In Defense of Bill Lann Lee

Don't let Beltway battles derail assistant attorney general nomination

BY VU-DUC VUONG

In August, President Clinton nominated Bill Lann Lee, an Asian American and current head of the Los Angeles office of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Legal Defense Fund, to be assistant attorney general for civil rights.

At first blush, the president's choice deserves hearty applause for two reasons: Lee is apparently well qualified for the job and his appointment brings an added political and symbolic value in these days of multiculturalism and diverse agendas.

Bill Lann Lee is, first and foremost, an experienced attorney who toils in the field instead of hailing from corporate circles. Too often have we seen presidents, governors, and mayors appoint their cronies and significant contributors to high-level posts and ambassadorships in return for the latter's support during their campaigns. And it is equally common that many of these political appointees fail to live up to the demands of their positions.

Instead of a corporate job with substantial soft-money contributions, or an academic career with a lengthy publishing record, Bill Lee brings to this highest civil-rights position a long record of legal advocacy on behalf of civil-rights causes including school desegregation, affirmative action, and minority voting rights.

If President Clinton is serious about improving race relations in this country, a goal he recently set for himself as the landmark of his presidency, he apparently found an experienced and able advocate for the remainder of his administration.

By the same token, the second reason is even more refreshing and effective. Unlike the civil-rights struggle of a generation ago, today's issues are no longer just black and white, as our society is becoming increasingly pluralistic. Likewise, the so-called "minorities" are neither monolithic nor in the minority.

Women, the largest beneficiary group from the civil-rights reforms, constitutes the majority of our nation; and at the threshold of the 21st century, in California, people with darker skin already make up the numerical majority of this most populous state. At the national level, the National Academy of Sciences estimated just a few weeks ago that the percentage of the white population in this country will decrease from 74 percent in 1995 to 51 percent in 2050, assuming that the current demographic changes continue.

In this quiet but powerful evolution, tensions and occasional flare-ups among the various constituencies are inevitable. Witness the increase in individual hate-based crimes: gay bashing, ethnic bashing, domestic violence, or any number of combinations of conflicts between groups, from Crown Heights to South Central L.A.

It is exquisitely poetic that a son of a Chinese laundry owner, who spends his career as a legal advocate in the nation's oldest, most respected, and African American-based civil-rights organization, should be called upon at this time to also represent the Native Americans, Latinos, the disabled, gays and lesbians, and women of this country.

Inside the Washington Beltway, however, cynicism and settling scores often take precedence over hope and realities. Already the forces opposing affirmative action and the conservative organizations that worked to derail Lani Guinier's nomination to the same post four years ago are clamoring for Lee's rejection. Of particular interest to me among these warning shots are the Washington-based Institute for Justice, which has been at the forefront of the opposition to affirmative action, and the rationale offered by its litigation director when he opposed Bill Lee.

Four years ago, the Institute for Justice highlighted Guinier's theories about minority voting rights and successfully labeled them as controversial. They were thought-provoking, to be sure, but by no means illegal or unfair. And in the realm of academic exploration, Guinier's notions of proportionate representation were as legitimate as any premises advanced before or since. Yet in the early days of the Clinton administration, such distortion was sufficient to derail her confirmation.

But more telling is the institute's current position toward Bill Lee. Essentially, the argument advanced by Clint Bolick, its litigation director, boils down to this: 1) Lee spent his career advocating for school desegregation, affirmative action, and minority voting rights, among other issues; 2) The positions he and the NAACP took are legal and constitutional since the courts have held that affirmative action and busing are constitutional; 3) But these views are far from the "current consensus of civil rights" and people like Bolick are concerned that if the Supreme Court reversed itself, they are not sure that Lee would be able to abide by those decisions; 4) Therefore, he must be disqualified.

It reminds me of an adage in the legal profession to the effect that when one side has the law, it argues the law; if it doesn't, argue the facts; and when it has neither law nor fact, improvise. People who oppose Bill Lee cannot make the case that he is not qualified for the job; hence they create a straw issue of "if the Supreme Court reverses itself ..." and throw in the "current consensus on civil rights" for good measure. If we ever had a consensus in this country about civil rights--be it in the past, present, or foreseeable future--we would not need the position of assistant attorney general for civil rights in the first place.

Joining this cabal are California's home-grown foe of affirmative action, Ward Connerly, along with Ed Meese, attorney general under Reagan, and Linda Chavez from the same administration. They question Mr. Lee's "objectivity" because the NAACP Legal Defense Fund had joined other civil-rights groups in opposing Proposition 209.

At this stage of the game, Lee deserves at least two considerations: a full and fair hearing on his ability to serve the country as assistant attorney general for civil rights; and the full and vigorous backing of the president who selected and nominated him.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee and who has not yet taken a position on the nomination, guarantees a "thorough, fair, and vigorous hearing." Given the importance of race relations in our society, he should schedule the hearing before the Senate recess.

As for President Clinton, who had been less than fully reliable in some of his earlier nominations, including that of Guinier to the same post, he should take this opportunity both to advance his civil-rights agenda and to instill confidence in the people he selects for his team. May the strength of conviction and his moral fortitude prevail.

Vu-Duc Vuong, MSW-JD, is the former executive director of the Southeast Asian Community Center in the Bay Area and now teaches social work at San Francisco State University.

©1998 AsianWeek. The information you receive on-line from AsianWeek is protected by the copyright laws of the United States. The copyright laws prohibit any copying, redistributing, retransmitting, or repurposing of any copyright protected material.