society in which racial and gender differences are rendered
irrelevant. I happen to believe that an important and significant
(though by no means adequate) first step in that direction is
putting the federal government out of the business of treating
its citizens differently based on these irrelevant characteristics.

But rather than facilitate a responsible public debate on
the issue, the president and too many other supporters of
preferential treatment seek to silence their opponents. The
president, for example, repeatedly chides "those who use this
[issue] as a political strategy to divide us," presumably reflecting
his belief that to discuss issues of race is necessarily to use them
for crass or cynical motives. This tactic is highly insulting; it
implies that opposition to racial preferences is driven by base
and even racist motives. As an opponent of such policies, I take
offense at that insinuation -- and I expect that the many mil-
lions of Americans of all races and of both sexes who also
oppose them are likewise offended.

But efforts to avoid or forestall a public debate on the
topic of preferential treatment can only fail. When the Ameri-
can people feel strongly about an issue, their elected represen-
tatives eventually pay attention. And that is especially so when
public sentiment is driven by principles as profound and funda-
mental as the meaning of American equality. That is precisely
what is driving the debate over preferential treatment; it is,
therefore, a debate we must have, and it is a debate we will
have. Let us all join that debate in a constructive, respectful,
and principled manner.

-285-