Welcome to our Michigan brethren from Californians. After the anti-affirmative action measure passes you can expect (a) precipitous declines in the numbers of non-Asian minorities at your flagship campus, (b) attempts by the college administration to come up with clever formulas to promote minority admissions while purporting to stay within the law, and © everyone being frustrated. If we assume that most people are against racial preferences while at the same time in favor of making sure that our public universities fairly represent a cross-section of all the people in our states, then here’s a suggestion.Limit admissions to public universities to graduates from public schools and guarantee every public high school in the state a certain percentage of spots in the freshman classes. If that’s too big a pill to swallow, give enormous preferences in admissions to public school graduates. In addition to having the advantage of likely insuring a larger matriculating minority class, such a formula might actually encourage public colleges to get off their ivory wailing walls and do something about the sorry state of our public K-12 system. Parents who have privatized their children’s education and those who plan to do so would have an incentive for either returning or staying put.

Patrick Mattimore, Skirting Affirmative Action, at 1:04 pm EST on November 3, 2005

Michigan returns to racism and race-baiting

It is only a short time from now when Jim Crow Laws will once more reign in Michigan. It must be remembered that it was “pure democracy” (white votes) that permitted lynching of black folk, and “pure democracy” that permits racial profiling, redlining, and more.

Arthur Ide, PhD, at 4:42 pm EST on November 3, 2005

Equal rights — not preferences

The civil rights movement aimed at ending lyncing and discrimination. It sought to provide equal rights and equal opportunity to all. This is why “Equal Opportunity” is a phrase on many commissions created in the early 1960s. But by the late 60s, many rejected Dr. King and the civil rights movement, equal rights and opportunities. The nationalists had expelled whites from SNCC and CORE, and the extremists then demanded an end to equal rights and preferences, quotas, goals and timetables, and later “diversity.” There were all code words for the elite to discriminate against poor and middle class whites, often to grant privileges to well-off minorities and women. Steve Farron’s new book, The Affirmative Action Hoax, goas into detail, One can hope the people of Michigan ban discrimination by ending affirmativea ction; and that the universities will be prevented from reinstituting such discrimination as they often have in California. We should end Orwellian notions that all are equal but some more equal than others, and treat all equally.Hugh Murray

Hugh Murray, Independent Scholar, at 4:35 am EST on November 4, 2005

AA: The Best Answer

Those of you who would argue the initiative as a principle of democracy presuppose that all are TREATED equally within the current socio-political context. Decades of research about class, social mobility, pay inequity, and economic stratification reveal what true patriots have known for years: this is a republic not a democracy. With neo-liberal economic forces driving higher education toward industry goals, the already wide gap will grow cavernous. Mind you, it’s not only the bleeding -heart liberals that shall perish, but democracy, and any hope of TRUE democracy shall right along with it. O’Connor in her opinion for the court on Grutter v. Bollinger cited the need for diversity, not only for education but for the workforce. The short-sightedness of capitalist policymakers will lead to the inevitable decline in strength of the US labor market.

It’s only a matter of time. I don’t know that Affirmative Action is the answer, but until we evolve (socially, politically, economically), it’s the best answer for future prosperity.

LJ Agans, PhD candidate, Higher Education, at 4:35 am EST on November 8, 2005

Mitigating factions

I would offer that within a US context, drawing from historical documents, equality is a requisite within a just and democratic society. The two are not synonymous, but they are indeed correlational.

Affirmative action, as a counter-hegemonic discourse does make some uncomfortable. The opposition to affirmative action is an argument for competition (as Madison stated: factions shall mitigate factions). However, given the structures in place for homosocial replication, cultural capital and the lack of its transmission reinforces the security of the hegemon. By stating that an initiative is fair because it is democratically voted on is a simple and blind argument which fails to take into account hundreds of years of history and socio-political constructs that must bear scrutiny and critical response.

LJ Agans, M.S. Poli Sci, College of Education Scholar, at 6:21 pm EST on November 8, 2005

Response to Larry

I would like to know from what study did Larry get his information that the only people who are hurt by affirmative action are white kids who drank to much in high school. There are several studies that have been published that show that many of the individuals who were given preferences based on affirmative action were also damaged by this system. Usually because they were poorly academically prepared to take advantage of this preference in a highly competitive academic envirinment.

Mark, at 3:32 pm EST on November 10, 2005

What about Asian-Americans?

How do you justify penalizing Asian-Americans for not being an “underrepresented” minority? I immigrated from Asia in late teens, experienced a great deal of economic hardship, and yes, had a good dose of overt and covert racism from both whites AND blacks. Along the way, I could not help noticing that the “underrepresented” minorities, who often come from far more privileged backgrounds, enjoy tremendous advantages when it comes to admissions to colleges, graduate schools, and fellowships. A friend of mine, who is half-American Indian but looks totally white, always makes a point of classifying himself as an underrepresented minority, and comes out a winner each time he sends in an application for one of these things. Is that fair? I think not.

