There’s been a lot of outrage lately over the fact that Larry Lawrence bought a burial spot at hallowed Arlington National Cemetery with ten million dollars worth of donations to the Democratic Party.
To be really correct, we would have to say that Mr. Lawrence first purchased the ambassadorship to Switzerland with his donations. The ambassadorship then allowed him, technically, to qualify to lie among true war heroes at the nation’s most revered burial spot.
But today’s Outrage is not about Mr. Lawrence. After all, buying political favors and positions is a time-honored Washington tradition. Long before Kennedy family patriarch Joseph Kennedy purchased the ambassadorship to Great Britain, politicians had been buying and selling such positions.
Both Democratic and Republican presidents sell ambassadorships, or reward them as political favors to out-of-work political cronies. Ambassadorships are excellent political plums. They offer the chance to live abroad at government expense while occupying a position of great prestige and a high social profile. Plus, there’s no real work to be done. John Kenneth Galbraith said that he could finish all his daily work as ambassador to France in less than an hour. Actually, in this age of instant communications, ambassadorships are really almost a complete sinecure.
Here at the DO we’re always on the lookout for innovation. Selling ambassadorships, access to the president — all of these are old hat. We have to admit that we were fascinated by the Lawrence case because we’ve never known politicians to profit by selling favors that only take affect once the buyer is dead. But Bill Clinton is a cunning man, and we’re not surprised that his administration has profited by this innovation.
Today’s Outrage truly breaks new ground in the purchase and sale of American politics and public policy. Previous cases, including Gravegate, work as follows: party A gives money, political backing or other favor to party in power (Party B). The latter than gives Party A an ambassadorship, government contract, Lincoln bedroom sleepover, ride on Air Force One, or whatever Party A has on its Christmas List.
Today’s outrageous innovation works as follows. Party A is able to maintain its desired policy, not by buying off the decision-maker (the usual tactic) but by enriching the sworn enemy.
Here is a brief recap of the case. In 1980, the Piscataway Public Schools of New Jersey hired (on the same day) Sharon Taxman, who is white, and Debra Williams, who is black, to teach business law at the high school level.
On May 22, 1989, the school board decided to eliminate one of the positions. Deciding that the two teachers are equally qualified the board fired the white teacher in order to increase “diversity.” (Ms. Taxman had three years teaching experience but no graduate degree. Ms. Williams had a graduate degree but less than one year’s teaching experience.)
In June 1989, the white teacher, Ms. Waxman, began the long journey through the legal system. After being processed through the usual intermediate steps the case is scheduled to be heard before the Supreme Court on January 14, 1998.
Recently those who favor affirmative action began to panic. The rulings of the high court aren’t looking good for their side. So, concerned that the court will decide against them and set a fatal precedent for affirmative action, Ms. Williams’ legal allies take the unprecedented step of buying off the opposition to prevent an unfavorable precedent being set.
It’s certainly not unusual for a defendant in a civil case to reach a settlement to prevent a possibly bigger award by a judge or jury. But two things make this case unusual. First of all, fear of a large monetary loss was not the motivating factor. Secondly, the party actually paying most of the settlement is not one of the parties being sued.
The settlement with Ms. Taxman calls for a payment of $433,500. But the settlement is not being paid for by the defendants. The Black Leadership Forum is donating 70% of the cost of settling the case. With the payment of the money, Ms. Taxman will drop the case, the Supreme Court will not issue a ruling, and affirmative action will not face a possibly critical blow.
Clint Bolick of the libertarian Institute for Justice says, “This settlement demonstrates the panic within the civil rights movement. This could have been a knock-out blow for racial preferences.”
The black teacher who did NOT lose her job, and who did NOT have to pay any money towards the settlement or legal fees, was very upset by the whole matter. “You don’t get nothing [sic] in this world for having an advanced degree. You don’t get nothing but a slap in the face.” We’re just hoping that Ms. Williams’ advanced degree was not in English.
If we are supposed to be a fair and equal country, then why is affirmative action allowed? Why should a person be accepted to a school when the deciding factor is the color of their skin, not how well they have done or what they have done for their community.
Time: 2/12/98 (23:15:48)
Time: 12/3/97 (20:56:57)
Time: 12/3/97 (20:51:19)
Time: 11/28/97 (11:38:37)
Time: 11/27/97 (8:16:19)
Time: 11/24/97 (17:38:33)
Time: 11/24/97 (14:49:47)
Time: 11/24/97 (13:57:0)
Time: 11/24/97 (13:44:54)
Time: 11/24/97 (12:24:37)
Time: 11/24/97 (12:17:14)
Time: 11/24/97 (10:41:36)
Time: 11/24/97 (2:18:53)
Time: 11/24/97 (0:12:45)
Time: 11/23/97 (22:11:55)
It’s hard and sad for me to believe that blacks are still mad about the “oppression” they went through 400 years ago…they have nothing to complain they weren’t enslaved, and if they hadn’t been then they would have never made it to america, therefore never having all the opportunities they have today!