Thursday
January 8, 2009
Advertisement
News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
Nov. 9, 2006
Still Fighting for Affirmative Action
The day after Michigan voters approved a ban on affirmative action by public colleges and universities, the president of the University of Michigan said that her institution was exploring legal challenges it might make to the referendum.
Related stories
- Guidance or Spin on Affirmative Action Rulings?, Sept. 19
- Proxies for Race, Dec. 6, 2006
- Retreat on Affirmative Action?, Nov. 28, 2006
- The View From Ground Zero, Nov. 9, 2006
- ‘African-American Men in College’, April 21, 2006
“I believe there are serious questions as to whether this initiative is lawful, particularly as it pertains to higher education,” Mary Sue Coleman, the president, said in a speech to students. “I have asked our attorneys for their full and undivided support in defending diversity at the University of Michigan. I will immediately begin exploring legal action concerning this initiative.”
Coleman did not provide any details about the basis for a legal challenge or whether it would be in state or federal court. In the short term, she said Michigan would seek “confirmation from the courts to complete this year’s admissions cycle under our current guidelines,” saying that “we have the right, indeed the obligation, to complete this process using our existing policies. It would be unfair and wrong for us to review students’ applications using two sets of criteria, and we will ask the courts to affirm that we may finish this process using the policies we currently have in place.”
Beyond that, her emphasis was that no student would lose a scholarship, no employee would lose a job, and no commitment would be ignored because of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, the measure that passed with 58 percent of the vote on Tuesday. Coleman was emphatic that the university would fight to preserve its diversity and would “overcome the handcuffs” that the measure is attempting to place on it. She quoted Susan B. Anthony: “Failure is impossible.”
(Also on Wednesday, a pro-affirmative action group — the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigration Rights By Any Means Necessary — announced that it was suing the state in federal court to challenge the initiative. The group’s complaint said that the ban on affirmative action would lead to discrimination, and that the ban was an unconstitutional “exception” to federal civil rights laws and would block Michigan from fulfilling “the federal mandate to desegregate.” Similar arguments have failed in courts previously, in part because Michigan, unlike some Southern states, was never found to have operated an illegally segregated higher education system.)
While Coleman was rallying her troops (and lawyers), educators at other public institutions in the state were busy as well. They were trying to figure out which of their policies might run afoul of the new ban and what to do about them. Activists and experts on affirmative action were also planning for future battles — with defenders of affirmative action considering whether new strategies are needed and critics looking for the next state in which to organize a referendum.
For now, though, Coleman’s suggestion that legal action may be in the works infuriated those who sponsored the Michigan referendum — and they vowed to fight back in court and in public discussion.
“It is absolute arrogance if the president of the University of Michigan thinks that she can trump the will of the people. Fifty-eight percent of Michiganders voted for this,” said Doug Tietz, a spokesman for the organizers of the measure. “Just because one university president thinks something different does not mean that person can ignore the law. If they try to circumvent the law, we have prosecutors and other people who make sure laws get obeyed.”
Tietz declined to comment on what other states may be targets for an initiative to bar affirmative action — although there is speculation that Colorado is a likely target. “For the time being, we’re still focused on Michigan,” he said.
Whether the University of Michigan can challenge the referendum is unclear. Terry W. Hartle, senior vice president for government and public affairs at the American Council on Education, said “the concern in Michigan from the start was that the drafting of the initiative was so broad was that it would have unanticipated consequences,” such as barring outreach activities to minority groups. The ACE has not officially signed on to join any Michigan challenge, but Hartle said “we have strongly supported the University of Michigan’s diversity activities in the past and we’ll continue to do so.”
Some experts on affirmative action — including some who support Michigan’s policy of considering race and ethnicity in admissions decisions — said that it was not clear to them that there were legal challenges to make. They noted that the measure had been challenged in court before it was placed on the ballot — and that those challenges had been rejected.
To some critics of affirmative action, the vote was a clear sign that affirmative action is on the way out. “Preferential admissions received its death blow in Michigan,” said Stephen H. Balch, president of the National Association of Scholars, which opposes affirmative action and pushes for a traditional curriculum. While Balch said that some affirmative action policies would “linger on institutional life support a bit longer,” he said that the vote — in a state where the flagship university went to the Supreme Court to defend affirmative aciton — was key. He called the “eventual demise” of affirmative action “now certain.”
That this vote took place in Michigan was noted by people who defend affirmative action as well. “Everybody is kind of stunned,” said Damon Williams, assistant vice provost for multicultural and international affairs at the Univeristy of Connecticut, who said he was hearing from colleagues nationwide about the vote and its meaning. “They put on a tremendous fight to take affirmative action to the Supreme Court, so this is very disappointing.”
Within Michigan, the immediate impact is on public colleges and universities. While admissions decisions tend to attract the most attention these days in debates about affirmative action, there are a range of other college efforts that could be questioned. Many public colleges have special programs or scholarships for female students in science, to recruit minority or female faculty members, or to promote contracting with minority-owned businesses. A spokesman for Eastern Michigan University said officials there were studying all of their programs, and had made no decisions on what — if anything — would need to change.
Terry Denbow, vice president for university relations at Michigan State University, said that institution was also studying any possible impact. But he said that academics in other states where affirmative action has been banned have advised Michigan State not to rush into any judgments. “We’re cautioning against people having any immediate conclusions about what this will mean,” he said. Over time, court rulings, advice from state leaders, and other developments are likely to help Michigan State determine its response, he said.
“No ballot initiative changes your core values and core commitments,” he said. Michigan State — a land grant institution — has a range of programs to encourage diversity. Asked about them, Denbow said that “it is our belief that programmatic efforts that reflect a commitment to access and inclusion should not significantly change.”
