Brazile…will not let the "white boys" win. And that’s not a description of "gender or race, it’s an attitude. A white-boy attitude is `I must exclude, denigrate and leave behind,’ " Brazile says. "They don’t see or think about it. It’s a culture." It is the sense of utter entitlement. And that she will not have. That is how Washington Post reporter Robin Givhan quoted Donna Brazile, Al Gore’s campaign manager, deep in a glowing Nov. 16 profile. Imagine the same statement–but with "white boys" changed to "black girls"–being made by George W. Bush’s campaign manager. It would have touched off a national sensation. Legions of Democrats would have demanded–and promptly received–apologies, but these would not have stilled the clamor. The campaign manager would have been banished from public life, perhaps forever. And Bush’s candidacy would have been severely damaged, with dozens of follow-up stories probing every corner of the Bush camp for other signs of infection by racism. So how did Donna Brazile’s little slur play? Well, the authors of two letters to the editor of The Post found it offensive. So did The New Republic, in a brief item (republished in The Washington Times): "Since when, we wonder, is the phrase `white-boy attitude’ not about gender or race?" So did The Providence Journal-Bulletin. And that’s about it: As of Dec. 1, I can find no other mention, in any publication, of Brazile’s comment. One reason for this, of course, is that "white boys" and other slurs directed at white males are habitually shrugged off, based on a double standard that is understandable in light of our history of racial oppression, but far too forgiving if we want a future of racial tolerance. This same double standard also helps explain why there is so little criticism of the many far more inflammatory comments made by leading liberal Democrats.

Champions of racially preferential affirmative action in university admissions have swung from denying (unconvincingly) that double standards exist to asserting (more plausibly) that colorblind admissions would produce dramatic and destructive drops in the numbers of black and Hispanic students at top campuses. The specter of such de facto resegregation of the most elite institutions has led many people (including me) who dislike or even detest racial preferences to shrink from calling for their abolition. But maybe it’s possible to dispense with the poison of racial preference, and expand opportunities for disadvantaged students of all races, without sacrificing diversity. That’s the promise of an intriguing plan unveiled by Florida Gov. Jeb Bush on Nov. 9. His "One Florida" initiative would abolish racial preferences in admissions but at the same time, the Governor predicts, increase black and Hispanic admissions to the 10 state university campuses. Bush would seek to do this by guaranteeing admission to the top 20 percent of students graduating from each Florida high school, provided that they have completed the required courses. The high schools would include the mostly black and Hispanic schools that rank lowest in the state in average SAT scores and other measures of academic skills. The state would also continue to give special consideration on an individualized, race-neutral basis to applicants who have shown promise in overcoming adversity. Bush’s "Talented 20" plan appears inspired, in part, by efforts in Texas and California to maintain diversity after racial preferences were abolished by court order (in Texas) and by ballot initiative (in California). A 1997 Texas law requires the flagship campus at the University of Texas to admit the top 10 percent of each high school class. Like the Texas and California efforts, the Florida initiative would reward the hard work of the best students of all races at even the weakest schools.

The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel." –Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 74 The fundamental problem with President Clinton’s use of his clemency power has been obscured by the uproar over his decision to free 11 Puerto Rican nationalists who were once involved in crimes related to a campaign of terrorist bombings. The problem is not that Clinton has been too generous in showing mercy. It is that (putting aside the Puerto Rican nationalists) he has been too stingy–stingier than any other President in the past century, perhaps in history. Clinton has done nothing for the legions of nonviolent federal prisoners who are serving long sentences, who pose no threat to society, and who have sought clemency by the hundreds, if not thousands. Many seem far more deserving of mercy than the Puerto Rican nationalists. While the Puerto Ricans certainly had long prison terms, they were deemed dangerous by the FBI, and they never expressed the kind of remorse that is usually considered a prerequisite for clemency. Before releasing the 11 in September, Clinton had awarded early release to a grand total of three federal prisoners. He had also pardoned 108 federal convicts who had finished serving their time. This total of 111 clemency grants (before the Puerto Rican nationalists)–out of 3,229 requests–amounted to a ratio of 1-to-29, or 3.4 percent. That’s the lowest percentage granted by any President since the government started keeping clemency statistics in 1900. This track record lends force to the charges that Clinton’s sudden sympathy for the Puerto Rican nationalists was spurred by intense lobbying by Hispanic officials and activists, more than by considerations of justice, mercy, or the national good.