100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

May 20, 2002 - Image 5

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
Michigan Daily Summer Weekly, 2002-05-20

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Monday, May 20, 2002 - The Michigan Daily - 5
VIEWPOINT
Thle present need for affirmative action

P Affirmative action is
an inappropriate tool
for achieving diversity
To THE DAILY:
It is now clear to me, as it should
be to every other member of the
University community, that affima-
t ive action is headed for a constitu-
tional showdown in the highest court
of the land. The time has finally
come to settle this issue once and for
all. Is affirmative action constitution-
al or is it not? I think not!
It is obvious that many students
and members of the University
Administration support affirmative
action. They argue that it is the only
way to maintain an amalgamation of
diversity. I urge those of you who
have made up your mind to give
serious consideration that affirma-
tive action may not be the best possi-
ble way in which the administration
can increase diversity. I beg mem-
bers of the administration to recon-
sider the spending of millions of
dollars to defend affirmative action
and consider other options. For those
of you who have not yet made up
your mind, I encourage you to con-
sider the argument against affirma-
tive action.
As Pat Buchanan would put it,
"The University of Michigan has
neither the moral nor the Constitu-
tional authority to discriminate
against applicants." This certainly
includes reverse discrimination. "A
true respect for civil rights requires
we put an end to all forms of dis-
crimination, including reverse dis-
crimination. This means abolishing
set-asides, mandatory admittance
r and quotas." The practice of reward-
ing extra points on an application for
race is an inappropriate way to judge
an individual's academic potential
and an insult to minority intelli-
gence. The University should aban-
don race as a factor in favor of a
color-blind admissions policy.
The University's argument is
heavily based on their preference for
diversity in the student body. While
the administration has made a strong
and convincing case for diversity,
they have ultimately failed to consid-
er other options for achieving this.
These options include more class-
room space to increase the overall
size of the student body to facilitate
more minorities, targeted outreach
programs to encourage minority stu-
dent interest in the University and
University charter schools in devel-
oping minority areas. It is also a
gross misuse of student funds to pur-
sue this unfair policy through the
courts. The millions spent and the
millions more that will be spent
could have been used to reduce the
cost of tuition so that more financial-
ly disadvantaged students could
afford to attend the University - the
vast majority of whom are also
minority students.
It is with this in mind that I
implore the University to affirma-
tively abandon this policy of reverse
discrimination. There is no constitu-

tional basis for a public institution,
such as the University to take an
active role in influencing our society
in this way. Therefore, there is no
compelling authority for administra-
tors, regents or the University presi-
dent to support affirmative action.
NicK WAUN
Candidate for the Usmversity
Board ofRegents
Freedom fighting can
be a legitimate tactic
TO THE DAILY:
Luke Smith's column "Luke
Skywalker: 9/11-ing the Death Star,"
(05/13/02) is a creative look at the
subjects of terror and "freedom
fighters," but his assertions about
the relationship between the two are
overstated, to say the least. Smith
argues that "the term terrorist is
interchangeable with the term free-
dom fighter." He is correct in
asserting that indeed great powers
like the U.S. and the Soviet Union
have always called their preferred
rebel groups "freedom fighters"
and those they disliked "terrorists."
But the fact is that the two terms are
not interchangeable.
Terrorism is a political tool that
involves targeting civilians in a way
intended to inspire, well, terror Some
perfect examples are the Sep. 1
attacks, the rape of Nanking, the use of
nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki and (to keep Smith's analogy
going) the destruction of the planet
Alderaan by the Evil Empire to keep
other star systems in line. One can be a
freedom fighter and not use terror as a
tool. Luke Skywalker's raid on the
Death Star was an attack on a strictly
military target, intended not to destroy
imnocents and inspire terror, but to take
out a weapon of terror. When Smith
makes the assumption that taking up
arms against a repressive regime is
tantamount to terrorism, then he
implicitly makes the argument that any
established government is legitimate.
This is a dangerous assumption.
While democracy is certainly on the
rise around the globe, there are still a
frightening number of regimes that are
repugnant in their disregard for human
rights. They murder their own citizens,
jail and torture others for expressing
beliefs not shared by the government
and support acts of terror
But one thing Smith hits on the
head is that the U.S. has a long history
of supporting terror by backing "free-
dom fighters" who use terror as a
weapon. However, the U.S. also has a
long history of backing brutal dictators
if it serves our strategic interests. The
answer is not a blanket rejection of
"freedom fighters," but a foreign poli-
cy that genuinely supports democracy
and human rights. The U.S. at present
supports oppressive regimes like the
Saudi and the Pakistani governments
because it keeps the oil flowing our
way. What if instead of tying our aid to
these countries to demands for oil, we
tied our aid to demands for freedom?
RYAN RYNBRANDT
Rakham student