To critics of affirmative action, Tuesday’s vote didn’t raise any particularly tough issues — the outcome reinforced their view that most people don’t like the way colleges use affirmative action. To defenders, the vote raised some tough questions about how they have made their case and why they haven’t gotten through.
Faye J. Crosby, a professor of psychology at the University of California at Santa Cruz and author of Affirmative Action Is Dead; Long Live Affirmative Action (Yale University Press), said that she wasn’t stunned by the vote because she saw it as “an anger vote,” adding that “in times of diminishing resources, inter-group relations deteriorate.”
Crosby, who works in one of the other states that has banned affirmative action, said she worried that the impact on Michigan’s universities would be greater than the effect California’s ban has had on its colleges. There, she said, the state is so diverse that, even without affirmative action, public universities can’t be overwhelmingly white, and many are majority minority. Michigan is more than 80 percent white, so a lack of affirmative action could result in homogeneous institutions, she said.
In discussing affirmative action, she said, colleges need to get away from the idea that college admission “is a reward for past behavior.” Rather, she said, admission decisions are about “the promise of future behavior.” In that context, she said it is possible to talk about affirmative action in a way people will understand. Just as President Johnson talked about affirmative action as making a race fair — in his famous example, a race between someone who had been shackled and someone who hadn’t — Crosby looked at the kinds of races someone has run.
One way is to look at speed, she said. But another way might be to look at how one achieved speed while running uphill instead of downhill. That’s evidence of future potential, she said.
Catherine L. Horn, an assistant professor of educational leadership and cultural studies at the University of Houston and co-editor of Higher Education and the Color Line: College Access, Racial Equity and Social Change (Harvard Education Press), said that defenders of affirmative action must get more assertive — even on controversial topics. “These voter initiatives continue to pass — quite frankly — from spin over substance.” She also said that critics of affirmative action “use the rhetoric of civil rights” in ways that are very smart politically.
She said that the kind of research Michigan and others did in preparation for the Supreme Court case — studies on the long term benefits of being educated in a diverse environment — should be replicated, and widely discussed. She also said that colleges need to tackle issues, like test score gaps between white and minority students, that play into critics’ arguments. University officials have to talk more frankly about the limitations of test scores — and about how other groups, such as athletes, are admitted with lower than average test scores, without inspiring referendum movements.
One thing that is clear, Horn said, is that “the states are not hearing our message about the benefits of diversity.”
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
Comments
Losing Case
Forget it. Plenty of people dedicated to race discrimination tried to contest identical California law and failed across the board. There is simply nothing unlawful about respecting the 14th Amendment, and nothing in _Grutter_ obliges schools to engage in race discrimination.
JBM, at 7:15 am EST on November 9, 2006
Who Runs the University of Michigan
Because the school is financed with public money, does that give the public the right to vote on how to administer the education provided. We think not.
The average voter is a long way from a PhD. The admissions departments know far more what is needed than the public. As one comment said yesterday, Wayne State does not use AA and gets along just fine. University of Michigan needs it to fulfill its mission.
The lack of success in California should not deter Michigan. They should focus on the lack of knowledge of the electorate on any subject, including affirmative action.
William Sumner Scott, J.D.Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc.
William Sumner Scott, J.D., at 8:05 am EST on November 9, 2006
Explanations that racial classifications violated the Constitution are a smokescreen for the clear view that consideration received by African Americans and Latinos, depite the history of discrimination suffered by both groups, are anathema to those who fear competition from such groups. I do not reach this conclusion easily, but no other explanation suffices.
So as a white, hispanic, male opposed to affirmative action, I fear competition from.... myself? I’ll have to remember to tell my other minority friends opposed to affirmative action that we need to beware of... ourselves.
K.T., at 8:10 am EST on November 9, 2006
Disingenuous
“They should focus on the lack of knowledge of the electorate on any subject, including affirmative action.”
You have no evidence that the public suffers from any “lack of knowledge” about the matter. On the contrary: The anti-MCRI forces pummeled the state with its opinion for many months, and the public rejected it, based on the information presented.
As an attorney, would you please state what law would possibly require race discrimination, despite the 14th Amendment and the emphatic vote of the people of Michigan against it? A single cite will do.
JBM, at 8:20 am EST on November 9, 2006
Because the school is financed with public money, does that give the public the right to vote on how to administer the education provided. We think not.
Wow, that might be the most authoritarian statement I’ve ever seen on this site. [And, I would argue that an advanced degree is not a predictor of intelligence or awareness of 99.9% public policy issues.]
K.T., at 9:05 am EST on November 9, 2006
Spending Public Money
So UOM wants to spend public money to challenge what the public has just voted for?What a crock.
Craig C, political pundit at http://blogresponder.blogspot.com, at 9:16 am EST on November 9, 2006
Past racial discrimination does not justify future racial discrimination any more than slavery in the past justifies slavery in the future. A racial quota intended to remedy past discrimination means A benefits B at the expense of C, because previously D benefited E at the expense of F.
The victims of the past and present discrimination, C and F, get no relief. The beneficiaries of the past and present discrimination, B and E, get an unearned benefit. The perpetrators of the past and present discrimination, A and D, pay no penalty. The idea cannot pass the test either of logic or justice.
It can’t pass the test of democracy, either, since the voters rejected it. By refusing to accept the referendum result and instead trying to overrule it with a lawsuit, the university administration is attempting to teach their students that democracy is not to be upheld but to be undermined. They are trying to teach them that the decisions voters make at the polls are to be flouted rather than respected. Is that the sort of education the state founded this university to teach?
Jack Olson, at 10:16 am EST on November 9, 2006
“The average voter is a long way from a PhD. The admissions departments know far more what is needed than the public.”
That is an incredibly elitist statememt and likely will win few supporters for your position.
