Comments on Higher Ed's Election Day Showdowns

• Posted by Amazed on November 7, 2006 at 7:35am EST

• It is astonishing that in the 21st century the majority (women and members of preferred racial groups) are being given a vote on whether to retain discrimination against a minority. Those of us old enough to remember the civil rights movement of the mid 20th century could never have imagined we would still be facing this. Whatever happens in Michigan, this next-wave civil rights movement as represented by MCRI and the great Ward Connerly will have to continue until the equal treatment clause of the 14th Amendment is restored as the basis for our country's laws.

• clarification needed
• Posted by Larry on November 7, 2006 at 9:05am EST

• Amazed, I am trying to understand what you are saying. Are you claiming that a complete elimination of affirmative action is a form of “discrimination.”

  Of course, there are many, perfectly legal forms of discrimination. In most places it is acceptable to discriminate against people based on looks, height, and the school they went to. So, what is your problem.

  There is no “equal treatment” clause of the 14th amendment. I think you might be referring to the end of section one which reads “...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Whatever the case, it is unclear how eliminating affirmative action would deny anyone equal protection.

• Posted by Amazed on November 7, 2006 at 9:40am EST

• I guess I was not clear enough Larry, I support the elimination of affirmative action. Because equal protection is part of the 14th Amendment this is not something that should be up for a vote. Why should the majority (women and preferred minorities) have a vote on whether to continue to discriminate against a minority (white and Asian men) through affirmative action, when such discrimination violates the Constitution? Justice O'Connor acted as though equal protection could be suspended for up to 25 years. Those 25 years should be ones of ceaseless struggle against affirmative action in order to make the country live up to the equal protection requirement despite that 25-year hiatus.

• Posted by Larry on November 7, 2006 at 11:05am EST

• Amazed, Perhaps it is worth reading what Justice O’Conner actually said. Naturally, one can claim that the Supreme Court “suspended” or modified the constitution, but somehow the party seeking a given interpretation will claim that no such “modification” is required, only a proper interpretation. Indeed, since it is rare that a winner of a court fight will claim that the result “made new law” or something like that, the generally lack credibility.

  Anyway, in Grutter v. Bollinger, O’Conner said that where an interest of the school is valid, the school may use race as a factor, but such interest will probably (but not necessarily) evaporate in 25 years. Specifically, she wrote “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” The “25 year figure” likely has something to the length of time between Grutter and the last time the court revisited the issue.

  As to what the Law School’s interests were, the school argued that they wished to have a 1) critical mass of minority lawyers; 2) a law school student body that reflects some diversity of experience. Indeed, University of Michigan is not the first to note that the population of lawyers may not reflect the country as a whole. For the most part, lawyers come from upper-middle class homes (especially at “top” schools), and have spent their lives avoiding the problems that plague minorities (i.e. getting confused with criminals). While it is true that white lawyers (like me) might be able to guess what it is like to be constantly subject to attention from the police, there are some things that we just can’t do: like recognize people of different races, and speak from first-hand knowledge about what it is like to be harassed about 10 cops for hanging out in front of one’s house.

  Now, to be fair, the law school may have had an easier time of this. Since lawyers are the ones that shape society, the law school can make an easy case that first-hand experience with racial issues is a compelling interest. Medical schools, and engineering schools might not be able to make such a case.

  However, if you are going to disapprove of the use of race as a factor, one might as well disapprove all “soft” factors, as well. For instance, perhaps it should be impermissible to consider a student’s participation in extracurricular activities, sports, motivation, and who their parents are. After all, if these activities were so valuable, they would be reflected in grades. Same deal with personal statements. Unfortunately, these “soft” factors are usually used to bring in otherwise unqualified students that everyone likes, and nobody wants to specifically justify.

  (I understand that it is common to refer to Supreme Court decisions without having read them, but I know that academics are trained to read source materials, so there is no way that they would do this.)

