OP/ED
The Michigan Daily - Tuesday, June 24, 2003 --5
'U' STUDENTS WEIGH IN
Court, civil rights movement
not born yesterday
AUBREY HENRETTY NEURzTICA
The triumph of the smug
ZAC PESKOWITZ THE LoWER FREQUENCIES
The civil rights
movement is not
new. The civil
rights movement did not
begin yesterday. The
"'new' civil rights move-
ment" did not begin yes-
terday. QED.
The student activists'
de rigueur Diag rally cel-
ebrating yesterday's U.S. Supreme Court
"victory" would not have irritated me near-
ly as much had it not been for the self-
righteous self-alignment of a few vocal
campus personalities with the likes of Mar-
tin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks. I don't
fault them for that alignment - the world
would be a better place if more people
aligned themselves with such heroes - but
I do fault them for insinuating that the
"old" civil rights movement is passe and
that the souped-up sequel has been brought
to us by die-hard defenders of affirmative
action.
Equally self-righteous was the main-
stream conservative reaction, which, as
usual, was the mirror image of the main-
stream liberal one. Just as liberals skipped
happily to the tune of race as "potential
plus factor" in Law School admissions
(superior in the knowledge of having been
right all along), conservatives heralded the
death of race as a category in the under-
graduate point system as proof that white
people have been suffering state-sanctioned
prejudice for years under the University's
giant, heavy liberal thumb.
So what happened? Who's right?
The short answer is that the Supreme
Court made a reasonable decision, and out-
spoken speakers at both ends of the politi-
cal spectrum each declared victory for their
own unreasonable reasons. The long answer
is as follows:
Via elementary school curriculums
across the country, children are taught that
race and gender don't matter, that cultural
background, sex, socioeconomic class, skin
color and/or ethnic heritage have no bear-
ing on anything, that people are all exactly
the same under their clothing and their skin
and that anyone can do anything with a lit-
tle hard work and determination. In the
minds of more conservative little ones, this
lesson evolves into a credo of personal
responsibility; it doesn't matter how cruel
life is to anyone, because everyone can
overcome adversity, even excel, given prop-
er motivation and effort. Future hard-line
liberals take the same lesson to mean that
in an ideal world, the law of averages would
bring all professional fields, universities,
circles of friends, non-professional fields,
movie theatres, talk show audiences and
vacation destinations into perfect racial,
ethnic and gender balance, and if that does-
n't happen, it is an outrage for which a
closed-minded, racist and/or patriarchal
society is to blame.
Grown-up conservatives don't under-
stand the concept of luck (good or bad) and
the profound effects it can have on an indi-
vidual's life, nor do they believe any combi-
nation of the above factors might itself
make someone a valuable asset to a learn-
ing community. Grown-up liberals are terri-
fied of becoming racist, classist, basically
any other word ending in "ist" (except
"feminist," which is OK) and/or patriarchal,
and will scoff disgustedly the moment.
someone suggests that in some cases, any
of-the above factors might not
itself make someone a
particularly valuable asset
to a learning community,
at least not any more so
than their fully advan-
taged white and/or
male counterparts.
As long as we
live in a world
where people
look and
s pe ak dif-
and prac-
tice differ-
e n t
religions
and like
to eat dif-
fe rent
kinds o f
food and so
forth, people
themselves in
the minority#
of any given
population will
experience life
differently
than their
majority
counterparts.
because of
o v e r t
and/or
covert dis-
crimination, some-
times not. Sometimes the difference is
great; sometimes it's almost nonexistent.
For these reasons, the Supreme Court
was exactly right in striking down the Uni-
versity's use of race in the undergraduate
admissions point system and upholding the
Law School's practice of considering an
applicant's race - in conjunction with
everything else about that applicant - as
something that helps make him or her who
he or she is. The point system rigidly
defined race as 20 points worth of your
value to the University (or of its to you,
depending on how cynical you are) - an
impractical and oversimplified (and
arguably racist) approach. Law School
admissions officers look at whole people,
which - correct me if I'm wrong - is
what the civil rights movement (the one that
really took off several decades ago) is all
about.