T.A., at 10:30 am EST on November 9, 2006
Ms. Wilcher writes “athletic status, geography (including the mostly-white Upper Peninsula), legacies, socio-economic status and other issues, but it was race that was the galvanizing factor that led to the legal challenge.” This implies racism on the part of those who proposed the MCRI. Of course when one reviews those preferences other than race one sees that they are open to ALL races (some may even benefit the same minority groups favored by affirmative action disproportionately). Maybe the public just doesn’t like racism and thats why they voted to end a reverse form of it.Horn and Crosby just don’t get it. The opposition to racial preference is not based on a failure to undertand the alleged compelling interest of educational benefits of racial diversity on campus. Its that the public does not think that this compelling interest justifies violating individual rights (just as, I hope, the public does not think that racial profiling, just because it may serve a compelling state interest, is therefore OK). Surely Horn and Crosby would not change their mind on an issue like police racial profiling just because of “studies” that argue the “benefit” of such a practice. Again, we hear this often, that white women benefit enormously from affirmative action. Did UM assign points to women and not men?
Ken, at 10:40 am EST on November 9, 2006
The Desperation of the Diversity Zealots
Does anyone still doubt that the zealous defenders of diversity, with its craven double standards regarding the use of public money, are gripped by a religious fervor and elitist arrogance towards American citizens?
If so, then simply peruse the absurdities and stupidities embraced by President Mary Sue Coleman, the brown-shirted thugs of BAMN, and an entire mélange of academics whose entire careers rest on defending — in 2006! — rank and wretched double standards by race, gender or ethnicity.
Or even better, re-read some of the outlandish claims and hilariously irrational predictions proffered by racist or sexist double standards defenders on this website!
A compelling book that surgically dismantles all the rhetoric, deceptive claims and banal insinuations that suffuse the “diversity industry,” is Peter Wood, “Diversity: The Invention of a Concept” (2003).
The people of Michigan have spoken loudly and clearly. They were not deceived by the sky-is-falling rhetoric of those who opposed MCRI.
In fact, they closely followed their despicable antics and frantic bellowing, then calmly voted in droves (58% said yes) to eliminate racist, sexist or ethnic double standards. Period.
Class dismissed.
Chuck, at 10:46 am EST on November 9, 2006
The Desperation of the Diversity Zealots
Does anyone still doubt that the zealous defenders of diversity, with its craven double standards regarding the use of public money, are gripped by a religious fervor and elitist arrogance towards American citizens?
If so, then simply peruse the absurdities and stupidities embraced by President Mary Sue Coleman, the brown-shirted thugs of BAMN, and an entire mélange of academics whose entire careers rest on defending — in 2006! — rank and wretched double standards by race, gender or ethnicity.
Or even better, re-read some of the outlandish claims and hilariously irrational predictions proffered by racist or sexist double standards defenders on this website!
A compelling book that surgically dismantles all the rhetoric, deceptive claims and banal insinuations that suffuse the “diversity industry,” is Peter Wood, “Diversity: The Invention of a Concept” (2003).
The people of Michigan have spoken loudly and clearly. They were not deceived by the sky-is-falling rhetoric of those who opposed MCRI.
In fact, they closely followed their despicable antics and frantic bellowing, then calmly voted in droves (58% said yes) to eliminate racist, sexist or ethnic double standards. Period.
Class dismissed.
Chuck, at 11:05 am EST on November 9, 2006
Massive Resistance
“I have asked our attorneys for their full and undivided support in defending diversity at the University of Michigan. I will immediately begin exploring legal action concerning this initiative.”
Coleman’s strategy at U of M is similar to Sen. Harry Byrd’s in defending white supremacy in Virginia 50 years ago. I suspect her approach is likely to have the same impact: effective for the short term, but ultimately unsuccessful.
chris b, at 11:05 am EST on November 9, 2006
Definition of Diversity?
I believe that many people would agree that diversity is important to our culture. I am however saddened to think that the only reasons I am diverse is because of my race or gender. Am I to believe that my personal thoughts, individual life experiences, unique upbringing, and personal accomplishes are only important because I belong to a minority group.I believe that higher education should be focused on providing education to students that for whatever reason may not have had access to higher education otherwise. I fear that if we continue to focus on race and gender that we will never see each other as more than our race or gender. I urge people to stand together on this issue to move forward to appreciate each other for what lies within our minds and hearts and not on our skin. We can use this as an opportunity to fight for changes in our education system and our society — to fix many of the reasons why affirmitive action was needed.
DC, at 11:30 am EST on November 9, 2006
Chris B, Asking your lawyers to investigate a change in the law is done every day in every part of government and most companies. She didn’t claim that she would take any substantive action. But, analyzing changes in the law keeps us off the streets.
I think people need to understand what arguments are actually being asserted. The story notes that there has been no legal arguments made, so it is impossible to tell what will be made in court. It may well be that the school’s able attorneys return with a simple, “Nothing we can do here.”
The Suit by the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action – the complaint can be found here: http://www.bamn.com/doc/2006/061108-complaint-prop2.pdf – alleges that there is no way to reconcile the Michigan Constitution with the US Constitution (and statutes passed pursuant to it). Whether they are correct or not, will be for the courts to decide. However, the drafters of the Michigan amendment were careful to put in provisions which stated that it cleaved to the 14th amendment. So, the flexibility of the Michigan amendment may be its strong point, but result in University’s interpreting it to actually require no changes.
But, on a general level, some points are in order:
First of all, just because the “public” votes for something doesn’t mean it is constitutional. Whether the will of a small segment of the population contradicts with the constitution is a matter for the courts to decide. If, the courts decide that a popular vote resulted in an unconstitutional result, people are free to change the constitution. (But, outside of ending gay marriage and stopping flag-burning there is almost no interest at all in any changes to the constitution.) Second, just because the government is paying for something, doesn’t mean that it can accomplish an unconstitutional result. Third, there is probably no constitutional right to affirmative action, and the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action may therefore have a standing problem.
