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."