W -a -4-- _
- W - - - U W T - I
mw mw NW
14mm- MW -lw
,um-
1w w NOW
IRW IRW !.rl
r
110 TheMiciga Daly - edn sday.Otoer SO.0
Wednesday, October 4, 2006 - The Michigan Daily
COHEN
Continued from page 7B
and one statistical:
1) A member of our faculty, who
is white, sent me a letter, now in my
files, in which the following events
are recounted. Finding the work of
one of his students in a large course
to be entirely unsatisfactory, he gave
that student a failing grade. The stu-
dent, who was black, complained
vociferously, scorning the grade as
the product of blatant racism. The
faculty member brought the matter to
the chairman of his department seek-
ing advice. They examined together
the indisputable evidence of failure.
His chairman then said, in effect,
"You have two alternatives. You may
leave the failing grade unchanged,
which is plainly justifiable. I will
stand behind you if you do. The result
bid affirmative action. The Initiative
does not mention affirmative action,
many forms of which are clearly
worthy and not at all preferential. The
MCRI bears only upon discrimina-
tion and preferences given by the
state.) Our president and others in her
administration have spoken strongly
in opposition to the MCRI, because
they wish to retain some ethnic pref-
erences. Supporters of the initiative
among our faculty are numerous but
for the most part silent. Why? Ours is
a faculty of strong and self-confident
intellects. We do not fear that we will
be penalized if we disagree with the
president. There would be no such
penalty, and we know that. What then
can explain this remarkable silence?
Shelby Steele explains it very well.
The preferences we give to
minorities in admission (and in other
contexts) were initiated as a form
of compensation for injuries earlier
inflicted; they were efforts to make
retributive payment. In reality those
preferences impose great burdens
on minorities, burdens that outweigh
is likely to be very messy; we - you any benefits they appear to offer;
and I and our department - will in nevertheless the preferences are
that case become the focus of a nasty commonly viewed as instruments
public controversy. The allegations, of redress. This compensatory inten-
although unjustified of course, will tion was for many years explicit.
be widely believed, in and out of the But equal treatment under the law is
University. Or, if you choose, you plainly inconsistent with compensa-
may change the grade, a very simple tion by ethnicity; one is entitled to
matter that I will also support, and redress for injury without regard to
the ugly problem will go away. The skin color. So the compensatory jus-
choice is entirely yours." tification of preference was thrown
This professor's choice, as his out by the courts, even though it
letter reported with self-conscious remains for most ordinary folks the
shame, was to change the grade. Of only ground on which preferences
course this anecdote proves noth- might make any sense at all. Our
ing. How many cases like it there University, defending preferences in
have been on our campus we cannot the courts, renounced that compen-
know. White guilt is indeed some- satory justification explicitly, resort-
times transformed into black power. ing instead to the one justification
2) Our faculty as a whole has that had some hope of winning the
knuckled under the pressure of guilt. legal battle: diversity.
Consider: From careful studies of the Justice Powell, alone among the
attitudes of university faculties around nine justices of the Supreme Court,
the country we know that preferences had suggested (in Regents v. Bakke,
given to racial minorities in admission 1978) that diversity in enrollment
- like the preferences we give - are might serve as constitutional sup-
strongly disapproved by most aca- port for race preference. A Supreme
demics. Here at the University, where Court majority of five (in Grutter
the defense of such preferences is the v. Bollinger, 2003) followed him,
conventional wisdom, it is probable registering its acceptance of some
that those who strongly disapprove race preferences because they met
of preferences are a smaller-than- an alleged "compelling need" for a
average percentage of the whole. But "critical mass" of students in each of
ours is a faculty of thousands. Among three ethnic minorities.
these thousands there are indubita- As a defense of race preference,
bly at least scores, probably many the alleged compelling need for
hundreds who disapprove of the race racial diversity is entirely with-
preferences we give. How many dis- out merit. That defense has been
senters register their disapproval pub- advanced and accepted only because
licly? Two persons? Three? there is no other way, under the U.
Why is it so difficult for members S. Constitution, to rescue the drive
of our faculty to speak out in support to expiate white guilt. We are told
of The Michigan Civil Rights Initia- repeatedly, by people who seem not
tive, which, if adopted this Novem- to fear embarrassing themselves, that
ber, will forbid such preferences and diversity is the very heart of educa-
all discrimination by national origin, tional excellence. The compensatory
sex, or race? (It certainly will not for- payments by race that cannot oth-
erwise be defended are saved by a
dreadful argument.
That the diversity defense is no
more than a stratagem is made
manifest by the history of this con-
troversy. Diversity was hardly ever
mentioned until the compensatory
justification was thrown out by the
courts. The evidence in the Michigan
cases (Grutter and Gratz) exposes
and highlights the ruse. If a "critical
mass" of minority students (what was
claimed to be a compelling need) in
the black minority requires, let us
say, 50 blacks among the incoming
law school class, how can it be that
only 25 are needed for a critical mass
of Hispanics? And only five for a
critical mass of Native Americans!