  Finally, it is worth noting that the equal protection clause has never been interpreted as requiring that everyone be treated equally. Instead, it has been interpreted as providing different levels of protection for different types of “classes” of people. So, at some level, those, who, say, choose to run a sand and gravel company, might be able to argue that their choice should not result in different regulation of their activities than those who choose to stay home and play chess. But, the Supreme Court has viewed such challenges with disfavor, choosing to ask the plaintiffs to show how the state lacked a “rational basis” for whatever disparate treatment was needed to vindicate some valid interest. When it comes to race, the Supreme Court makes the plaintiffs climb a lower mountain. The only question is: how high should the mountain be.

• Larry, we agree
• Posted by Ira Socol at Michigan State University on November 7, 2006 at 3:16pm EST

• Because I often battle Larry, I need to say here that I agree with almost everything that he says.

  There are two components, Amazed. One is that there is an essential societal interest in equal opportunity. Perhaps if there was (a) a 100% inheritance tax, and (b) no "soft factors" at all in college admissions, and (c) no variation across sub-population groups in education spending, facilities, teacher salaries, or resources, or no variation in health care, or no variation in joblessness, or no variations in housing, or (d) no variation in how the legal system treats differing people (one place Larry and I might disagree), then, I might agree that affirmative action need not exist.

  But colleges have a need and, as publicly funded institutions (and almost all are), a responsibility to seek a diverse student body and to help society equalize a historically imbalanced playing field.

  In some programs this is more important than in others perhaps... Law (as Larry says), Medicine (where white male doctors often ignored women's issues and minority issues), Criminal Justice, Social Work, Education, and (where even the Bush administration agrees), the Military. But there are very few classes in any educational system where a variety of cultural perspectives is not a positive for all students.

  The University of Michigan could simply accept the top 5% of Michigan high school grads each year, and not seek geographic, minority, or gender diversity. But then, many fewer great students would choose attend.

  And even if they did this, the whiny student who is Connerly's front-girl in this campaign still wouldn't have been admitted.

• Whiny? Girl?
• Posted by Chris J on November 7, 2006 at 4:40pm EST

• " .. the whiny student who is Connerly’s front-girl .."

  That "girl" is 29 years old. She was the lead defendant in the U-M undergrad case. Her father a police officer, her mother an RN. First in her family to go to a four-year college -- Mr. No-Nothing.

  Now we see one reason why MCRI should pass. This kind of sneering, look-down-your nose elitism has to end, for the USA to compete in the global economy. Edison said, "genius is 99% effort, 1% intelligence." How true.

  Next solution: charters and vouchers.

• Facts are Facts
• Posted by Ira Socol at Michigan State University on November 7, 2006 at 7:05pm EST

• I know this "Chris J" (since the court case made her records public) - On a straight merit system (test scores/high school GPA alone) she would not have even made the wait list at U of M that year. That she was wait-listed is a testament to those "soft" deciders you so dislike.

  There is a belief among white suburban kids in metro Detroit that they have an "automatic" right to UM (Ann Arbor) admission. If that right did exist, it would have to be straight numerics (as in Texas these days), and, the evidence is all there. She would not have made the cut - and, according to you, neither effort nor her parents nor certainly her position as "first in family" would have counted.

  Or do you only want affirmative action for those people you like - white girls who are "first in family" with service sector parents? Why would that group deserve "reverse discrimination" but not African-Americans? The reason we need Affirmative Action is because there is so much affirmative action for groups already in power.

  (It is important to remember that being "first in family" was worth points in that old UM system, and being from the Upper Peninsula was worth more points than being African-American.)

  By the way, exactly how did her mother become an RN without college?