Even though I think Mr. Scott is trying to be funny, I agree with his general idea: voters don’t really know what is going on. I don’t mean this to seem condescending, but it is a practical impossibility to explain any complex system to voters. Scientists dumb down their findings. Lawyers learn quickly to never go into detail about their arguments, and it is a virtual impossibility that a non-lawyer will read all Supreme Court opinions. They just don’t.
Larry, at 11:55 am EST on November 9, 2006
Applying the 14th Amendment
Regarding the comment: “As an attorney, would you please state what law would possibly require race discrimination, despite the 14th Amendment and the emphatic vote of the people of Michigan against it? A single cite will do.”
It is certainly the case that the sovereignty in our nation belongs to the people, regardless of their educational background. It is also true that the constitution exists, particularly the 1st — 14th amendments, to protect individuals from what Rousseau called ‘the tyranny of the majority’. It was believed by our forefathers that no amount of public agreement could justify the compromise of fundamental rights of indivduals.
Do AA policies discriminate based on race and sex? Yes. Does that mean they are banned under the 14th amendment? Not necessarily. The courts (and reasonable people) make this determination according to the rational basis test. Does society have a crucial and rational interest in compromising the rights of certain individuals for the good of society? There are many recognized exceptions to the 14th amendment. We don’t let felons vote. We don’t allow pedophiles to work in daycares. We don’t allow convicted sex offenders to keep thier addresses private. These are all clearly justifiable.
Is AA justifiable? Arguably yes if the alternative is a return to a society in which social class is dictated by race and in which there is no social mobility via education. This creates a society at war with itself, and to choose policies that will exacerbate this pending war are inherently irrational.
LJU, Dr., at 12:35 pm EST on November 9, 2006
Wrong tier of scrutiny
LJU, Good post. However, I think we need to get something clear. JBM doesn’t understand that the school (or the associations challenging the Michigan amendment) is arguing that 1) it has the freedom under the 1st to not be limited in who it teaches; and 2) it can choose to treat people equally and comply with the Civil Rights Act and the 14th amendment by using AA. Again, I don’t take a position on whether this is right, wrong, good or bad.
Finally, I should note that you got the tier of scrutiny wrong, with respect to the law school’s “factor” analysis. Instead of rational basis scrutiny, in Grutter v. Bollinger, the court made it very clear that it was applying strict scrutiny. The court wrote: We have held that all racial classifications imposed by government “must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny.” Ibid. This means that such classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored to further compelling governmental interests. “Absent searching judicial inquiry into the justification for such race-based measures,” we have no way to determine what “classifications are ‘benign’ or ‘remedial’ and what classifications are in fact motivated by illegitimate notions of racial inferiority or simple racial politics.” Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U. S. 469, 493 (1989) (plurality opinion). We apply strict scrutiny to all racial classifications to ” ’smoke out’ illegitimate uses of race by assuring that [government] is pursuing a goal important enough to warrant use of a highly suspect tool.” Ibid.
Larry, at 1:15 pm EST on November 9, 2006
APPLYING THE 14TH AMENDMENT
LJU wrote:
Does society have a crucial and rational interest in compromising the rights of certain individuals for the good of society? There are many recognized exceptions to the 14th amendment. We don’t let felons vote. We don’t allow pedophiles to work in daycares. We don’t allow convicted sex offenders to keep thier addresses private. These are all clearly justifiable.Is AA justifiable? Arguably yes if the alternative is a return to a society in which social class is dictated by race and in which there is no social mobility via education. This creates a society at war with itself, and to choose policies that will exacerbate this pending war are inherently irrational.
To compare dangerous fellons to what? A perceived “dangerous” society? That’s rediculous. A pedophile can’t work in a day care because of what he personally has done in the past and a larger group must be protected as a result. In your argument, a minority must be protected from a majority because of something no one from the majority has PERSONALLY themselves done to the minority, but MIGHT do. So, we should take away from the majority because they would obviously take away from the minority.
What disparity is caused by people of all races from attending UM on their own academic merits? Isn’t that what we should be striving for?
Michael K., at 1:20 pm EST on November 9, 2006
Constitutionality of MCRI
Earth to Larry — the language of the MCRI was clear and unambiguous.
It tracked closely to the words of the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s and copied the 1996 language of Proposition 209 which the Supreme Court declined to review and hence let stand, making it now part of the California State Constitution.
The voters of Michigan, like their counterparts in California and Washington, understood the clarity and simplicity of MCRI, despite the insufferable hand-wringing, finger-pointing, sky-is-falling, it’s-illegal semi-hysterical cacophony of the defenders of racial or gender double standards (a.k.a. “diversity").
Why is that elementary fact so hard to grasp?
Shawna, at 1:35 pm EST on November 9, 2006
reply to Shawna
Shawna,
Saying that something is “clear” does not make it so. If you note above, I have not taken a position on the constitutionality of the amendment. You seem to think that I have, when this is not the case. I don’t know how much “clearer” I could make my lack of a position. On the other hand, I will concede that a lot of thought went into it. My only point is that, by its own terms, a public institution might still challenge it, or seek a judgment declaring that certain affirmative-action like practices are still legal.
Likewise, because the US Supreme Court has declined to review something a challenge to a statute, does not make it definitively constitutional or unconstitutional.
I seriously doubt that the voters even read the MCRI. The actual wording did not appear on the ballot. Very few voters bother to actually read ballot initiatives, anyway. Because of their lack of reading, I don’t talk to many non-lawyers, so I don’t know what they were thinking. There is no need to insult me, or go into a political harangue. I don’t care about politics, and I don’t even vote!