Candor compels the admission that
all our talk about using preference to
achieve a "critical mass" of students
in each minority for the sake of edu-
cational excellence is - in the words
of four members of our Supreme
Court - a "sham." It is a device.
the only device available with which
we can continue to satisfy the inner
compulsions of white guilt.
I ask you to reflect. Can an
increase in the number of certain
racial minorities in the Law School
entering class be a truly "compel-
ling" need for the state of Michigan?
Think about that claim. It is nothing
short of preposterous. Some states in
our country, Massachusetts and oth-
ers, do not even have a state-support-
ed law school. Can the racial makeup
of the entering law school class at the
University be compelling while in
other healthy states such a class does
not even exist?
There are, moreover, many edu-
cational contexts in which racial or
ethnic diversity is absent while the
intellectual level maintained is very
high. Diversity is indeed a good thing
- but the claim that the need for
diversity is so compelling that it over-
rides the Constitutional guarantee of
civic equality is one we swallow only
because, by holding our nose and
gulping it down, we can go on doing
what our feeling of guilt demands.
That citizens must be treated
equally, without regard to race or
national origin and without discrimi-
nation or preference,is thefundament
of the American experiment. That is
the proposition, Lincoln rightly said.
to which our nation is dedicated.
Yes. And is that dedication now to
be given up for the claimed (but very
uncertain) advantages of classroom
discussions in which more students
of different colors are in the room?
You cannot seriously believe that.
We try to be honest, of course;
to retain our integrity we look away
from what we are doing. We have
been sacrificing fundamental beliefs
because (although we hardly under-
stand ourselves fully) we feel that
such racial preference is an inescap-
TALKING POINTS
Three things you can talk about this weel
1. Bob Woodward
2. Dumplings
3. Penguin book covers
And three things you can't:
1. Terrell Owens
2. Fox News's 10-year anniversary
3. Conde Nast
k:
YOUTUBE
VIDEO OF
THE WEEK
Frank Zappa
discussing the sins
of rock music on
an 1986 edition of
"Crossfire"
Hirsute musician Frank Zappa's
Regan-era appearance on the polit-
ical talk show "Crossfire" along-
side a Washington Times writer is
the kind of over-the-top back-and-
forth that keeps unabashedly sensa-
tionalized cable news shows on the
air today. Zappa self-righteously
declares that "the biggest threat to
America today is not communism,
it's the movement toward a fas-
cist theocracy" as he defends rock
music's right to offend the sensibil-
ities of the nation's ever-vulnerable
core of middle-American WASPs.
The money shot: Zappa bluntly
cutting off his opponent and telling
him to "kiss (his) ass." Whoops.
QUOTES OF THE WEEK
I want to spend every
single night for three months
going out with a different
famous actress. You know,
Halle Berry one night, Salma
Hayek the next and then
walk on the beach hold-
ing hands with Leonardo
DiCaprio."
- Actor GEORGE CLOONEY, on his
plan to defeat the paparazzi by pretend-
ing to have a new flame in Hollywood every
night for three months.
"Maf54 (7:37:27 PM): how my favorite
young stud doing
Xxxxxxxxx (7:37:46 PM): tired and sore
Xxxxxxxxx (7:37:52 PM): i didnt no waltz-
ing could make you sore
Maf54 (7:38:04 PM): from what
Xxxxxxxxx (7:38:34 PM): what do you
mean from what
Xxxxxxxxx (7:38:42 PM): waltzing... im
sore from waltzing"
- Instant message correspondence between
MARK FOLEY (R-Fla.) and a 16-year-old former
page, from a transcript on Slate.com.
"(It's) like getting hit by a truck."
- Writer/director STEVE ZAILLIAN, on the dev-
astating box-office and critical failure of his new
remake "All the King's Men."
BY THE NUMBERS
Percentage of University women who are looking for a relationship.
Percentage of University men who are single.
Percentage of University men who are looking
for "whatever they can get."
Statistics (obviously unscientific) taken from facebook.com.
TREND OF THE WEEK
Creating reality TV shows about the Carters (cf. not as
in Carter-Cash, as in Carter-Backstreet).
RANDOM WIKIPEDIA.ORG
ARTICLE OF THE WEEK
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.
"Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
is a grammatically valid sentence used as an example of how hom-
onyms and homophones can be used to create complicated con-
structs. It has been known to exist since 1972 when the sentence
was used by William J. Rapaport, currently an associate profes-
sor at the University at Buffalo. It was posted to 'Linguist List' by
Rapaport in 1992. It was also featured in Steven Pinker's 1994 book
'The Language Instinct.'
Sentences of this type, although not in such a refined form, have
been known for a long time. A classical example is a proverb 'Don't
trouble trouble until trouble troubles you.'
Other examples include:
Police police police police police police.
Dogs dogs dog dog dogs.
Badgers badgers badger badger badgers."