BY SARAH BooT
No one can dispute that racial diversity is
a crucial component of higher education.
The ability to appreciate different perspec-
tives enables people to thrive in the global
economy. This is why corporations such as
Motorola look to the University for recruits
before they look at schools with a substan-
tially lower rate of diversity like Dartmouth.
Obviously, these companies value the facet
of our education at the University that
enables us to learn to interact with people
from different races and cultures. This is why
our group-work, that we all find so aggravat-
ing at times, is essential. Our exposure with
diversity gives usan edge.
No one can dispute that the public educa-
tion system in grades K-12 is segregated and
grossly inadequate. At the Salvation Army in
Detroit, I tutor aboy who is a seventh-grade
honors student. At our last session, we
worked on three-digit addition and subtrac-
tion. Obviously, there is a very real problem
here. Seventh-grade honors students at sub-
urban middle schools are already light years
ahead studying algebra. If society were not
plagued with social injustices, affirmative
action would not be necessary to achieve
diversity. Look at what happened as a result
of the court rulings against affirmative action
policies in Texas and Georgia. The enroll-
ment rate of minorities dropped significantly.
So, why did that happen? The public educa-
tion received by many minority students and
the racial prejudices that still exist today have
a significant impact on their competitiveness
in the college admissions process.
Opponents of affirmative action claim
that it is ineffective because it does not

address the root of the problem - primary
and secondary education. It may be true that
if we simply fix the current problems facing
children in grades K-12 then we will achieve
this diversity. But please, tell me how you
propose to fix the problems with public edu-
cation. There have been great debates about
vouchers and accountability, but we are not
really any closer to a solution. This does not
mean we should stop searching for answers,
but why should higher education wait around
for these problems to be corrected first?
I came to the University from St. Joseph,
Mich., a small; predominately white middle-
class town in southwest Michigan that has an
amazing public school system. Across the
river from my small town lies Benton Har-
bor, a city with inadequate schools that is
composed of mostly low-income blacks.
There is a great deal of racial tension
between these communities, and I believe
that much of it stems from ignorance. I guess
you could say that before enrolling in the
University, my exposure to different races
and cultures was minimal. I suspect the same
is true of many students who come from
suburban areas similar to my own. There are
segregated areas like this across the country.
I use this example to highlight the value
of diversity in our education - in this case
the societal value. Exposure to different
races and cultures not only makes us more
marketable as potential employees, but it
makes us more aware of the realities that our
society faces. Through exposure to different
races, we can better bridge gaps of misun-
derstanding and combat the apathy that
many suburbanites feel toward working fur
solutions to societal problems that do not
directly affect them. This exposure is what is

necessary to improve the learning condi-
tions in grades K-12. There are a variety of
factors that have led us to our current state
of public education. Tolerance and under-
standing of different races are crucial if we
are ever going to be able to work together to
solve these deeply-rooted problems.
So, don't say we should fix K-12 first
and then we'll have diversity. It is not even
an issue of the chicken and the egg. Itis clear
that if we are to achieve the racial equality
that so many of us dream of, then we must
continue to use affirmative action to break
down the economic barriers that keep
minorities from gaining admission in higher
education and the social barriers that prevent
us from working together to make changes.
The University victory in these affirma-
tive action court cases is a great step in the
right direction. I hope that students main-
tain an active role in these cases as they
approach the Supreme Court. Itis certainly
exciting to be a part of something so big, so
historical. However if the Supreme Court
does rule in our favor, everyone must
understand that it does not end there. Critics
of affirmative action are right in saying that
the problems of K-12 should be solved.
Students of the University who have expo-
sure to other races and who understand the
gravity of the situation that society faces in
respect to failing schools should continue in
their future endeavors to strive for long-
term solutions to the problems of racial
inequality. Our ultimate goal should be to
shape ourselves into a society that no
longer has a need for affirmative action.
Boot is an LSA senior andpresident of the
Michigas StudestAssembly