Michael, LJU was setting out some basics of constitutional law (though he got the tier of scrutiny incorrect). In most cases (such as with pedophiles), individuals can’t mount a successful challenge to a statute based on a lack of a rational basis that might connect it to the government interest. But, in the case of suspect classes (e.g. race, religion, etc.) they can, unless the state can meet its burden of showing its compelling interest, and how the discrimination is narrowly tailored to meet that interest.
Larry, at 2:00 pm EST on November 9, 2006
Larry:
“Asking your lawyers to investigate a change in the law is done every day in every part of government and most companies.”
True enough, but it’s rarely done in front of several hundred people after spamming every student at the school with a message announcing your intentions.
“It may well be that the school’s able attorneys return with a simple, “Nothing we can do here.””
Then I think these able attorneys will find themselves having the good President Coleman explaining exactly what she meant when she quoted the phrase “Failure is Impossible.”
chris b, at 2:10 pm EST on November 9, 2006
“The University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions program provided consideration of athletic status, geography (including the mostly-white Upper Peninsula), legacies, socio-economic status and other issues, but it was race that was the galvanizing factor that led to the legal challenge.”
That’s because of all the categories that you name, only discrimination based on race is illegal. Legacy admissions and admissions based on economic status are thoroughly repugnant, but they are simply not illegal. Race discrimination is. That’s why a legal challenge to race discrimination is possible, but not to other characteristics that you name.
JBM, at 4:00 pm EST on November 9, 2006
The MCRI prohibits, among other things, race and gender based preferences. Presumably, the proponents of this measure will now work vigorously to eliminate the well-documented preferences bestowed upon white men in our social system.
dso, at 4:00 pm EST on November 9, 2006
dso-it is interesting that you mention the “well documented” advantages of “white men.” I would first ask, is it sane to lump all “white men” together concerning advantages? Certainly some white men have more or less advantages over others, just like some minority men and women have more or less advantages over others. A problem with affirmative action as it exists is that it will not take this into account. All minorities and women will get the same added points in the racial category and all white males (and women I should think, again I ask, does UM grant any points on gender alone?) will get the same points (zero) in that category. That’s like weeding your garden by burning it down.Secondly, it is interesting that you use the term “well documented.” What I am sure you mean are that there are things (wealth, networks, etc) that are disproportionately found among white males that correlate with criteria that opponents of affirmative action want to rely on for admission decisions (grades, test scores, etc.). Notice first off that the key is “disproportionately"; there will be many whites lacking in things like wealth or networks and many blacks who have them in spades (though adimittedly to a lesser extent in both cases). AA as currently used would create injustice when applied to these cases. But more interesting is that these factors usually create subtle or removed advantages (.e., those with certain networks are more often exposed to books, language, thinking, etc. that is rewarded in schools). They are not “bright line,” legally sanctioned advantages. They are institutional factors that lead to disparate outcomes among groups. Our government has, I think to some extent rightly, some concern about this and has tried to mitigate their effects (providing school loans, public libraries, etc.). On the other hand, Affirmative action IS a “well documented", legally sanctioned form of drawing a definite bright line; those with skin color X get advantage Y and those without get nothing. Working to end the “well documented” preferences you mention is a worthy goal, but these are subtle factors that cannot be defeated by decree. Thankfully racial prefernce as practiced by UM and other elite schools can, and was, defeated in such a manner.
Ken, at 7:25 pm EST on November 9, 2006
Why Affirmative Action is Good
People throw around the term affirmative action (AA) as if it is some thing that is done to get minorities into specific jobs. Affirmative action is not a specific thing, but many things and take place in many forms.
As an African American male, the options in my community, after graduating high school, were slim. I couldn’t play basketball, football, or baseball. I couldn’t rap or sing. I am over-generalizing, but people who can do these things are the role models that young African Americans have to look up to in their communities. Oh… don’t forget the drug dealers!
What is wrong with taking affirmative actions to fix this situation? If a person grows up in a community where the doctors, lawyers, engineers, teachers, etc. are all of another race, an ignorant person will reason that they simply can’t follow this career path because others who share their background haven’t.
I am a college professor now, after having graduated from some of the most impressive schools our nation has to offer. But I am here now because someone took an affirmative action to get me involved. I qualified to become a nuclear Machinist’s Mate in the Navy. I took the test because the Navy was “hurting for black nukes.” I barely passed the test to get in.
I went to the school, but were other (white) people more qualified than me that may not have gone to the school? Who knows? I will offer that out of 255 students in my graduating class, there were 3 black students and about the same number of females.
That first step, that affirmative action that was taken, has set me up to be who I am. I no longer have any need for an affirmative action to be taken to advance my career – I hope. I am an educated, employed, law-abiding, tax paying citizen striving for the American dream. Now, I am a role model in that same community that I came from. I still can’t play basketball or football, but I have an impact on the future of a lot of children simply by being where I am.
So, the questions are: What is wrong with this story? Should I feel guilty? Should the children that I help motivate to succeed in life ignore me because someone took an affirmative action to ensure that I got my first step in my career? Should what I had happen in my life be illegal? Should all affirmative actions to help build up a normal set of role models in a black community be stopped? Should the kids in Detroit live in poverty forever? Should schools and jobs stop giving people that first step to help even the playing field?
R C, at 8:35 pm EST on November 9, 2006
Use and abuse
If higher education in general would have followed the “all other factors being equal” phrase (paraphrased here) instead of bending over backwards to diversify their staff and student body, would we be discussing the outcome of the Michigan vote?
Job descriptions were changed to replace educational qualifications, degrees, or certification with “diverse experience” or “experience with diverse populations.” Fair enough, that may be a beneficial attribute for some employees, but generally not for faculty.
Drastically lowering academic requirements for admission, in spite of evidence that those AA admits were failing to succeed in highly selective institutions, was the real crime to most thoughtful and well-educated persons. It served career and political purposes for pointy-headed liberals and diversity advocates, but failed to actually serve society (with increased long-term diversity) or the individuals it purported to help get an education.
Dr. F. Gump, at 10:05 pm EST on November 9, 2006
The hubris of the diversity crusaders
So Larry admits that, “Because of their lack of reading, I don’t talk to many non-lawyers......[and} I don’t care about politics, and I don’t even vote!”
Because most lawyers resemble geisha girls who simply smile and coo at whichever client hires them, Larry will understand why they are among the most disrespected occupation in the country.
You’ve just discredited yourself my friend.
Are you smart enough not to wager anything precious and valuable on the courts’ verdicts about the legality, constitutionality, and importance of MCRI?
Given your lofty hubris and amusing elitism, I wouldn’t bet on it. That’s no insult........ just a casual observation based on your own admissions.
Chuck, at 11:05 pm EST on November 9, 2006
Example of AA at its finest
My neighbor has two children. Boys to be exact. Both graduated from a North Oakland Co. high school, one with a 3.2 and one a 3.4. Neither were varsity athletes, neither were active in music, both were good, ordinary kids at a suburban school; EXCEPT for the fact that their mother is hispanic.... Guess what — both of those boys received healthy scholarships from UofM. Did they look at the economics of the kids parents? No way... Their father commented to me that he initially felt sick to his stomach to think that his kids were getting preferential treatment, something he has always been against and then they threw the money at him and I guess he’s accepted it.
How fair is that?
Lori, at 12:15 am EST on November 10, 2006
AA at its Finest
Given the paucity of Hispanics at elite institutions — public and private — I do not have any problem with your example. Why is this any less fair than having wealthy whites given advantages because their fathers and grandfathers attended UofM or any other elite college? Why aren’t you as outraged that President Bush was admitted to Yale with a C average from high school? Why aren’t you upset that athletes get admitted with lower scores and grades or that someone from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan is given extra points? Goodwin Liu wrote that given the large number of white students who apply to UofM, it is far more likely that Jennifer Gratz was passed over because she was not the daughter of alumni or lived in a different geographic area than because a handful of minority students were admitted to this publicly-funded institution. Lori, Blacks and Hispanics are not the reason why some students are not admitted. Stop blaming the victims. Sometimes it is because white students do not make the effort to be “interesting” or “outstanding.” Colleges can fill their first year classes with many students with excellent grades and scores and colleges do not admit students solely because of grades and scores. This was the case even before affirmative action. You have to do more to get admitted. There are not enough blacks and Hispanics to explain others’ failure to be admitted. Studies have also shown that if you eliminate race in admissions, the chances of whites getting admitted increase by only 1.5 percent. Sometimes you just have to work harder.
Shirley Wilcher, at 6:40 am EST on November 10, 2006
Chuck, AA, and anti-Asian thoughts
Chuck, I was hoping for a substantive response, and I read your response three times (and forwarded it to Asians for help), but I don’t see what you are saying. Since none of the parties in this lawsuit are my clients, I don’t think I am cooing like the Asians you refer to.
I don’t look like Geisha girl. Only two lawyers I know look like a Geisha girl, and as Asians, they would resent your racist stereotypes. Someone needs to go to diversity training.
It is strange that you say that lawyers are discredited, because, as a profession, not only are lawyers employed, but there seems to be no shortage of applications to law schools. In fact, to my chagrin, more law schools are opening! Indeed, I have NEVER met a person that did not want their son to consider the law as a profession. On the other hand, most parents don’t want their kids to be poets or work at Walmart.
Larry, at 8:30 am EST on November 10, 2006
Anger
I cannot begin to tell you how angry I am at those of you on this string who are happy to see affirmative action recinded in Michigan and the many other states that have adopted this.
All the “white folks” who voted to for this have never been called the “n” word, spic, coon, or lawn jockey. They have never pulled over because they were black, never been followed in a store because of their ethnicity, never been denied a loan from a bank because of their skin color, never had a national company deny your use of checks because of your skin color, never been dragged behind a truck by their neck until you were dead just because you were black...and I could go on and on.
Affirmative Action, since 1964 or so, simply states that if you have 2 candidates that are equal that you give the nod to the person of color or the woman. WHITE WOMEN have been the biggest beneficiary of this change and they seem to forget this. Before 1964, affirmative action insured that if you were white and male, you got the job. Becasue, after all affirmative action is giving a prefernce to someone because of their ethnicity or gender right? Well your fathers and their father and their fathers all got their jobs based on affirmative action for white males. You saw nothing wrong with this when it benefitted your parents and grandparents. But hey we can’t have it now because “those blacks and hispancis are getting some compensation” what a hyporcitical way of thinking.
This country has a problem with race and we refuse to deal with it. If we got honest, dealt with our prejudices and bigotries in a constructive way, then maybe affirmative action would not be needed. But come on, racism is still rampant in this country and you just keep ripping hope away from the underclass in this country ,which happens to have many black and hispanic folk in that class.
So few of us of have made it, based on our number is this country, and yet you think that is enough so let’s take more opportunities away so they cannot educate themselves. But hey, I have no problem building more jails to house them in...RIDICULOUS!!!
For those who are non-white and voted for this, I understand. You want things to be equal, you want to be considered on your merit and ability, you want what Dr. King died for, well so do I. But until the powers that be admit their priviliege and acknowledge that it will take more than 44 years of affirmative action to overcome 400 years of oppression, then we can never reach that goal.
Curt, Multicultural Programs at Penn State, at 10:55 am EST on November 10, 2006
why so angry ?
Curt, Your definition of “affirmative action” is, at best oversimplified, and at worst incorrect. I am sorry that you are angry, but this is a complicated legal and political issue, where people need to be analytical and cool-headed. Academics, like yourself should take a mature, and non-emotional view of the subject.
To begin, while many people love to say that they only use “race” as a “tiebreaker” most of the other factors they consider are either overly subjective, or subject to manipulation. Moreover, if someone can control the factors, race will become a “tiebreaker” if the rules of the game are changed to create a tie. In extreme cases, a minority that drank or watched TV in high school (and has no business in a university) might be granted entrance to an academic community, where as hard-worker might not.
I don’t know where you get this 1964 figure from.
You also don’t seem to see the differing justification for the use of “race” at all. Not all uses are to “right” the wrongs of the past. Some don’t have any reason. Some are to increase the number of perspectives represented in a profession.
Many white people have suffered abuses at the hands of so-called “authority” figures. Yet, somehow, there are almost no preferences for 1) the short; 2) people whose social skills prohibit them from schmoozing their way into good grades (an important skill in academe); and 3) people with body odor.
This country has many problems. From my perspective, race is not really the most pressing. If selection criteria were really open, there probably would be no ties. Instead, people seem to delight in manufacturing ties, so that their preferred type of person gets some favor or other.
Dr. King didn’t die so that people could use overly subjective criteria to create ties that would be broken by race.
LArry, at 12:25 pm EST on November 10, 2006
Condescending and ill-informed
At the risk of being redundant, Larry, I must respond to your condescending commentary about an issue about which you apparently know very little. Affirmative action has two primary justifications: diversity (as in higher education) and remedying the effects of past or present discrimination. While the reference to 1964 relates to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, John Kennedy signed the first executive order in 1961 that specifically required affirmative action for federal contractors. Moreover, to compare the present-day experiences of African Americans to being short is to be clueless about the psychological and physical effects of discrimination. I do not believe you have been followed around a department store with your briefcase when you took a break from your Park Avenue law firm job (as I have) or were presumed to be incapable of performing at an elite college simply because you were black (as some commentary to this article suggests). More interestingly, how many blacks or Hispanics would be admitted to an Ivy League institution with a C average, like George Bush? Only a white male can enjoy those privileges in America. We have to be Harvard Law School graduates to be considered competent — as Deval Patrick and Barak Obama. White privilege is like air, it is so subtle, one tends to take it for granted.
Shirley Wilcher, at 7:20 pm EST on November 10, 2006
short, black, or rich?
Dr. Wilcher, I understand that you think that I know very little about this subject. However, your failure to provide actual specifics regarding how, in 1964, affirmative action was somehow defined, does not shed any light on the subject. If the above poster was referring to preferences for federal contractors (and I doubt he was), minority status is hardly used as a “tiebreaker” since bids are somewhat more complex, and subject to many more objective standards (or at least standards approaching “objective”) than standards used in admitting students. Awards of contracts are subject to judicial review, and the process is a lot more open than just declaring that race was a “tie-breaker.” (Last time I provided specific statutory cites, academics were not interested. But, if you want to get into procurement specifics, I am game.)
Perhaps George W. Bush was tied with a number of other similar candidates (using some unstated criteria) but he was admitted to his schools because of his high motivation. Indeed, I am pretty sure he had very high motivation. If not his motivation, the ties could have been broken simply because of his family. Whatever the case, there is no indication that he was objectively unqualified for his admission to Harvard.
While I am neither short nor black, discrimination against both groups of people is terrible. Many women will not date short men. Many employers express disgust at seeing them. (I trust you have never judged someone by their appearances.) Short men are almost never hired as basketball players. Indeed, many short people suffer “psychologically” from the way society treats them.
Larry, at 7:30 am EST on November 11, 2006
Coleman’s Arrogance
As a Michigan resident and taxpayer who voted in favor of Proposal Two, I am outraged by the arrogance of Mary Sue Coleman who dares to spit in the faces of the Michigan citizens who feed her. Keep it up, Mary Sue, and you may soon find yourself standing in Michigan’s swelling unemployment line.
Jackie, at 12:10 pm EST on November 11, 2006
Looking from Canada (not too different from U.S) I see that it is sad that many americans think that minority rights can be voted on by a majority. Unfortunately, many approve something doesn’t make it automatically correct!
Neither any system (even AA) would be expected to be perfect. AA is at best is a temporary solution while the whole society changes to a nondiscriminating society which, unfortunately, I see a long way to go for the U.S.A. (to some extent this has been changing for the white females to their benefit so there is hope!)
KP, Minority wrongs, at 10:10 am EST on November 13, 2006
Anger continued
Larry,
Below is a quick synopsis for you of affirmative action. Note, affirmative action changed how we were hiring and admitting. Before this order, larry got everything he wanted, jobs, good schools, and we blacks, hispanics and asians took the leftovers, if there were any.
The History of Affirmative Action Policies
Americans for a Fair ChanceWashington D.C.
The following history of affirmative action policies is re-published with the permission of Americans for Fair Chance and was updated as of August 7, 2003 by Shirley J. Wilcher, president, Wilcher Global LLC, and former executive director of Americans for a Fair Chance.1961. President John F. Kennedy’s Executive Order (E.O.) 10925 used affirmative action for the first time by instructing federal contractors to take “affirmative action to ensure that applicants are treated equally without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” Created the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity.
1964. Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law. This was landmark legislation prohibiting employment discrimination by large employers (over 15 employees), whether or not they have government contracts. Established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
1965. President Lyndon B. Johnson issued E.O. 11246, requiring all government contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative action to expand job opportunities for minorities. Established Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCC) in the Department of Labor to administer the order.
1967. President Johnson amended E.O. 11246 to include affirmative action for women. Federal contractors now required to make good-faith efforts to expand employment opportunities for women and minorities.
1970. The Labor Department, under President Richard M. Nixon, issued Order No.4, authorizing flexible goals and timetables to correct “underutilization” of minorities by federal contractors.
1971. Order No.4 was revised to include women.
The power in this country has been white male dominated for over 600 years. If you truly cannot see the advantges this has given you, your family and the majority in this country, then we truly are headed for a race war just like we see in other countries across the world.
I know the world is not fair, but it certainly does not have to be down right mean as well. And frankly, that is what all those who oppose AA, with no other temporary solution to replace it, are doing. So as the old adage goes” You are either part of the solution or part of the problem". Guess which side you are on?
By the way, I am short AND black so I guess I am truly screwed.
ps..thanks Shirley for all that you have done.
Curt, Penn State, at 9:45 am EST on November 14, 2006
Beware pushing the Public to Initiatives
What part of “NO” does the UM Administration NOT understand? The voters have a lot of patience and inertia. But, given the results of the voting in Michigan, I think they have had it with higher ed. Beware pushing the voters to the inititive process. The next initiative could be as simple as revoking the UM state charter and disbanding the university over a 4 year period while establishing a new univierity in the same place -but without the same faculty or adminsitration or tenure policies. It is a public institution and the public will have its way.
Bruce Harvey, at 4:30 am EST on November 20, 2006
Voters or Elitists: Who Knows Better?
Mr. Scott appears to be an elitist. The voters of Michigan are the ultimate controllers of the University of Michigan even if he disdains the opinions of those that do not hold post graduate degrees. The admissions office does not know any better than the common voter about what is good for society or the state of Michigan. I will admit that some particular educated individuals would be in a better position to guide this policy, however as we have seen from this fight in Michigan, there is strong disagreement and very educated policy analysts and makers. The Admissions office, and the university as a whole, has a specific agenda which they will now struggle to carry out. To say that this agenda is more educated is ignorance in and of itself.
This is not about racism as is claimed by many. It is about self responsibility and a true color blind society. Race she never be asked by anyone for any reason. If race is unknown discrimination can not occur in the admissions or financial aid processes. Until our society is willing to be truly color blind we will not progress in race relations or much as a society. Stop asking race and reward personal responsibility. It is not wrong to consider the difficulty of the race being run by applicants, as was suggested by another commenter, but lets focus on the academic preparation and not race.
Greg F., M.P.A.
Greg F, at 10:20 am EST on November 22, 2006
Advertisement
Jobs Related to Still Fighting for Affirmative Action
or search for jobs directly.
Assistant or Associate Professor
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Professor, Clinical Pathology
University of California, Irvine
School of Medicine Department of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine Division of Anatomic Pathology Position: ... see job
Assistant Professor/Associate Professor
Western Carolina University
Assistant/Associate Professor of Educational Research Department of Educational Leadership & Foundations Western Carolina ... see job
Clinical Assistant/Associate Professor-OB-GYN
Oklahoma State University
The OSU College of Osteopathic Medicine has been consistently ranked nationally in rural medicine and primary care by US News ... see job
Assistant Professor, Sociology
CUNY—City College
THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK CAREER OPPORTUNITY City College Title: Assistant Professor (Tenure Track) ... see job
Public Relations Coordinator
American University
American University’s Washington College of Law seeks an experienced individual for the position of Manager of Public ... see job
Web Communications Coordinator
American University
The School of Public Affairs seeks a professional, dynamic Web Communications Coordinator, reporting to the Director of ... see job
Director of External Relations, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
University of Iowa
The University of Iowa, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences is seeking a Director of External Relations. This person will ... see job
Assistant, Associate or Full Professor in Industrial & Management Engineering
Montana State University
The Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering (M&IE) invites applications and nominations for a tenure-track ... see job
Program Director (CAMP)
University of Texas, Brownsville
Position Number: FY 09-76 Reports to: Director of Student Success Scope: UTB/TSC invites applications for the position of ... see job
Home
| Sign up | Log in
| About us
| Work for Us
| Press Releases
| Rights and permissions
| Contact us
| Advertise
| Partners
| RSS 
| Podcasts
| Links
| Privacy
| My Account
© Copyright 2009 Inside Higher Ed
In The Affirmative Action Debate Race Still Matters
The outcome of the vote on the Michigan affirmative action initiative underscores the fact that race continues to matter in America. As this publication and others have shown, the opposition to affirmative action increases when racial minorities are viewed as the primary beneficiaries. When white women are added to the mix, there is less opposition. Ironically, white women have been the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action.
The University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions program provided consideration of athletic status, geography (including the mostly-white Upper Peninsula), legacies, socio-economic status and other issues, but it was race that was the galvanizing factor that led to the legal challenge. Explanations that racial classifications violated the Constitution are a smokescreen for the clear view that consideration received by African Americans and Latinos, depite the history of discrimination suffered by both groups, are anathema to those who fear competition from such groups. I do not reach this conclusion easily, but no other explanation suffices.
Ultimately, I expect discrimination charges will increase and the environmental backlash (note the cases of blackface reported today)against minority students will proliferate. As the former deputy assistant secretary of Labor in charge of enforcing President Johnson’s Executive Order 11246, I learned that affirmative action programs in employment prevented discrimination. Absent affirmative action, i.e., efforts to eliminate barriers to equal opportunity, we found much more discrimination by federal contractors. I predict the same to occur at public institutions of higher education, which, ironically, are funded in part by the same minority groups who will be excluded.
Shirley J. Wilcher, former Deputy Assistant Secretary, US Department of Labor, at 7:00 am EST on November 9, 2006