The rush to declare political victory on
the right and the left - and all the related
squabbling and pontificating - has drawn
attention away from imperfections of ide-
ologies in both directions. Reason may have Protesters declare victo
won this time, but the raging right- and left- U.S. Supreme Court's de
ists so quick to claim the win as their own
had much less to do with it than they'd have
you believe.
W.IfCHGA
Henretty can be reached at
ahenretmich edu.
"I am proud of the role of
the University of Michigan
in this important debate."
- University Presi-
dent Mary Sue Coleman
in yesterday's campus-
wide e-mail.
i x
WASHINGTON -
sst. I have secret for just you and me.
Mary Sue Coleman and the University
never wanted the Supreme Court to hear
Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger. Not
that you would know that from the strutting
and preening that accompanied the court's
landmark decision. AnAssociated Press pho-
tographer caught Coleman bounding about the
steps of the Supreme Court, sporting a catfish
grin and basking in the vibrant blue skies of a
perfect Washington morning.
The tropes most likely to appear in today's
papers if Coleman's publicists get their way:
Coleman as a modern-day Moses, the Univer-
sity as the New Colossus and Michigan as
land of hope and glory.
All well and good, but Coleman's pose is an
intellectually dishonest one. Back in September,
when the former president of the University of
Iowa was just starting her tenure in Ann Arbor,
when Maureen Mahoney, legal counsel brought
in from Latham and Watkins, made the surprise
announcement
that the University
would not seek to
appeal its case to
the nation's high-
est court. "We
will ask the court
to deny the appeal
and not to hear the
case," she blithely
stated at a Sept.
18 University
forum on the law
suits. Instead, the
University's legal
braintrust argued
that you simply
don't appeal to the
Supreme Court
when you win at
the district level.
But these cases
merited a different
response.
A bit of con-
text is in order.
Since 1992, affir-
mative action
programs have
come under a
carefully cali-
brated assault.
The opening
fusillade was
launched at the,
University of Texas, which had its law school
admissions policies struck down in Hopwood
v. Texas. In Georgia, the U.S. I1th Circuit
Court of Appeals struck down affirmative
action in Johnson v. Board of Regents. And in
Smith v. University of Washington Law Schoor,
the famously liberal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals upheld Washington's admissions plan.
With the circuits in a twist, both Texas and
Washington sought an audience with the
supremes, but both parties' advances were
rebuffed.
Academia was forced to size up the
remaining field of contenders and Grutter and;
Gratz were unanimously viewed as the heavy-
weights with the best chances of upholding
affirmative action at the Supreme Court. Geor-
gia simply dropped its appeal and deferred to
the University. With the circuit courts reaching
irreconcilable conclusions on the constitution-
ality of affirmative action, the scene at the 6th
Circuit Court of Appeals became nothing
more than pre-fight sparring before the ulti-
mate battle in Washington. If the University
did not appeal, then a good portion of the
country (not to mention that this portion, the
South, is where the need for affirmative action
is even more acute than Michigan) would have
been left in limbo. Even as Coleman was stat-;
ing that "the whole country has a stake in
these cases," the University had somehow hyp-
notized itself into believing that it could sim-
ply walk away from the appeals process.
In the weeks that followed the announce-
ment, Coleman and her comrades in the Flem-
ing Administration Building continued to
support this policy -- until the court's Dec. 2
decision to grant certiorari made all this moot.
But the University still incomprehensibly
clings to the logic of its choice. When asked
yesterday if the University had any regrets
over this ill-conceived policy, University
spokeswoman Julie Peterson responded that it
continues to stand by its logic.
Yesterday was a proud day for the Univer
sity. We were vindicated. All those fancy law
firms and all that hard work. Students going
sleepless nights riding on busses to Detroit,
Cincinnati and, eventually, Washington. It all
meant something, this dedication mattered and
we have more than memories to tell our kids
someday, their futures will be better for this
decision. We went toe to toe with the U.S.
solicitor general and the president, and guess
who came out victorious. But there are still
those memories from last fall, when the Uni-
versity administration was content to carve out
a little duchy in Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio'
and Michigan where affirmative action would
be legal and let the rest of the country fend for,
itself. If the breast-beating triumphalism of
our campus elders glimpsing in the sun has
you feeling a trifle queasy today, don't worry
- you're not alone.
