Comments on Delay of Affirmative Action Ban Rejected

• Still unanswered question
• Posted by L.L. on January 2, 2007 at 7:45am EST

• Executives are supposed to anticipate and prepare for possible outcomes.

  Did anyone at U-M, MSU, or WSU anticipate that Proposal 2 *might* pass? And make appropriate plans?

  Oh -- perhaps they were deluded by Proposal 5 (mandatory 16% of state budget for K-16) -- which was defeated by an even-larger majority.

  Never mind.

• Administrative Die-Hards and True Believers
• Posted by Chuck on January 2, 2007 at 11:16am EST

• L.L.'s questions are timely and incisive.

  In my view, academic administrators are so deeply committed to upholding and perpetuating racial and gender double standards, that their quasi-religious commitments simply did not allow them to imagine Proposal 2 would pass so resoundingly.

  Hence they made almost no contingency plans.

  It is wonderful to watch those pious, sanctimonious defenders of double standards stew in their own juice.

  We have surely not heard the last of their appalling and irrelevant reasons why they should ignore the courts.

• Posted by Larry on January 2, 2007 at 1:40pm EST

• In all fairness, I don’t think that school administrators need to plan for possible changes in the law. Instead, at best, they should be good at complying with the law as it stands. Do you really think that a police department in a state which might decriminalize all drugs should begin firing all its drug enforcement officers on the off chance that it will happen? Should it euthanize its drug dogs, or give them to blind children? Schools don’t need to be profitable, and any “losses” sustained in adapting to something the voters wanted, is a choice that the voters made.

  Anyway, back to the real world of legacy admits, padded transcripts, and stupid essays.

• Posted by wolf on January 2, 2007 at 3:25pm EST

• Larry,

  Larry,

  Do you really feel that "legacy admits, padded transcripts, and stupid essays" are on the same level as racial discrimination?

  The latter two are clearly something that everyone would like to see eliminated. Legacy admits go the acceptability criteria of (only private?) schools. One can like or dislike them, but do you truly think they are at the same level as discriminating for or against someone because the color of their skin?

• Affirmative Action “where’s the balanced debate”
• Posted by Walker , Student at Bowie State University on January 2, 2007 at 3:25pm EST

• Affirmative Action “where’s the balanced debate”

  I will be brief so you won’t have to use your “straw-man/red-herring” responses. Simple; Why was Affirmative Action born in the first place? Will rolling it back negatively or positively effect the impetus of creation? Will those who champion the white students also offer action to force admissions staff to do what they would not do before affirmative action? Will the roll back disproportionately effect a certain group over another? What is the long term (National) interest of returning to the days of (publicly) limiting quality educational attainment by ALL…….Opps I’m sorry too Constitutional?

  I know, I know –but what about me, I am a White student who has never done wrong to anybody, why me-? Why me, I am an American in America so why am I being discriminated against in my own country? Why me, I studied, lettered, debated, served, and never got into trouble? Why me, it’s not fair I cannot go to my first choice and may have to settle elsewhere for a quality education? Yes I do think it’s fair for a culture of people to attempt to address generational wrongs by at least educating the children of the wronged as a way of repairing the generational-family damage that was done through “slavery”. Race card, I don’t think so, it’s more like a “reality” check. (i.e. Because your dad, mom, aunt, cousin, brother, sister, grand, and great-grand, were NOT ALLOWED to read and write, you are expected to love school and/or do well)

  So where do I sit?, with Bill Cosby, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and there ilk. The nerve of those guys, trying to get ALL AMERICANS educated at the highest global competitive level. Yes that’s right, the African American community has to champion what’s at stake, but for the majority to constantly ignore the forced situation is to spite the scholar modeled most, A Educated Immigrant from the United States. (excluding ALL Natives of course)

• Posted by Larry on January 2, 2007 at 4:35pm EST

• Wolf, Yes, I do. I think that all sorts of discrimination goes on in the admissions process, and affirmative action, for all its faults, attempted to establish a objective system with a stated end-goal. Of course, you might disagree with that goal, or even whether AA was an effective means to achieve it.

  On the other hand, I don’t know what purpose a “legacy admit” serves (besides encouraging donations to the school), and it (along with the other factors I mentioned) encourages the overuse of subjective factors that nobody can identify or control.

