The three Republican gubernatorial candidates had very different answers the issue of affirmative action in higher education.
The question came from a student at High Point University, which hosted the debate today.
Former Supreme Court Justice Bob Orr said he opposes making admissions decisions based on who students are, but he included "legacy students" whose parents have made donations.
"I think it's fundamentally wrong to say that you get in because you fit a special category," he said.
State Sen. Fred Smith said that government's role is to "create a level playing field," but not to make admissions decisions based on race or other characteristics.
"It is my opinion that affirmative action no longer has any place in American society," he said.
Salisbury attorney Bill Graham said affirmative action can help minority students get a boost to "go through the door of opportunity."
"If we're going to compete against China and India and the rest of the world, all hands have to be on deck," he said.
Comments
Affirmative action confusing to Mr. Graham?
October 21, 2007 - 3:46pm — calI watched the debate this morning and read some of the articles in Sunday's papers. Mr. Graham's position on affirmative action was confusing. As I understand it, Bill Graham wants "all hands on the table" and would support forms of affirmative action to do that. However, he also would stop subsidizing foreign students who come to North Carolina for masters and doctorate programs. Those foreign students are obviously qualified and certainly have things to bring to the table, but apparently Mr. Graham doesn't want them there. It looks like he only supports admissions assistance if a student's parents will give him their vote and that doesn't seem fair.
Re: Affirmative action at the GOP debate
October 21, 2007 - 9:03am — kimkimActually, none of the three are pure true conservatives. I'm trying to think of the last conservative to win the Governor's office in the last 100 years and the answer is - there isn't one. Neither Martin nor Holshouser were true conservatives - Martin was probably 70% conservative and Holshouser was around 60%. It is just the way this state is on the state government level. Do I wish for Jesse Helms - of course.
My pecking order so far is:
1)Graham - because he can win, represents the future and has the funds to compete
1A)Orr - because he has won before, has a solid stance regarding business incentives but he does not have the money
3)Smith - it will be difficult for him to win no matter how much money he has due to his overall record. I will give Smith credit in that he works REALLY hard. Will it be enough to win a primary - I don't know. At some point his history will catch up to him.
Nothing personal towards any of the three regarding my order but it is strictly my opinion of the political reality. As a note, all three of them are better than the alternative and are nice guys.
One note of clarification Paladin - before people associate Graham with Edwards they need to look at how Smith is closer to Edwards.
Fred and John Edwards have a lot in common. They are both personal injury lawyers, they both missed a LOT of Senate votes, and they both have been Democrats for most of their lives.
Re: Affirmative action at the GOP debate
October 20, 2007 - 10:44pm — paladinBill Graham is not a true conservative Republican like Orr or Smith, who both oppose "affirmative action" (i.e. racial quotas). I used to think Graham only looked like Johnny Edwards, with his metrosexual slickness and perfectly coiffed hair. Now Graham is sounding like Edwards. Don't get me wrong, I'll support him over the Democrat for Governor if Graham wins the GOP primary, but he's my 3rd choice of three.