ZacPes itz can be reached
at eska i mich.edu
VIEWPOINT
Civil rights victory!
VIEWPOINT
Court makes first step, 'U' must follow through
BY STEPHEN MAcGUIDWIN
Congratulations to the University of
Michigan undergraduate class of 2008!
Though you do not yet even know who you
are, the U.S. Supreme Court has recently
guaranteed you the right to equal treatment,
regardless of your race. It now falls on the
shoulders of the key decisionmakers at the
University to make sure that the University's
admissions policies comply with the ruling of
the court to stop discrimination on the basis
of race. Such a policy will be easy to imple-
ment for the University; there is already a
rubric for admittance in effect. The court was
clear in its decision. The 20 points must go.
The racial imbalance that has plagued both
the workforce and higher education since the
1960s is not one for the University to solve.
Despite the noble efforts of the University, a
disparity between the races remains. However,
the justices of the Supreme Court have recog-
nized that it is not the responsibility of higher
education to provide a remedy to problems
that manifest before an applicant even sub-
mits his application. We as a society must
work to supplement the education of those
trapped in underperforming school systems,
regardless of the students' races. The correct
avenue to remedy the societal disparity is for
the University to participate in changes to ele-
mentary education and work to strengthen the
family. When we provide the youth of Ameri-
ca with a strong elementary education, uni-
versities will not need to elevate the status of
students to find qualified applicants of all
races. By the time that students are ready to
apply to college, a student's work ethic will
have already been established. Reinforced
values and a high quality education will bene-
fit the youth of America much more than a
handout at the post-secondary level.
The court's decision in both cases ruled
that diversity is a compelling state interest for
discrimination. There is not an American that
will argue that diversity promotes a positive
learning environment. However, diversity is
more than skin deep. The University must
make a better effort to explore the avenues of
a colorblind admissions policy and work to
create diversity based on the experiences and
cultures of different individuals, rather than
skin tone. Being of a certain race does not
qualify a person to all of the characteristics or
stereotypes that such race-based policies seek
to create.
Plans have been introduced within the last
five years in Texas, Florida and California to
guarantee admission to students in the top
percentiles of their graduating classes. The
results of these experiments show that minori-
ty enrollment has remained the same, and the
advantage is that such diversity is founded
upon the principles of a united student body
bound by the common bonds of high academ-
ic achievement. The advantage to these poli-
cies, besides having admissions policies
consistent with the 14th Amendment, is that
they all require state cooperation. Our gover-
nor, Jennifer Granholm, has expressed herself
to be a proponent of diversity, and undoubted-
ly she should play an integral role in imple-
menting such a program. When implemented
in the state of Michigan, public education will
be guaranteed to the most promising and
intelligent - paramount of the public educa-
tion model.
The court's decision also strives to break
down stereotypes created by race-based
admissions. Under the current system, the
rationale is that diversity is achieved through
racial preferences because different races
have different experiences. However, these
same methods that seek to classify the socio-
economic status of an applicant by race, only
further perpetuate stereotypes assigned to dif-
ferent races. Experiences and true diversity is
comprised of a combination of different eco-
nomic classes, geographical areas and politi-
cal affiliations. If we are to learn anything
from the civil rights era, it is that all men are
created equal.
My generation believes in the virtues of
racial tolerance, cultural sensitivity and an
awareness of different beliefs. We never expe-
rienced white-only restaurants or segregated
washrooms. My education was the product of
teachers from all different religions, sexes,
ages and races. I agree with Justice Antonin
Scalia's dissent in the Law School case, in that
"cross racial understanding ... is a lesson of
life rather than law." I believe that the diverse
public education that I received as a result of
the civil rights movement has molded the per-
son that I am today and has molded my gener-
ation into one of egalitarian beliefs. Students
of the Law School do not judge their class-
mates on the color of their skin, but rather on
the basis of their opinions. A "critical mass"
of minority opinions is not only desirable but
necessary to foster debate among the Univer-
sity community. However, I do not mean a
minority opinion in the sense of the opinion of
a racial minority, but rather of one whose
ideas differ from the rest of the community.
