From Redefining Rights in America

Chapter 6: The Bush Record Reviewed

This report documents that civil rights problems are entrenched in American society, the result of unequal treatment over the course of history. Furthermore, new means of prejudice and discrimination have become manifest, for example, unequal treatment in a post-terrorism era.

Past Presidents have tried to resolve civil rights problems with varying levels of vigor and success. Only robust enforcement and vigorous commitment on the part of the country’s leaders will fulfill the promise of civil rights laws and ensure the survival of equality and freedom from oppression.

In the Commission’s last presidential evaluation, it offered six indicators of effective presidential civil rights leadership. It said that the President should:

(1) Clarify and articulate a commitment to civil rights and equal opportunity. (2) Aggressively secure resources for civil rights promotion and enforcement. (3) Demonstrate beliefs and intent through actions and perseverance. (4) Develop a strategy and implementation plan in coordination with other branches of government and civil rights groups. (5) Develop and implement success measures for civil rights goals. (6) Find and build upon common ground, even on controversial civil rights problems.

Have George W. Bush and his administration advanced civil rights as tested against the six indicators?

(1) Clarify and Articulate a Commitment to Civil Rights

President Bush has not been clear in his commitment to civil rights. Overall, he has made relatively few public statements about related matters, and when he has done so, overwhelmingly it has been to carry out official duties, for example to declare annual heritage celebrations or to note significant historical dates. He also substitutes the term 'diversity' for civil rights. Although a worthy concept which includes ethnicity, background, and race, diversity does not represent all that civil rights embody or guarantee that protections will be upheld.

President Bush also characterizes problems that are fundamentally civil rights in nature as ones that are general, with no such focus. For example, hate-motivated violence has heretofore been understood as attacks that denigrate a class of people for their beliefs or immutable characteristics. President Bush has said that all violent crime constitutes hate crime. That belief ignores the common feature of bias-motivated lynchings, draggings, beatings, and firebombings: that they are committed upon people because of characteristics such as race, color, creed, ethnicity, national origin, or sexual orientation.

The reverse is also true; that is, President Bush refers to programs that have little or no civil rights relevance as ones that promote equality and justice. For example, the program that he most frequently promotes as a civil rights measure, the faith-based initiative, has nothing to do with civil rights, except that it allows employment discrimination prohibited under Title VII. He equates the lack of support for churches with prejudice and bigotry, making a case for his initiative that the public feels compelled to support. He speaks about the faith-based initiative in civil rights terms more than any legitimate civil rights proposal. Characterizing unrelated programs as ones that end prejudice and bigotry not only confuses the public, but also directs resources and attention from relevant initiatives, and as such is detrimental.

The President’s appointments say much about his commitment. A number of his key appointments are admirably diverse by race, ethnicity, and gender. However, his statements reveal that he equates color with civil rights expertise. In significant instance, irrespective of their race, ethnicity, or other characteristics, his appointees do not favor, and some are on record as opposing, prevailing civil rights law. While President Bush did not dismantle some of the previous administration’s programs, he also did not develop a strategy to strengthen or advance them, nor demand accountability from those charged with responsibility to carry them out. The administration reauthorized numerous study efforts and advisory committees, but few have produced noteworthy results. Furthermore, some have been relegated to administrative channels for implementation without perceptible support from the administration, and as such, seem without true purpose. For example, President Bush renewed the President’s Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders; however, the office has not moved forward any specific plans or established tangible goals.

(6) Build Upon Common Ground, Even on Controversial Civil Rights Problems

When the President has sought input from affected populations, such as the New Freedom Initiative and the President’s Commission on Special Education, he has found cooperation and success. However, he has not made effective use of this tool in other endeavors. For example, he consistently consults a narrow base for advice and support, particularly with regard to controversial civil rights issues. He has declined opportunities to seek dialogue and counsel from established civil rights leadership, including the Congressional Black Caucus. Not only has he not invited them to the White House, even to discuss matters on which they have invaluable expertise, he also has declined invitations to speak at some of their main conventions, such as National Council of La Raza and the NAACP. Doing so would represent respect and cooperation, and also demonstrate an openness to diverse viewpoints in the policy process.

After the September 11 attacks, some praised the administration’s initial response against backlash directed toward Arab Americans, Muslims, people of Middle Eastern descent, and those perceived to be so. The administration asked Americans not to blame and suspect all Arab Americans, and vowed to punish perpetrators. That response was eventually overshadowed by policies that now allow law enforcers and government agents to target individuals and groups for surveillance, detention, arrest, and other actions, without rights to counsel and representation.

Policies allow such behavior so long as the enforcers assert they are acting to avert terrorism. The administration’s own policies soon fomented a backlash against certain groups. Failing to build on common ground, the Bush administration missed opportunities to build consensus on key civil rights issues and has instead adopted policies that divide Americans. President Bush could have, early on, called on public officials to unify and show America and the world that, together, the nation could improve its voting systems. Likewise, he could have exerted leadership on affirmative action by soliciting diverse viewpoints and promoting policies that achieve diversity. Future presidential administrations, in fulfilling their duty to advance civil rights, should inspire Americans to unity, not divisiveness.



» Find more of the online edition.