John, Research Fellow, at 12:15 pm EST on November 14, 2005

Why Affirmative Action Is Not the Solution

I do not believe that the history of slavery, however unfortunate, can justify affirmative action, since this amounts to violating individuals’ rights in the present day America to symbolically compensate for the crimes committed against a group generations ago. A minor point is that while the slave traders and slave owners were overwhelmingly white, the bulk of the slaves were captured and sold by other Africans. Just as American Indian tribes gladly fought on the side of whites against other tribes, contributing to the ultimate demise of the entire race, it was the warring African tribes that attacked and pillaged each other’s villages and sold whoever they didn’t kill as slaves. A second point that may be worth pondering is whether the African-Americans of today would really be better off if the enslavement of their ancestors had never occurred. Some may in fact say they would take Nigeria or Cameroon or the like over the U.S.A. any day, but I kind of suspect that most appreciate the higher standards of living in the United States.

On the other hand, I am not so naive to think that all is well in the U.S. and everybody is treated more or less equally today. I would say most Americans reject racism and do not consider themselves racist, but there are plenty of bigots out there. As I said in my earlier entry, I’m well-acquainted with this. In my personal experience, black racism can range anywhere from school kids and street hoodlums who taunt you and make ching-chong noises as you pass by (and sometimes physically threaten) to salespeople and store clerks who treat you differently from other customers to racist cops. White racism can also include these types of blatant verbal and physical harassment but often manifests in more subtle biases and prejudices that are less obvious. For example, a landlord who insists that an apartment is not available when his wife said it was only hours ago; a boss who always writes that you are “quiet” when you speak just as much as anyone else, and will never consider you when it comes the time for promotion. I would say the white racism is more malignant and consequential than black racism. This is not because blacks are less racist; if there were more blacks in positions of power, my guess is that they would be just as racist towards Asians, if not more. But the bottom line is that at present it is so easy for whites to exclude minorities from power without raising any suspicion.

I believe strong measures are needed to combat racism in America and ensure equal opportunity for all. I have no expertise in government policy whatsoever but I think this would include increasing the power of watchdog organizations such as the Equal Housing Commission and creating new ones if needed, etc., ensuring that employee grievance protocols are in place at every workplace large and small, making it easier to bring charges, and so on. I’m sure there are other good ideas. I don’t think affirmative action has a place in the workplace, since it is intrinsically unjust and quite frankly, racist in itself. Affirmative action in schools is even more absurd. If there is one place in society that comes closest to embracing the ideals of meritocracy, it is the schools. If you didn’t do well on that physics test, it’s either because you didn’t study or because you are not too good at it. Very simple. It’s not because your physics teacher is racially biased or because the burden of the crimes committed against your ancestors somehow interfered with your performance. Ironically, although schools are the place where affirmative action is the LEAST necessary, in my opinion, it is where it’s the MOST visibly enforced. I feel that race-based affirmative action in schools should be abolished completely. At the same time, because it is undeniable that students from poor families simply do not have the same opportunities, it is only fair to recognize the extra efforts they had to put in as a positive quality in admissions decisions. They don’t have the same computers or books, don’t have money to go to fancy summer schools or take up violin, have to help out parents at the store instead of doing homework, and are not brought up in a household where sophisticated vocabulary is used. This is NOT simply compensating for the fact that they are poor, but rather recognizing that overcoming social and economical barriers is an accomplishment no less than, say, learning to play field hockey well.

In summary, I reject race-based affirmative action, particularly in school admissions, but believe that socioeconomic class should be a consideration. To combat racial biases and preferences in the workplace and the society at large, we need to strengthen and enforce the existing anti-discrimination measures and come up with creative ways to increase minority participation in power.

John, research fellow, at 2:05 pm EST on November 19, 2005

Affirmative Action

I don’t recall ever meeting someone with a cast who didn’t have a broken bone, or with thick eyeglasses who didn’t need them. Those who are good at math don’t require remedial math and those who are not do. Children needing extra attention in school and out should get it. We shouldn’t deny those who need help to become whole. Isn’t it reasonable that a college admits students who can most benefit from the proffered education? So some students enter with high scores on standardized tests and high academic grades and some don’t. What’s so hard to understand that the parameters around admissions are more profound than such scores – matching benefits to needs? One could argue that those who will benefit most from an education at UM are just those whose scores are not so high.

It is well known that a large fraction of jobs are obtained based on contacts not resumes. The old-boy network is real and it works. It is affirmative action for those in the network. Even moderate wealth can purchase tutors, SAT courses, a home near schools with fewer needy kids, or private school. In the USA, race, gender, father’s business or profession, or being a legacy still adds lots of points to getting in. Falling into the network is helped by the name of the college on the diploma, the name of the fraternity, secret society or other club. Nothing to do with scores. Those who call for an end to affirmative action at UM don’t at the same time call for ending this type of discrimination, often because they have already benefited or hope to benefit from it.

The U.S. has the means to provide every child with sufficient material and spiritual resources to excel. The U.S. has the resources to provide every child with a superior education in the broadest sense. That this country lags behind many less wealthy countries in so many parameters in education and health, for example, reflects the warped priorities of those who run it. “No child left behind” would be a worthy slogan if the goal weren’t intended to starve schools leaving millions behind. The cost of poor education is greater than the cost of a good one. “It costs more to keep youth in jail than to send them to Yale.” The price of no universal health care is far more than its cost. Those whose votes count decide to ration education and health care because the costs and benefits of such shortsighted policies are not evenly distributed. Affirmative action has historically provided the privileged with most of the benefits and for the most part they want to keep it that way. We have no time to lose to reverse that trajectory by bending affirmative action to benefit everyone who has got the short end of the equation.

Henry, at 6:30 pm EDT on October 17, 2006