  I don’t have a position on whether AA is a good thing or not. Please don’t say that I do. I really don’t care.

  Walker, I don’t think you really understand the debate over the constitutionality over affirmative action. The debate is not over whether it is “required” or not, but whether states have a valid interest in instituting it.

• "Suicide" or "Murder"?
• Posted by Chuck on January 2, 2007 at 4:35pm EST

• It is not easy to pinpoint the many reasons for the slow death of racial, ethnic or gender preferences (e.g. "affirmative action," "diversity," etc.) in college admissions, public contracting, and public employment.

  But we must weigh the importance of the unconstitutional excesses and blatant racial and ethnic double standards that were so glibly and piously used, abused, and tolerated by universities and the media.

  To that extent, the abusers of affirmative action have only themselves to blame for its exposure, denunciation and demise.

  The critics of such practices in California, Washington, and Michigan) merely drove the final nails in its unctuous and distasteful nature.

  Blame those critics if you like, but a majority of the blame for the death of affirmative action still lies with its unrepentent, overzealous and indefensible supporters.

• Posted on January 2, 2007 at 6:16pm EST

• The USA continues to run backwards, racing itself into the sordid and seamy past of racism, intolerance, and gender identification. As a white male who has been passed over numerous times for consideration by various institutions seeking someone to teach women's studies, I am told I should be bitter. I am not. Women, for too long, have been discriminated against because of their gender. In the same way, people of color have been discriminated against--because of their color. The politics and policy of inclusion are being discarded in favor of exclusion and capitulation to the white male--and I remain a white male as that is how I was born--and that neocon policy of reverse discrimination and return to the bad-old days when white males were the core of the student body and others left on the periphery is what is destroying the USA. And that is why I left the USA, as have many others, for the nations south and north of the USA are trying to correct the injustices of the past. Women and minorities are rising in the governments of South America, Europe and elsewhere.

• Posted on January 2, 2007 at 10:45pm EST

• Comma,

  Do you suppose that it's possible that you were passed over for teaching assignments because the women who secured the positions were actually more qualified than you? When your take is that you were simply passed over because of your white-maleness (although you welcome and are not offended by that decision) then your own prejudice comes shining through.

  And using European and South American countries (at least most of them) as shining examples of racial or gender-imposed affirmative action falls a little flat.

  Kevin

• Repugnant
• Posted by Cendrine at Author on January 3, 2007 at 5:35am EST

• What sickens me is that Mary-Sue, Billie-Jo, Ellie-Mae Coleman (president of U of M) is using taxpayer money to pay fleets of lawyers to fight a taxpayer voted upon and approved initiative!

  Where does Mary-Sue, Billie- etc. get off thinking that she knows what is best for the taxpayers of Michigan than they know themselves? Or that she knows the constitution better than this extremely sensible federal judge?

  Mary-Sue was just signed to another contract with the university amidst much hooplah. I say the contract ought to be terminated effective immediately because Mary-Sue Coleman has ceased to be a servant of the state and of the people, but is an ideologue operating under the groundless delusion that she can disobey the law of Michigan and ignore the will of the people who pay her hulkingly large salary.

• this is how we do it in the USA...
• Posted by Larry on January 3, 2007 at 8:46am EST

• Cendrine, Without commenting on the merits, I should point a few things out:

  Like it or not, most decisions in the US are not made by a “majority” of people in any jurisdiction. Legal decisions are made by judges, lawyers, and legislatures, which are only vaguely beholden to a “majority” of the electorate. The US constitution is chock-full of counter-majoritarian provisions (e.g. vetos, the senate, the Supreme Court, and fixed terms of office).

  While the U.S. Constitution has no provisions for a popular vote on anything, state constitutions do, and when states vote on things, individuals rely on lawyers to tell them what they are voting on. (Quite frankly, non-lawyers can’t understand the context in which ballot initiatives emerge, and need to rely on “summaries” and “descriptions” because they don’t have the time or inclination to see how a conflict emerged.)

  On top of that, I can probably claim that every decision made by a decision-maker runs contrary to the “majority’s” will.

  Taking difficult legal positions is a function of just about any university. So long as a university complies with the terms of valid court orders, there is no reason to punish people for taking positions on the interpretation of American laws (which includes a lot more than the results of some popular vote). By your logic, any prosecutor that ever makes an argument against exclusion of evidence is going against the “majority” of the country (which chose not to void the 4th amendment) and should be fired for even suggesting that the defendant’s position is wrong.

