The Washington Post reports that Condoleezza Rice played a major part in President Bush's recent decision to condemn race-based admissions quotas.

Rice, the first female national security adviser, told Bush that she worked to increase the number of African American faculty members at Stanford but that she was "absolutely opposed to quotas," a senior administration official said. A Stanford official said that under Rice, who served from 1993 to 1999 and was the university's first nonwhite provost, the number of black faculty members increased from 36 to 44.

This is interesting in a number of ways.

First, it involves Rice, whose portfolio is obviously foreign policy, in a domestic policy issue. It's certainly understandable that Bush would seek Rice's counsel; her experience is directly relevant to the issue. But why make her involvement known to the public? Perhaps she is being prepared for a broader role in the administration, such as (dare I hope) Vice President, and thus a leading contender to succeed Bush.

Second, assuming that Rice agreed to let her role be known to the public, it means she is willing to take some heat -- potentially a lot of heat -- of the "race traitor" variety. That shows some real guts. Interesting, too, that she was willing to dare such criticism over a minor matter. (Mind you, the case itself is significant, but the Administration's amicus filing is extremely unlikely to affect the outcome.)

It also shows Rice to be conservative on issues other than foreign policy. (Rumor has it her domestic politics are essentially libertarian, and this is consistent with that. That's probably too good to be true, though.)

Finally, it's a snub to Colin Powell, who is supportive of race-conscious policies. While he may have hoped to be Bush's heir apparent, those hopes now look forlorn. Secretary Powell's career has gone about as far as it is likely to go.

UPDATE (18-Jan-2003): Well, it seems it was too good to be true. The original WaPo article was apparently correct in that Rice was consulted about the decision, but implied incorrectly that Rice agreed with the administration position; according to this follow-up article (by one of the co-authors of the original piece), Rice favors using race as one of several factors in admissions, though she agrees that the U.Mich. standards go too far. She was apparently pretty upset about the story, and the President urged her to state her position publicly.

In the five-sentence statement she issued yesterday, Rice endorsed the thrust of Bush's decision but suggested he had not taken all her advice. ...

It is clear that both agree Michigan's program is flawed, but Rice made a broader statement that there are situations when race-conscious admissions programs might be necessary. Bush has avoided going that far. In remarks on the Michigan case Wednesday, Bush did not directly say whether race could be considered in admissions decisions, although he said schools should seek diversity by looking at "a student's potential and life experiences."

Here is the full text of Dr. Rice's statement:

When the President decided to submit an amicus brief, he asked for my view on how diversity can be best achieved on university campuses. I offered my view, drawing on my experience in academia and as provost of a major university. I agree with the President's position, which emphasizes the need for diversity and recognizes the continued legacy of racial prejudice, and the need to fight it. The President challenged universities to develop ways to diversify their populations fully. I believe that while race neutral means are preferable, it is appropriate to use race as one factor among others in achieving a diverse student body.