Bill Clinton: “Well, first, the status is ongoing. I'll talk a little about where we are now, but I want to emphasize that the review…”

“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 with, 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 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--there 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-sixties, 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, first of all, how do these programs work, and do they have a positive effect? Okay, that's the first question. 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 wage earners 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 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 at each level in the promotional pool, there is a mix of people that reflect the 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 this point in the 2 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 de- pressed 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 from 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 another, because our economy will grow quicker, it'll 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. Tell me your name and where you're from. Preparation for Political Career”