• Posted by Ken on November 7, 2006 at 7:10pm EST

• Larry, I don't think the soft factors you mention are the same as using race. Sports, extra-curricular clubs, etc., could be participated in by minorities as well as whites, they are race neutral criteria. The Supreme Court has held racial classification to be different, and one can see why (it's morally irrelevant what color someone is). It's true the Court does not equate the equal protection clause with exactly equal treatment, but it has announced race to be a very suspect class. It is a good thing too, because we don't (at least I don't) want the government to, say, racial profile blacks to meet a compelling state interest (fighting crime) and to help a disadvantaged race (since most crime is intra-racial profiling blacks actually would help blacks more). I'd say that while such profiling is wrong it is just as wrong to use affirmative action to achieve the 'compelling' interest of diverse student bodies. This is of course parsing the legal issues; quite seperate is the moral argument: is it morally questionable to engage in usually morally wrong behavior (discriminating on race) that harms innocent persons (students who just happen to be white, who had no hand in oppressing anyone and may even be disadvantaged) to achieve a societal goal (equality or diversity). According to this rule if you went in for a check up and there were five folks who could use your organs to keep alive we should force you to donate them. That sounds rather wrong to me, and so does affirmative action.
  I think Ira's suggestion that these white students should be sacrificed on the altar of righting historical wrongs is even more dubious. We don't visit the sins of the fathers on their sons, so how much more silly to visit them on their neighbors sons...

• Sins and Inheritance
• Posted by Ira Socol at Michigan State University on November 8, 2006 at 12:55am EST

• "We don’t visit the sins of the fathers on their sons, so how much more silly to visit them on their neighbors sons."

  But of course we do visit those sins. If you are born to poor parents you are automatically disadvantaged. Your preparation for school will likely be less effective. Your schools will have fewer resources. Your teachers will be paid less less and often be less qualified. You will have access to fewer books, to fewer computers, to fewer cultural enrichments. You will not be able to pay to take the SAT or ACT multiple times to improve your scores nor will you be able to buy test preparation, or to pay for tutors or college "packagers." You won't even be able to afford most of the public colleges in Michigan (tuition might get covered, but you won't be able to live there or get there).

  And, if you are born African-American in Michigan (or born white from the Upper Peninsula, the two groups most "advantaged" by UM's old system), you are far more likely to be poor, far more likely to have a parent in prison, far more likely to be harassed and/or arrested by the police, far more likely to attend poorly resourced schools.

  So, are we happy to visit the "sins of the fathers" on everyone but white males from suburbia? Or do we strive to build a better society?

• Posted by Ken on November 8, 2006 at 8:45am EST

• Ira, this may be the de facto reality but you are suggesting making sons (and daughters) carry the sins of their fathers as the de jure policy of state. It's bad that inequality exists as social facts, but lets not legalize it.

• Mr. No-Nothing, again
• Posted by Chris J. on November 8, 2006 at 11:10am EST

• " .. By the way, exactly how did her mother become an RN without college? "

  Paths to RN status (without FOUR-year college):

  * Hospital diploma

  * LPN/LVN to RN

  * ADN/RN

  You're a real gem, Kid Einstein. Have a so-so day -- hope Starbucks is holding your old job open for you. I wouldn't let any child near your awesome knowledge-base and people skills -- and I hope others don't, either.

• Posted by Comm Prof on November 8, 2006 at 3:55pm EST

• Chris J.,

  That's a pretty snarky response.

  On your paths to an RN without a four-year degree:

  Hospital diploma programs are just about all gone. That's a good development, because they're next to worthless and are strictly vocational. That's not an education.

  LPN/RN That's community college. Moves one from bedpan-emptier to nurse. Still vocational and still not educated.

  ADN/RN This is years 3 and 4 of college, and should properly be described as RN/BSN -- where the student is exposed to some of college -- but it's still a BSN on the cheap for the university and a half-baked degree for the student.

  The 4-year BSN is the gold standard and should be what all nurses hold. It includes the liberal arts in addition to the sciences. It's particularly important for an aging population because it allows for the background and judgment to handle complex problems and deliver the standard of care that everyone deserves -- even you.