So the questions the reviewers are asking about
4
�these programs are: Are they all working? Are they all fair? Has there been any
kind of reverse discrimination? And, more importantly, what we really ought to
ask ourselves is, what are we going to do about all these folks that are out there
working hard and never getting ahead.
My principles on affirmative action are based in fairness: I believe that
needs-based programs, training and recruiting are fair. Expanding the pool of
qualified applicants is fair. Enforcing the laws against discrimination is fair. And if,
when all this is done, we are still leaving some of our people behind, then we need
to examine what we're doing wrong and how to correct it.
I am against discrimination. I am against quotas. I am against giving
employment to people who are unqualified. I am against policy that benefits any
group at a high cost to another group.
We have had some notable successes in my Administration. For example,
the Small Business Administration last year increased loans to minorities by over
two-thirds, to women by over 80 percent, but did not decrease loans to white
men. And not a single loan went to an unqualified person. People who never had a
chance before now have a chance to get in business. And no one was hurt in the
process.
5
�I have appointed more women and minorities to the Federal bench than the
past three Presidents combined. And, by far, my appointments include the largest
percentage of judges rated well-qualified by the American Bar Association. Don't
believe anyone who says quality and diversity cannot go hand in hand with each
other, and with racial harmony .
. The United States military has shown us that. The Army not only produced
General Colin Powell, it produced 22 African-American generals.·
The Army's success can be traced to its special efforts to diversify its pools
of candidates for promotions. The people in these pools are given the training and
education they need to succeed. No unqualified person ever gets promoted.
Standards are applied across the board. Promotions do not cause resentment.
Of course, military discipline plays a role in all of this. But so does a
commitment to fairness.
Today, we talk less about fairness than fear. I understand that. Right now,
despite a growing economy, many of our people fear .for their security in the
changing global economy.
6
�This is fertile ground to plant the idea that the other guy is out to get your
job, out to get your American Dream. But the enemy is not another American. The
enemy is the poisoned atmosphere created when Americans look at each other
that way.
Many people are afraid of affirmative action, I knoyv that. Many of them are
white men. If they haven't had higher education, they probably find that their jobs
are shrinking. They feel the stagnation of real wages that have fallen since the late
1970's, making them work harder for less. They're worried about making ends
meet, about sending a child to college, and about whether their children will have
an even worse time of it. The leg up they had feels as though it's being pulled out
from under them.
The same thing is happening in corporate America. I recently received a
letter from a grade school classmate. He worked more than 20 years for a Fortune
500 company. They had a good year last year. But they laid off three of their
engineers, gave their work to two others who were younger and less well-paid.
And they trumpeted the fact that one of the other people was a minority.
In a letter he wrote to me, my friend summed up the situation. He said, "Mr.
President, I'm glad you ordered a review of those programs, and I'm glad you
didn't abandon them." But he said, "You have to understand what a lot of people
7
�are feeling out here is what I'm feeling. Three of us who are 50-year-old white
males got fired. Now, they got rid of us because they wanted to cut their salary
costs and cut their future health care and retirement costs. And the fact that we'd
given over 20 years to our company didn't mean anything. There was no
affirmative action reason they got rid of us. But it's eas'y for people like us to
believe that's why it happened."
My fellow Americans, as we consider what we need to do to spread access
to opportunity fairly, we need to also consider the feelings of these men. Their
feelings of fear are real and they're being seized on by people who want to divide
our country.
However rare, reverse discrimination does exist. Our Justice Department is
currently involved in a lawsuit on behalf of a young, white man at Southern Illinois
University who was told he couldn't even apply for a public job because he was
the wrong gender and the wrong race. Now, that's clearly wrong.
Also wrong is allowing programs to outlive their usefulness. For example, I
favor scholarship programs for minorities. They serve to increase diversity at
colleges and universities that are our pools for high-wage workers. And these
scholarships represent just a small portion of all scholarships: Just one percent of
all students receive scholarships given solely on the basis of race. But, when these
8
�scholarship programs have reached their goals, they should be retired. One school
in the South is doing just that with its minority scholarship program. That is what
we should all see as a success for affirmative action.
Let me be clear. I support affirmative action. I have practiced it my entire
1,
career in public service. But to work, affirmative action must beAn entitlement. It
must not be forever. It must be transitional. It must not become the tail that wags
the dog.
You are the guiding force here. You must take the time to talk with your
neighbor, your co-worker and each other. In our national conversation, we need to
shout less and listen more. We should not be afraid to say to one another, "I am
different than you are." And we should not be afraid to say, "I am the same as you
are. And, I want the same things that you want."
Americans all want liberty and freedom; the embrace of family and
community; fairness; and an opportunity to live and work to our best ability and to
prosper.
We need to stop being afraid of each other. We need to regard each other
less with suspicion and more with respect; and to be able to wish another person
9
�well, and mean it. And in the end we all deserve to be judged on the basis of
merit.
America has grown stronger, because guided by moral imperative, our
.relentless pursuit of fairness, and by laws, we have strived to be an increasingly
inclusive society, bringing in everyone and drawing from the strengths of all
groups.
Robert Kennedy said: "The division between black and white is not the
result of a failure of compassion, or of the American sense of justice. It is a failure
of communications and wisdom."
We can allow the debate on affirmative action to rupture us, as it could if
we allow passions and fear to guide us.
Or we can use this debate to explore how we can make America a better
place for all our people. That's the America I grew up in; that's the America our
children deserve to know, too.
Thank you, and God bless America.
10
··-··.···.
--··- ............... .
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Don Baer
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Communications
Don Baer
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1994-1997
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36008" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7431981" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0458-F
Description
An account of the resource
Donald Baer was Assistant to the President and Director of Communications in the White House Communications Office. The records in this collection contain copies of speeches, speech drafts, talking points, letters, notes, memoranda, background material, correspondence, reports, excerpts from manuscripts and books, news articles, presidential schedules, telephone message forms, and telephone call lists.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
537 folders in 34 boxes
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Affirmative Action [2]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Communications
Don Baer
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0458-F
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 11
<a href="http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/2006/2006-0458-F.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7431981" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
1/12/2015
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
42-t-7431981-20060458F-011-002-2014
7431981