The White House can breathe easier now that the Republican Party's top gun, after the president, is no longer the man who exposed the party's segregationist underbelly.

After weeks of turmoil and apologies, Sen. Trent Lott on Friday gave up his claim to become Senate Majority Leader.

Now Republicans and the Senate can start the new term in January with a leader who'll at least talk the talk of diversity, regardless of whether the party actually walks that walk.

Many of us will be watching.

Just because you push out someone for not bridling his tongue doesn't mean you disavow what he says or stands for.

That proof is still in the pudding. Let's start here:

A `compelling interest'

The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing two cases involving affirmative action in the University of Michigan schools. Three white students allege they were denied admission while minority students with lower test scores were admitted.

You can guess where I stand on this.

I am a minority who probably gained access to college and, indirectly, to a professional career because of affirmative action.

To be sure, my high school grades were good enough, and my college entrance exam scores were as high as many of my white peers.

But I hold no illusions. The college recruiters who eagerly passed me applications and encouraged me to apply were doing the job they had set out to do - find qualified minorities and help boost the college's race numbers.

Without affirmative action, I doubt I would have been on their radar screens. Neither would numerous other deserving kids - including white kids - who don't have National Merit Scholar test scores or families dangling generous endowments.

Race helped get my foot in the registrar's door, but grades, hard work and extra activities helped me succeed.

Without affirmative action, my alma mater, Northwestern University, would have remained nearly lily white. Its students would have encountered very few people of color or other languages or cultures. And I would have stayed limited by race and background.

Now the Supreme Court is hearing a case that questions whether society has a "compelling interest" in diversity on college campuses and if that justifies considering race in admissions.

Accident vs intent

President Bush is said to be weighing whether the White House should interject with a friend of the court brief opposing affirmative action.

The Republic Party is on record as wanting him to. Some of his own advisers had helped put down the University of Texas' affirmative action practices when the president was governor of that state.

A year later, from 1996 to 1997, the number of blacks at UT Law School dropped from 65 to 11. Only four were among the 400 first-year students. Latino enrollment also fell by half.

Mr. Lott's sin was saying at Sen. Strom Thurmond's birthday party that our nation would have been better off with Mr. Thurmond as president. Mr. Thurmond unsuccessfully ran for president in 1948 as a segregationist.

Mr. Lott has apologized repeatedly for his remark, saying he was misunderstood. He hadn't meant to wax nostalgic for old Jim Crow. He even claims to embrace affirmative action.

Just in time for arch-conservatives to seek his ouster as the next Senate leader. President Bush also publicly chastised him.

Now, having just put out Mr. Lott's segregationist fire, how can Mr. Bush light another one by fighting affirmative action? He'd be supporting, ultimately, the resegregation of college campuses.

E-mail damos@enquirer.com or phone 768-8395