Deconstructing the decision
KEVIN MCNEIL ANARBOR'S IGHTS DE
aw School School, is the same that would be given
Dean Jeffrey applicant with "an Olympic gold me
L ehman pro- PhD in physics, the attainment of age5
claimed that last class otherwise lacking anyone over
week's Grutter deci- the experience of having been a Vietn
sion was "A tremen- boat person." Judge Boggs rightly poi
dous victory for that equating these extraordinary an
higher education." The achievements with mere group status
University would like only misguided, but also disingenuou
us to interpret the rul- Law School's stated desire for exper
ing as an unequivocal affirmation of the diversity is really a front for achieving t
Law School's policies. Little in the opinion, ed racial enrollment levels.
however, can confirm this conclusion. The extent to which the Law S
In fact the majority opinion tries to sell will go to achieve these targeted1
Bakke v. University of Califomia Board of enrollment levels is staggering, a fi
Regents as the definitive guide without that the majority opinion dismisse
acknowledging that the decision is at best, average white or Asian applicant w
unclear. As Judge Danny Boggs points out LSAT score of 164-166 and a GPA of
in his dissent, "reasonable minds can and 3.49 had about a 22 percent chan
do differ on the holding, if any, to be found admission while an under-reprrs
in Bakke with respect to the diversity ratio-, minority applicant with similar crede
nale."Boggs dissent discredits the majority was guaranteed acceptance. Also, the
position, but also examines the Law School stops considering majority
School's stated goal to achieve a "critical cants below certain LSAT and grade
mass" of under-represented minority appli- levels while under-represented appl
cants. The majority is silent on why diversi- enjoy 80 percent admission rates. It a
ty is a compelling state interest, merely that two different admission systems
stating that itsis based solely upon Bakke - one for majority applicants, wh
and accepts that a "critical mass" of minori- summarily rejected at certain LSAT
ty students is not a quota. GPA levels and another for under-t
The Law School offers that the "diversi- sented minorities who nearly alway
ty" it seeks to achieve through its race-based automatically admitted. This two-trac
admission policies is a diversity of "experi- tem seeks to achieve a "critical mas
ences, outlooks and idea." Preference given under-represented minority students,A
to an under-represented minority in the the Law School vigorously contend
application process, according to the Law broad range even when enrollment

n to an
Idal, a
50 in a
30, or
amese
nts out
d rare
is not
s. The
iential
target-
chool
racial
nding
s. An
ith an
f 3.25-
ce of
ented
entials
e Law
appli-
point
icants
ppears
exist
to are
T and
repre-
ys are
k sys-
tss" of
which
s is a
it data

indicates itsis nearly always 13.5 percent.
"Critical mass" is really a quota in disguise.
Even if one were to accept the "critical
mass" on its face, Boggs rightfully ques-
tions how a prescribed number of under-
represented minorities contribute to
academic diversity in the first place. The
only evidence offered by the Law School is
a study conducted by Psychology Chair
Patricia Gurin. The study, prepared only for
the trial's purposes, attempts to frame the
benefits of a diverse student body in terms,
according to Boggs, that simply do not sat-
isfy strict scrutiny. Boggs casts doubt upon
the study for its many "empirical and
methodological defects," by the woman
who no less heads the residence advisor's
required diversity indoctrination course,
Psychology 405..
Boggs' dissent concludes by stating
that the Law School's plan does not
seek to achieve diversity as a means
for educational ends, rather that it
"seeks racial numbers for the sake of
the comfort that those numbers may
bring." His conclusion is the best
appraisal yet of the University's racial-
ly-motivated practices. The University
continues to fool itself into believing
that these concerns can be dismissed
and offers as its defense an intensely
divided decision that will not stand
Supreme Court review.
Kevin McNeil can be reached at
kmcneil@umich.edu.

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan