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: