Civil Rights:
Mixed Messages from the Bush AdministrationBy John Podesta and Josh Gottheimer
With one hundred days behind him, and his first budget in ink, there's no better time to put President George W. Bush's compassion to the test. And there's no better place to start than a look at his legislative and budgetary commitment to civil rights. As Bush said himself, "Every president, whatever his party, is judged not only by the words he speaks, but more importantly, by the work he leaves behind."
Upon entering office, Bill Clinton inherited a government that had put civil rights on the back burner for twelve years. For far too long, too many Americans of color were being left behind, without the economic and legislative protections they deserved. Between 1980 and 1992, the bottom 60 percent of African Americans and Hispanics saw little, if any, increase in income. Unemployment had reached record highs, and the poverty rate for African Americans remained at or above 30 percent.
When George W. Bush took the oath of office this January, he inherited a White House where civil rights had been a priority for eight years. And the proof is in the pudding. Wages are rising at all income levels. The unemployment rate for African Americans fell from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.6 percent today-and African American homeownership is the highest in history. The drop in unemployment among Hispanics has been just as dramatic-from 11.6 percent in 1992 to 5.7 percent.
But as far as we've come, our country still faces significant civil rights challenges. Our cities are still stratified along racial and economic lines. Many of our inner-city schools, where our minority populations are highest, lack the appropriate funding and staff for an adequate education. HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, and diabetes continue to plague minorities at a disproportionate rate. As we saw recently in Cincinnati, the practices of racial profiling and police brutality continue to treat minorities as second-class citizens. The future of affirmative action is withering on the vine. Finally, when it comes to enforcing many existing statutes, our civil rights laws remain, by and large, unfunded mandates.
The bottom line: We're at a fork in the road. President Bush can either turn back the clock on the progress we've made-or he can stay the course and address the pressing civil rights issues of the day.
So far, the president's record appears to be a mixed one-with commitment to certain areas and abandonment of others. It's worth taking a closer look at the issues.
Economic InvestmentAs we all know, in this country, there is a strong correlation between poverty and race. In recognition of this, economic development in hard-pressed communities was the cornerstone of President Clinton's civil rights policies. Clinton expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit, providing tax cuts to 15 million hard-pressed working families, lifting millions of African Americans out of poverty. He fought for and won a raise in the minimum wage. He increased the low-income housing tax credit by 40 percent, providing new and better housing for low-income renters.
President Clinton also encouraged new public and private sector investments by expanding access to capital, promoting economic development, and encouraging community renewal. His community development financial institutions (CDFI) program supports banks that specialize in lending and investing in underserved communities. Clinton's New Markets Initiative and empowerment zones brought the benefits of the new economy to distressed rural and urban areas. He expanded community technology centers in low-income neighborhoods to help bridge the digital divide. And under Clinton, the Small Business Administration approved more than 31,000 loans to Hispanic and African American entrepreneurs under the 7(a), 504, and microloan programs.
Several aspects of President Bush's budget build on this record. His housing budget includes a 6.8 percent expansion of programs for low-income homeowners and renters, including tax credits to help build 100,000 new homes in low-income areas, and $197 million for more housing vouchers. Bush's budget proposes spending $1 billion in matching grants to lenders who build in distressed areas. Bush has also signaled an interest in expanding renewal community legislation, similar to Clinton's empowerment zones, allowing up to 40 additional zones.
But do these positive proposals outweigh the negative ones? Bush's budget is riddled with deep cuts in programs that help minority and hard-pressed communities. His budget cuts subsidies for SBIC and 7(a) small business loans entirely-relying instead on fees from the recipients to foot the bill. He zeros out the New Market venture capital programs. He slashes by a third a loan program that provides for the smallest of businesses. Notwithstanding a $1.6 trillion tax cut, his budget doesn't expand the Earned Income Tax Credit by one dime. He cuts the Clinton administration's mentoring program entirely. And the president's budget reduces funding to bridge the digital divide by 15 percent. Overall, his budget gouges the Small Business Administration by 40 percent-and it does so largely on the backs of low-income and minority business owners.
EducationWhile public education in hard-pressed communities does not compete with education in the rest of the country, it is minorities that are disproportionately affected by this disparity. For eight years, President Clinton followed a common-sense strategy to give all children a chance to learn: Invest more in our nation's schools and demand more in return. Clinton's accountability initiative provided $134 million to help states and local communities fix failing schools. He passed an initiative to reduce class size in the early grades, helping school districts hire and train 100,000 well-prepared teachers, especially in high-need, high-poverty school districts. Clinton increased funding and grants for Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and for Head Start by 90 percent-building the foundation for the long-term goal of universal pre-school. And he expanded Pell Grants and established the GEAR-UP mentoring program to help low-income middle school children finish school and prepare for college.
At this point, President Bush's rhetoric and his budget make education a priority and appear to address the achievement gap between rich and poor, black and white. As the president said recently, "The dream of equality is empty without excellent schools." Bush's plan centers on high standards and accountability for all schools, especially for those with poor track records. Schools must have clear, measurable goals focused on basic skills and essential knowledge. His budget provides $9.1 billion for Title I programs for disadvantaged children, an increase of more than 5 percent; and it targets those funds to low-income children. His plan more than triples funding for reading programs and includes money for after-school programs. It also provides for a $1 billion increase for Pell Grants and includes $389 million to help states develop and implement annual tests for children in grades three through eight.
While the president's plan takes steps in the right direction, it still leaves too many children behind. The president zeros out a $1.2 billion program to help repair or modernize our nation's crumbling schools. His budget freezes funding for bilingual education programs, despite the growth in the number of students for whom English is a second language. It cuts education technology funding for computers and training by more than $55 million. His Title I budget is a step in the right direction, but it still leaves much room for improvement. Finally, the president points to his budget proposal for high-stakes testing as a panacea for the problems in our nation's schools. While testing can be helpful, it can also have a negative impact on students, especially those of color, when tests are used in determining student promotion and graduation.
Civil Rights EnforcementThe enforcement of civil rights legislation is critical to achieving equality and equal opportunity in jobs, housing, education, and the administration of justice. On the federal level, our nation's civil rights laws and policies are enforced by several agencies; those agencies rely heavily on adequate funding. But civil rights enforcement goes beyond dollars. It's about the commitment of the people selected to enforce civil rights laws, and it's about seeking new ways to pursue equality while at the same time defending existing laws.
Under President Clinton, federal civil rights agencies enjoyed regular increases in their annual budgets, though, in many cases, they were not commensurate with need. For example, by the end of Clinton's term, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's budget was 32 percent higher than it was in 1993-helping to decrease the significant backlog of complaints. Over that same time period, however, in the face of added responsibilities, Clinton barely was able to get Congress to raise the budget for the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services, where policies like Title IX are enforced.
On the legislative front, President Clinton fought vigorously for equal opportunity. He signed the Violence Against Women Act. Until the day he left office, he fought to expand the hate crimes legislation that he had signed into law in 1994. He issued executive orders on nondiscrimination in federal employment and ordered federal law enforcement officers to collect data on racial profiling. Clinton also opened up the first Office of One America to encourage a frank and open national dialogue. And in the face of judicial scrutiny, President Clinton ordered a comprehensive review of the government's affirmative action programs, and concluded that they were still an effective and important tool in expanding education and economic opportunity.
While President Clinton never wavered in his rhetorical defense of affirmative action, his "mend it, don't end it" approach has been criticized for not being aggressive enough. And his policies on racial profiling fell far short of potential, by not taking a firmer stance on the practice. Finally, Clinton has been rightly criticized for his failure to adequately address both sentencing disparities along racial lines and inequality in the administration of the death penalty.
Overall, President Bush's budget for civil rights enforcement is deserving of limited praise. In an important step, he has asked for increases in all of the principle civil rights agencies. Although it's worth noting his request for the EEOC-an independent enforcement-is 4 percent lower than Clinton's was last year.
By all indicators, Bush has shown little interest in protecting other important civil rights priorities. On the campaign trail, Bush came out against meaningful hate crimes legislation. Instead of taking real action on racial profiling, he has simply ordered yet another study of the practice. And reports indicate that he has closed the Office of One America and, in its place, has made promises to establish an inter-office working group.
