As far as disagreements between presidential candidates go, students feel the discussion about affirmative action during Tuesday night’s presidential debate could have been louder and longer.
Instead, it showed a difference in the candidates’ views without answering many questions.
Republican Texas Gov. George W. Bush favors “affirmative access,” policies that would increase diversity to “give people a helping hand to help themselves.” Democratic Vice President Al Gore believes in affirmative action, a system of acknowledging past discrimination to “bring all people into the American dream.”
However, neither candidate believes in a quota system for schools and businesses.
Paulette Granberry Russell, director of affirmative action and monitoring at MSU, said affirmative action typically refers to a tool to help increase opportunities, but the candidates’ discussion about affirmative action was too brief to show much support or opposition.
“(A debate) is not the best place to discuss affirmative action because all you get is a very short response,” Granberry Russell said.
“It takes more than one or two minutes to understand (affirmative action).”
An example of “affirmative access,” Bush said, is the 1997 Texas law requiring every public university to accept the top 10 percent of graduates from every public high school. He said the law has created more diversity in Texas universities.
David Rohde, a professor of political science, said the candidates’ statements will help them to gain votes, but cost them votes as well. Their responses were meant to cater to specific groups of undecided voters.
“I think Bush is trying to appear more (appealing) to minorities,” Rohde said, “I think (Gore) is trying to make people feel strongly about an issue to make them turn out and vote.”
Maximillian Monroy-Miller, a minority aide with the Office of Minority Student Affairs and a social relations senior, said neither candidate expressed a good solution or idea for increasing diversity in schools and businesses.
“(Bush’s idea) directly ignores the core of the problem, the core being the inability to create level playing grounds for everyone,” Monroy-Miller said. “Affirmative action is a step in the right direction in terms of exposing the reasons and necessity for diversity, but it doesn’t solve the problem.
“I could walk campus all day saying, ‘Here’s the problem, here’s the problem,’ but unless I’m willing to solve it, I haven’t done anything.”
He also said the candidates’ ideas were too similar to revolutionize diversity in education and in the workplace. He said other presidential candidates, such as Green Party candidate Ralph Nader, were doing a much better job of working with people who care about issues like affirmative action.
“It’s like both major parties have merged,” he said. “They’re talking about the same issue with a different lemon twist.
“They’re like a joint organization with two slightly different agendas.”
