Education: Who’s in Charge Here? : Confused and confusing signals from Bush

The self-declared “Education President” has a big problem in his Department of Education. It now has no one to lead it; worse, it is unclear where the Administration wants its education secretary to lead it. The departure of Lauro Cavazos and an oddly timed announcement about restrictions on minority college scholarships raise deeply disturbing questions.

First, Secretary Cavazos left his post after two years. Was he fired because he was considered too tepid a leader during a time when education became a hot national political issue? Or did he quit because he was tired of getting mocked for merely reflecting the tepid and ill-defined marching orders of the President? Some suggested that Cavazos, the first Latino Cabinet member, may have had another reason for leaving: He was upset with a tone coming from the White House, one increasingly hostile to affirmative action.

In a decision that surprised and dismayed educators across the nation, the Department of Education announced that colleges that receive federal funds cannot offer scholarships designated for minority students solely on the basis of race or ethnicity unless there is evidence of past discrimination. The decision was sparked by a move by Fiesta Bowl officials, who, in reaction to the rejection of a Martin Luther King Jr. holiday in Arizona, offered $100,000 in minority scholarships. The Department of Education’s assistant secretary of civil rights, Michael L. Williams--who as a student at USC fought to increase the number of minority students--told bowl officials that their offer could violate civil rights law. He based his decision in part on a 1989 Supreme Court ruling that struck down the setting aside of a percentage of municipal contracts for minorities.

Williams, who said he had not cleared his advice with the White House, nevertheless held a press conference to repeat his legal opinion. He gave short shrift to the alarm the policy caused in the higher education community and seemed unaware of the implications. Here are a few:

First, the department’s handling of the announcement encouraged the erroneous notion--an irresponsible one in racially charged times--that all minority students receive scholarship money solely for their race or ethnicity. In fact, proof of financial need is foremost in most grant and scholarship formulas.

Second, the department left doubts about private foundations that do target scholarship money--for example, for blacks in mathematics, for Asians in journalism, for Latinos in engineering, for women in music. Such private funds often are administered by colleges and universities that also receive federal funds. Universities also have this arrangement with endowments set up to benefit specific religious and white ethnic groups, such as Jews and Armenians. Does the Administration really want to make all this illegal? If so, how could that further the Administration’s stated goal of a better educated America?

Enough questions. The Education President owes the nation some clear and unequivocal answers.