Such a system would create an intellectual
diversity rather than a physical diversity.
The University is a world leader not
because of the racial makeup of the incoming
freshman class, but because of its collective
aspiration to greatness. I encourage the Uni-
versity to strike the race category from each
college's application. Evaluate each applicant
as a person, and by what they have done,
rather than by something so trivial as the
color of their skin. We're all Wolverines, and
underneath our skin, we all bleed maize and
blue.
Stephen MacGuidwin is the vice president
externalof the College Republicans.
s'eAGNEs ALEOBUAAND
KATE STENVIG
The U.S. Supreme Court has
upheld affirmative action. The new
civil rights movement has scored a
stunning victory.
The Bakke decision was roundly pro-
tected. The principle of affirmative
action has been reaffirmed by this very
conservative high court. This landmark
case will come to be remembered as the
Brown v. Board of Education of our gen-
eration - a legal turning point that
helped trigger mass struggle for integra-
tion.
This victory would have been impos-
sible if not for the 50,000-person nation-
al March on Washington on April 1,
which was organized and led by the
Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action
& Integration and Fight for Equality By
Any Means Necessary. With this victo-
ry, we have begun to turn the tide
nationally against the right-wing assault
on civil rights. We will defend and
expand this victory with the power of
the new, militant, integrated, youth-led
civil rights movement that built the
April 1 March on Washington. The
process of moving American society
once again in the direction of integra-
tion and equality is underway.
We have saved Brown v. Board of
Education and are now in a stronger
position than at any point in the past
thirty years to realize the promise of
Brown - integration and equality in
American education. This integration
must be in practice, not just in rhetoric.
As part of our campaign to realize the
promise of Brown v. Board of Educarion,
BAMN will be organizing an "Integra-
tion Now!" contingent for the August 23
march on Washington for "Jobs, Peace,
and Freedom." The August 23 march
will be the first opportunity for a
national response to the Supreme
Court's decision. We call on University
students to join our contingent on
August 23 to build on this historic victo-
ry and to proclaim our determination to
keep fighting until full integration is the
reality in American society.
The Supreme Court decision in the
Grutter v. Bollinger case overturns the
Hopwood and Johnson decisions from the
lowericourtsthat have re-segregated the
American South. The South has now
been opened for integration again! The
minority outreach programs, summer
bridge programs and minority scholar-
ships that have been threatened by right-
wing forces in recent months are now
broadly protected.
While the court's ruling in Grutter
affirms the legality of considering race
in college admissions, its decision in
Gratz leaves the door open for a \new
set of segregationist attacks on affirma-
tive action. BAMN pledges to remain
vigilant in leading the New Civil Rights
Movement to defeat any and all further
attacks on affirmative action, integra-
tion and civil rights. Taken from the
standpoint of having achieved victory in
Grutter, a victory procured by a New
Civil Rights Movement organized until
now on the basis of defending gains
from the past, the new movement must
now go on the offensive. We will fight
to realize the promise of integration
written in the Brown decision almost
fifty years ago, which has yet to be ful-
filled in K-12 education. We will defeat
Proposition 209 in California, Initiative
200 Washington and Gov. Jeb Bush's
One Florida plan.
The Supreme Court decision in the
Grutter case makes clear that it is well
within the law for colleges and universi-
ties to consider race in admissions to
achieve an integrated student body. In
light of this ruling, there is no excuse
for a drop in minority enrollment in the
college of Literature, Science and the
Arts. The University administration
must do whatever is necessary to main-
tain and increase the number of under-
represented minority students. One way
to achieve this is to hire more admis-
sions officers in order to read the applies
cations to LSA - treating each
application individually while taking
race into account. The full commitment
of the University to integration will
serve as an example to other colleges
and universities around the country.
Aleobua is aformer ichigan Stud
Asemlyrepresentatiefiom lte
DefendAfrnativeAction Prty and
Stenvig is a BAMNorganizet: