affirmative action - UM - supreme court (wha-hoppin?!)

Jun 23 20:24 UTC 2003

supreme court, in two split decisions, upheld and trashed affirmative
action at UM. ... wel, which is it? upheld or trashed.
  

response 2 of 113:

Jun 23 20:51 UTC 2003

The Supreme Court ruled today on racial balancing though college
admissions policies.  The policy of U of M's undergraduate admissions
allowed for 20 additional points (out of 150 total) to be awarded based on
the applicant being of an under-represented race.  The U of M's law school
policy didn't award points but allowed prejudice in selecting for race
among qualified applicants. 

Or at least that's how I understand the issue.

The court ruled against the undergraduate policy but left the law school
policy stand. 

I interpret this to mean it's fine for a school to select for a racially
balanced student body among equally qualified applicants.  But it goes too
far to use race as a mechanism for joining the qualified pool of
applicants. 

If I got that right then I'm pleased with the ruling.  It's time. 

The vote was 6-to-3 on the undergraduate ruling and 5-to-4 on the
law school verdict.

response 4 of 113:

Jun 24 00:34 UTC 2003

For those who aren't on the UM's email system, excerpts from a campus-wide
email written by President Coleman:

----

A majority of the Court has strongly reaffirmed the principle of diversity
articulated by justice Powell in the Bakke decision.  The Court said that it
"endorses Justice Powell's view that student body diversity is a compelling
state interest."  Universities can continue to use race as one of many factors
in an individualized admissions process.

[...]

These decisions are a wonderful victory for the University of Michigan, for all
of higher education, and for the hundreds of groups and thousands of
individuals who supported us.

The Court has provided two important signals.  The first is a green light to
pursue racial and ethnic diversity in the college classroom.  The second is a
pathway to get us there.  The Law School policy clearly met the Court's
criteria for a holistic admissions process.  We will modify our undergraduate
admissions process to follow today's guidance from the Court. . . .  We expect
to have a revised undergraduate admissions process in place this Autumn.

[...]

I am proud of the role of the University of Michigan in this important debate.
We argued for fair and equal access.  Now, we will do whatever it takes to
recruit the finest, most diverse student body possible, within the provisions
of today's decisions.

[...]

[O]ur commitment to a diverse campus will continue. . . . [And,] every student
admitted to our University will continue to be eminently well qualified.

[...]

I expect that members of our community will engage in a full and robust debate
of many related issues.  I anticipate this discussion will be civil and
respectful of all points of view.  Your right to freedom of expression is
paramount at the University of Michigan.  This is a hallmark of our educational
system, and one of which I am most proud.

In the coming days and weeks, we will continue to provide updated information
on our main University WWW site [www.umich.edu].

This is an historic day for our University.  You may look to me for leadership
as we adapt to the new provisions of the law, and I will look to all of you for
inspiration.

With my best wishes,

Mary Sue Coleman
President

response 6 of 113:

Jun 24 12:08 UTC 2003

Severed arm??  What severed arm?

response 8 of 113:

Jun 24 13:12 UTC 2003

It is far nicer that the courts only specify what cannot be done, and 
leave open what remains, rather than specifying what can be done.  
Mainly, this is because the courts cannot possibly imagine all possible 
scenarios which their rulings may affect.

response 10 of 113:

Jun 24 13:40 UTC 2003

I haven't read that much about the rulings.  What's struck me most is 
Mary Sue Coleman, president of U-M, citing the new decisions as 
unqualified victory.  It seems she was willing to cite just about 
anything as a victory.  I whimsically imagine a decision like this:

Supreme Court: We rule the U-M has used racial quotas, which is 
discriminatory.  The U-M should be disbanded and it's grounds sewn with 
salt.

Coleman: We hail this ruling as an unqualified victory.  The Supreme 
Court has clearly supported U-M in it's pursuit of diversity by not 
mandating what brand of salt.

In fact, the Supreme Court has *ended* U-M's policy of giving 20 bonus 
points to racial minorities for undergraduate admissions, which is the 
means the university has used to achieve the racial balance they 
wanted.  The door has been left open to giving racial preference, but 
only on a case by case basis.  Individually!  It seems to me this will 
either cut way back on racial preference, or make it very, very 
expensive for the university.

In practice, I don't think even the U-M can do *all* of it's admissions 
on an individual case by case basis.  That's what they'd need to do to 
even approach the racial percentages they've tried to maintain.

President Coleman has managed, very quickly and efficiently, to put a 
positive spin on it for the university and to get that spin quoted 
nation-wide in headlines.  Good for her.  But I don't see how the 
Supreme Court could have ruled much more against U-M's policies.  I 
think this was a nearly complete loss for the university's racial 
preference system, and for colleges across the country which try to 
achieve or maintain racial quotas, percentages or "balances".

I mostly don't know what I think about the rulings yet.  We'll see what 
the effects are in 10 years or so.  I expect I'll have formed opinions 
about these two decisions before then.  (-:

I did see something to be optimistic about in what little I've read.  
The Supreme Court appears to believe racial preferences are a temporary 
measure which ought to be dispensed with at some point.  Justice Sandra 
Day O'Connor wrote, "We expect that 25 years from now, the use of 
racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest 
approved today."  Also from O'Conner: "We take the law school at its 
word that it would 'like nothing better than to find a race-neutral 
admissions formula' and will terminate its race-conscious admissions 
program as soon as practicable."

response 12 of 113:

Jun 24 14:11 UTC 2003

The plantiffs were absolutely hypocritical in pressing race as the main 
thrust of their suit.  Preferential treatment will still be given to 
children of alumni and athletes, and applicants from certain 
geographical areas.  This suit wasn't really about equality of 
education.

In order for there to be an equal playing field for admissions, 
students should have equal opportunitirees to meet standards.  They do 
not.

response 14 of 113:

Jun 24 15:14 UTC 2003

re resp:9: You see, there have been a couple of centuries of racial 
discrimination in America, deciding privileges and rights for people 
based on their skin color.  These have greatly harmed those who aren't 
descended from Europeans.  No ethnic group has overcome this 
discrimination, except all of them who aren't African-Americans, so the 
obstacles are clearly proven to be insurmountable.

Obviously the only thing that can be done to combat the effects of two 
centuries of racial discrimination is privileges and rights for people 
based on their skin color.  This is of course *not* racial 
discrimination.  We know that, because racial discrimination is bad, 
and this isn't bad.  It's affirmative action, you see.  It's completely 
different.  Make no mistake about *that*.

Statistics have been warped and stretched (and even made up) to show it 
works.  In some cases, it hasn't worked at all, but the answer to that 
is more rights and privileges based on skin color.  Questioning that in 
any way means you're a racist because affirmative action is good, so 
opposing it is bad.  In case you think you can oppose it without being 
branded as a maniac, saying you're opposing it because it causes more 
harm than good is "code words" for a desire to return to the days of 
slavery.  Anyone like that has to be shut up and ridiculed because we 
believe in free speech.  Free speech is good, of course.  We have a 
Constitutional right to free speech.  Since being a racist anti-
affirmative action nut would be bad, it's hate speech, which is 
something different.

response 16 of 113:

Jun 24 15:21 UTC 2003

re resp:13: resp:12 is not hidden.

re resp:12: I don't think any of the plaintiffs would have taken a case 
to the Supreme Court by themselves.  Someone (CIL, Center for 
Individual Liberties I believe) dug them up, convinced them they'd been 
wronged, and used them to bear their standard.

I don't think the case was about equality.  I think it was about giving 
special privileges based on race.  I think there's plenty of room for 
another ground-breaking suit which would be about preferences for 
alumni, athletes, and geographical areas.  I don't think there'd be as 
much attention given to any of those suits as there was for this one; 
it wouldn't be about race and therefore wouldn't be as hot a topic.

response 18 of 113:

Jun 24 16:04 UTC 2003

("does not always work" != "does not work")