U-Mich AA

[Bob Sheridan]

Re: Michigan's adoption of the Ward Connerly inspired and backed Civil 
Rights Initiative, this from Abigail /Thernstrom, a senior fellow at the 
Manhattan Institute and vice chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil 
Rights, appearing in /the Wall Street Journal, Sunday, Opinion page. 

URL: 

http://tinyurl.com/y45gz4

***

*ELECTION 2006*

*Michigan Prefers Equality*
Ward Connerly triumphs again.

*BY ABIGAIL THERNSTROM*
/Sunday, November 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST/

Ward Connerly has done it again: A striking 58% of Michigan voters gave 
the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative a thumbs up; only three counties 
voted against it.

The language of the MCRI closely tracks California's 1996 Proposition 
209, also led by Mr. Connerly. It amends the Michigan Constitution to 
"ban public institutions from using affirmative-action programs that 
give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their 
race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, 
education or contracting purposes." The political and business 
establishments, pressure groups like the AARP, labor-union leaders, 
religious spokesmen, the professoriat, the major Detroit newspapers--all 
were opposed to MCRI. But a substantial majority of ordinary voters were 
thinking for themselves.

Patty Alspach was perhaps a typical supporter. A Democrat, she signed 
the petition putting the proposition on the ballot. Meanwhile, opponents 
loudly claimed that the measure was misleading, that voters were being 
duped, that it should be tossed off the ballot. "I read it," replied Ms. 
Alpach. "I understood it. I signed it. Now let me vote on it."

While Mr. Connerly is the father of the civil-rights initiatives, in 
Michigan his role was that of mentor and fund-raiser; Jennifer Gratz, 
MCRI's executive director, was in charge. She'd been the lead plaintiff 
in /Gratz v. Bollinger/, one of the University of Michigan cases decided 
by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2003. The Court agreed that 
race-driven admissions policies were okay as long as they remained a bit 
subtle--but no naked point system for the color of an applicant's skin. 
The drive for the MCRI was launched immediately after the /Gratz/ and 
/Grutter/ decisions were announced.

The initiative's opponents enjoyed a fivefold funding advantage, which 
they used to broadcast a series of scary messages. The MCRI would be a 
tragedy on the scale of 9/11; it would perpetuate a "culture of 
inequity," and "endanger access to life-saving health-care services that 
apply only to women"--the language of the initiative to the contrary 
notwithstanding. Opponents even found basketball coaches to tout the 
importance of seeking "diversity." In response to that last stunt, the 
tiny band of full-time, young MCRI workers (five on the payroll) sent a 
staffer--a /very/ short Korean immigrant, carrying a basketball and 
dressed for the court--to the coaches' press conference where he stated 
his eagerness to add "diversity" to the game.

Such episodes reveal the youthful idealism and commitment of Ms. Gratz, 
24, and her staff, so reminiscent of the civil-rights movement in its 
heyday. They were all 20-somethings, ready to sleep under their desks 
and work nonstop. Despite the provocative ugliness of the MCRI's 
opposition, they stuck with an unwavering, positive message--leavened 
with wit.

The ban on preferences will affect the state and local government, but 
the University of Michigan will feel its impact most keenly. In the 
closing pages of "The Shape of the River," William Bowen and Derrick 
Bok's celebrated book on preferential admissions, the authors warn that, 
if barred from using racial double-standards, institutions of higher 
education will find another way to achieve the desired racial mix on 
campuses. Straight out of the Bowen and Bok playbook, University of 
Michigan president Mary Sue Coleman issued a statement on Tuesday night 
(even before the final results were in): "Regardless of what happens 
with Proposal 2, the University of Michigan will remain fully and 
completely committed to diversity. I am determined to do whatever it 
takes to sustain our excellence by recruiting and retaining a diverse 
community of students, faculty and staff."

Brave words in the face of utter defeat. To be sure, Supreme Court 
opinions can often be circumvented behind closed admissions-office 
doors; that was certainly the story after the 1978 decision in 
/University of California v. Bakke/, which (on paper) sanctioned the use 
of racial identity only as a "plus" factor, one consideration among many 
in admitting students. But state constitutional amendments are seriously 
constraining, as the experience in California in the years since the 
passage of 209 suggests. Racial double-standards in college admissions 
has been markedly curtailed at the state's flagship schools.

Buried in a lengthy speech to University of Michigan students on 
Wednesday, Ms. Coleman did say, "of course the University of Michigan 
will comply with the laws of the state." It was far from her first 
thought, however, and she has asked the school's attorneys "for their 
full and undivided support in defending diversity." They'll waste their 
time. As George Mason University law professor David Bernstein notes, 
"the chances that the university would ultimately win such litigation 
approach zero."

Ms. Coleman's other problem is that the much-vaunted "diversity" of the 
university is something of a sham, as an editorial writer for the very 
liberal Daily Michigan newspaper has suggested. The campus "is starkly 
segregated. . . . We live in different student neighborhoods. We go to 
different bars on different nights. We join in different student groups. 
There are even separate Greek systems." While Ms. Coleman has made the 
usual noises about building a "community" and "creating a diverse, 
welcoming campus"--whom was she kidding? Apparently no one.

Dishonesty has always been the coin of the realm in this country when it 
comes to race--from the days of the Declaration of Independence to 
"separate but equal" and beyond. The use of race as a decisive factor in 
admissions at selective colleges and universities is no exception.

The modern-day survival of racial preferences depends on sympathetic 
judges willing to spin dubious arguments and ignore widely available 
data on the pernicious impact of such preferences. But, this time, the 
University of Michigan may find itself without judicial recourse. The 
Supreme Court has never said that universities are constitutionally 
obligated to institute "diversity" policies. Public universities are 
funded by taxpayers. And those taxpayers have spoken.

/Ms. Thernstrom is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and vice 
chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights./


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bobsheridan.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 73 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20061113/b4bcf758/bobsheridan.vcf