President Bush has also announced that federal procurement officials would no longer be urged to consider a bidder's record of compliance with civil rights when awarding contracts. Any hopes that, in light of the disputed election, the administration would make voting rights a priority are quickly fading. The study of voting disparities involving race, class, and ethnicity and ways to achieve fair, inclusive, and uniform standards for voting and vote counting are simply not a priority for this administration. Finally, in response to the Supreme Court's decision to revisit Adarand v. Mineta, Attorney General Ashcroft has indicated a willingness to abandon government affirmative action programs. In this case, the Court will consider a constitutional challenge to the Transportation Department's disadvantaged business enterprise program.
Of course, one of the most important tests of the president's commitment to civil rights is the quality and commitment of the people he appoints to carry out the work of building One America. Here, the president's early steps are unsettling. His selection of former Senator John Ashcroft to be attorney general brought back the controversy over Ashcroft's racially tinged campaign to defeat the nomination of the distinguished Missouri Supreme Court Judge Ronnie White to serve on the federal district court. He announced the appointment of Ralph Boyd, Jr., an African American former prosecutor with no civil rights experience. And he tapped Ted Olsen, the lead attorney in Hopwood v. Texas, 518 U.S. 1033 (1996), and a conservative theorist against affirmative action, to be solicitor general. It is too soon to tell whether these individuals will steer a course to the center toward practical, common-sense enforcement of our civil rights laws or veer off on a rightward path, attacking the underpinnings of those laws.
JudgesA president's true legacy on civil rights will ultimately be measured by his appointments to the federal bench. Freedom and justice for all require eternal vigilance. We can't have equal protection in the administration of justice without equal representation on the bench. Eight years after President Clinton pledged to appoint more minorities and women as federal judges, the bench is more diverse than ever before. Clinton appointed a higher percentage of minorities and women than his predecessors and in absolute terms, more women and African Americans than Presidents Carter, Reagan, and Bush combined. His appointees were not only the most diverse, they also received higher overall ratings by the ABA than all his predecessors' nominees. Clinton carried through on his 1993 pledge right up until the end of his presidency. One of Clinton's final acts as president was the recess appointment of Roger Gregory, a distinguished trial lawyer from Richmond, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. That circuit has the largest percentage of African Americans in the nation, but the court has never had a black judge, largely because of the determined efforts of Senator Jesse Helms and a small group of conservative senators to block a string of Clinton nominees to that court.
In contrast, the early signs of the new administration in the judicial selection process are troubling. The practical, centrist approach Clinton took to the appointment of individuals charged with the administration of justice seems to be giving way to the hard-edged ideological approach characterized by the Ed Meese-led process of the Reagan administration. The Bush judicial selection process itself is dominated by a small group of activist conservatives operating behind closed doors. Last month, the Bush Administration turned its back on the traditional role the ABA has played in evaluating judges by informing the ABA that its advice would no longer be given the credence it has enjoyed since 1953. This is a dangerous departure that threatens to put, as the Washington Post wrote, "ideology ahead of quality . . . in judicial selections." President Bush should reconsider this action. Bush has also withdrawn President Clinton's final judicial nominees, jeopardizing the strength of our courts and putting a roadblock in the way of the permanent appointment of Roger Gregory and of further diversifying the courts.
ConclusionIn many ways, when it comes to civil rights, President Bush is off to a moderate start. His budget includes new dollars for civil rights enforcement. He's provided new funding for low-income housing. And his education budget directly addresses the achievement gap that plagues hard-pressed communities. But let's remember, it's not just the amount that matters, it's how the dollars are used. And in the months ahead, when the Republican Congress turns up the heat, will President Bush fight for these budget requests?
President Bush's budget also leaves much to be desired-and it raises many questions. The president has already decimated several important initiatives that expand economic investment in depressed areas. His education proposal relies too heavily on the controversial practice of high-stakes testing while allocating limited funds for school modernization and bilingual education. And where it counts most, Bush's rhetoric and inaction on racial profiling, and affirmative action, his appointments to the Justice Department, and his commitment to diversifying the bench put the future of civil rights enforcement in peril. Of course, there are other important civil rights issues, like crime, healthcare, and environmental justice, but for now one thing is clear: The future of civil rights in America relies on embracing not abandoning the progress of the past. As Martin Luther King, Jr., said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
John Podesta was President Clinton's chief of staff and is a visiting professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center. Josh Gottheimer was special assistant to President Clinton for speech- writing and is currently editing a book on civil rights speeches.