  Finally, the 6th Circuit is multiple judges.

• Don't you just love a good debate
• Posted by Walker at BSU on January 3, 2007 at 8:25pm EST

• Non-White + Opportunity = US Strength

  I appreciate your observation Larry relative to the Constitutionality of the debate at hand. You my good man have missed the intent,,,,,,,,,,,,,,now twice.

  The Constitutionality reference in my piece is an attempt to tie the argument to the “intent of Law”, also known as the “spirit of Law”. Indeed many of men have been slighted because of unintended consequences of the Law. At the same time we must remain true to what the US experiment is, just that, an experiment. We must never dilute ourselves into thinking any of us truly has a clue. Remember, humans operate out of a process of subjugating “Reality”, so the Constitution is open to vast interpretation. That is why the intent or spirit is the goal. –although often not achieved, and ignored-

  Therefore, we come to the end game, if the Constitution is a doc for all then Affirmative Action is a welcomed proviso. Remember, the Constitution was written by and for land owning white men, and land owning white men who owned slaves, hence what most have recognized, as the “unintended unfair consequences” (the who ME effect) are actually the “intended consequences”. Remember the impetus of Affirmative Action is to LEVEL the playing field, and to provide OPPORTUNITY, so an appalling recognition had to happen for this unbalanced measure to come about.

  I am not an proponent for unbalanced access to higher ed, but (yes but) remember there is no such thing as Affirmative Action; classes, grades, study halls, special sessions, lines during registration, dorms, intramural teams, or work study. It actually seems that Affirmative Action attempts to execute the “intent” of the US Constitution, you know that boring stuff,,,,,,,,,,,,,life liberty and the pursuit of happiness! (education required)

• intent, spirit, and the pursuit of happiness
• Posted by Larry on January 4, 2007 at 8:45am EST

• “Intent” and “spirit” of laws usually refers to completely different concepts. Unfortunately, both of them are prone to abuse as a tool of rhetoric.

  “Intent” generally refers to looking to the “intent” of drafters in order to ascertain certain definitions of words or phrases. “Spirit” refers to some embodied principles in the law that might not be found anywhere in its text, that somehow should override a normal understanding of what a text means. This does not require a reference to anyone’s personal intentions or understandings.

  The rest of your comment is somewhat difficult to understand. Affirmative action is not required by the constitution. The only remaining constitutional question if whether the constitution forbids it. In particular, the charge is that affirmative action violates the 14th amendment, which, contrary to your somewhat bizarre suggestion, was not written by slave-owners. In fact, it was drafted in reaction to slave-ownership. So, this part of your argument is somewhat problematic.

  I, personally, don’t care about affirmative action. In never helped or hurt me. I don’t see it doing any good or bad for the country, at least as compared to other forms of preferences.

  Finally, the “pursuit of happiness” is not found anywhere in the constitution.

• Your straw-man argument would put a scarecrow to shame
• Posted by Walker at Bowie State University on January 5, 2007 at 10:20am EST

• Classic Straw-man: you have made a complete argument over 5 words in the original offering. You missed the vast assumptions made, didn't even touch them. I left the position vulnerable to prove a point that most would choose to respond by creating diversion instead of debating the biggest issue the US face’s today,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,what is access/fairness and who decides how it will be administered? (Affirmative Action 101)

  One point of clarity, no where in my writings do I suggest that Affirmative Action is in the Constitution. The closest I came was my argument for why Affirmative Action is justified through the “intent and spirit” of the Constitution. Sure the Constitution has many amendments in fact it has been altered quite a bit. STILL the intent and spirit tries to provide a template from which a society can be supported in its attempts to secure and provide opportunity for all its citizenry. So anytime the US does ANYTHING that affects its citizens (through; law, amendments, ordinances, or any other binding public protocol) there is always a constitutional check.

  In addition, in some way you do care about Affirmative Action that’s why WE are enjoying this point counter point. (quid pro quo)!

  Thank you for your passion

• Posted by Anonymous on January 24, 2007 at 6:45pm EST

• You all think too hard about this, personally, I'm for aff action, but the thing is, I don't have any statistics, to go by, so I'm stuck. Anyone got proof of negativity or postivity? It'd really help.