TMw A:..M:w...., n..:1.. i_. t .. ...__ nn nnnn r The Michigan Daily - Monday, June 3t, 2003 - 5 I LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Court made right decision regarding affirmative action TO THE DAILY: Racism has been America's most grievous national sin since our country's inception. No amount of affirmative action programs will ever begin to make up for the evil done over the centuries to persons of African descent. "Survival of the fittest" conservatives are bemoaning the recent pro-affir- mative action decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. I salute the Supreme Court's decision. It would have been a monumental error to have decided otherwise. Affirmative action is just one important way of making amends for past wrongs. Thank God for the wis- dom of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and the four other jus- tices who voted with her. PAUL WHITELEY Reader Racial preferences area form of racism themselves TO THE DAILY: Some of the people on the University's campus must be so proud to help make a vast major- ity of blacks and Hispanic Americans, of all races, so ashamed. Way to make us proud! Tell me? Why are Asian Ameri- cans not included in affirmative action? Could it be because it } stereotypes Asians as being smarter than Hispanics or Africans? Diversity is no excuse for racism. Here is twenty points because you are of African or Hispanic decent. You are too stu- pid to compete with European Americans or a.k.a. "whites," so here is your handout. Wow! You guys must be so proud 'cause you made us look so fabulous! Here's a solution! Go back to the U.S. Supreme Court and ask for race and ethnicity to be taken off all college forms. You work hard, you prosper. ALMA GRANA DE VALLE Reader Affirmative action is about 'justice,' not 'diversity' TO THE DAILY: Everyone is missing the point. University President Mary Sue Coleman said last week, "The important point is that we've always said that diversity is a com- pelling state interest." And her legal team said that same thing at the hearing. And so said Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: " ... the law school has a compelling inter- est in a diverse student body ... " This is hogwash! The reason for affirmative action is not diver- sity; it's justice. We need affirma- tive action because blacks and Hispanics are subject to unequal treatment in the justice system and grossly unequal treatment in the K-12 school system. Addition- ally, many educational institutions such as standardized tests have been proven racist. All factors controlled for, minorities tend to score lower simply for being a minority, for many reasons. I've documented these at http://aacaw.org/racism.httnl. This "diversity" nonsense is only being said because the Univer- sity is unwilling to confront the unpleasant reality that the U.S. school system is deeply and tragi- cally flawed, and segregation is one of the worst symptoms. If they had the courage to say, "We need affir- mative action because the state of Michigan has the fourth most seg- regated K-12 system in the nation," they might end up being required to actually look at that problem and do something about it. While the Law School's admissions policies were upheld, the Center for Individual Rights has stated that it intends to sue other schools. The attack on affir- mative action resembles the attack on Roe v. Wade: ongoing, eroding justice one small victory at a time. Hopefully, as the strug- gle continues, people will view it as one for justice, not just for "diversity." ADAM DE ANGELI LSA senior LETTERS POLICY The Michigan Daily welcomes letters from all of its readers. Letters from University students, faculty, staff and administrators will be given priority over others. Letters should include the writer's name, college and school year or other University affiliation. The Daily will not print any letter containing statements that cannot be verified. Letters should be kept to approx- imately 300 words. The Michigan Daily reserves the right to edit for length, clarity and accuracy. Longer "viewpoints" may be arranged with an editor. Letters will be run accord- ing to order received and the amount of space available. Letters should be sent over e-mail to letters@michigandaily.com or mailed to the Daily at 420 Maynard St. Editors can be reached via e-mail at editpage.editors@umich.edu. Letters e- mailed to the Daily will be given pri- ority over those dropped off in person or sent via the U.S. Postal Service. 20/20 DANIEL ADAMS ADVA NTAE?2~ PUSH. W hen Pres- id ent Bu s h N; announced plans to push the interna- tional community into war with Iraq, itcame as a bit of a surprise. It wasn't exactly what we were made to expect during the cam- paign: "The vice president (Al Gore) and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders ... I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach." - Gover- nor Bush, Oct. 3, 2000. Guarded? Two years later, we've guardedly kicked the shit out of the entire Iraqi military, with little to show for it. It's been nearly two months now since the end of open hostilities, and the number of U.S. soldiers that came home in body bags (190) far outnumbers the number of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons found (0) - not exactly what we were made to expect in April. "Operation Iraqi Freedom," despite its name, was never truly about setting the Iraqi people free (whatever that means). The Bush administration may have had other objectives for a preemptive strike, but it made its case publicly to the Ameri- can people and to the world that this war was about the prevention of a chemical, biological and possible nuclear threat. That case was made plainly by Secretary of State Colin Powell on the floor of the United Nations Security Council, shaking a small vial of faux anthrax. Other administration officials like Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz and Vice Pres- ident Dick Cheney all repeatedly emphasized the scope and imminent danger of the Iraqi stockpiles. We weren't privy to the details of this threat, for security reasons of course, and in lieu of disclosing this sensitive intelligence .information, the Ameri- cans were goaded into supporting the war with the promise of "Trust me." Maybe Saddam wanted to make Bush look bad and moved the weapons. Maybe they never existed. In either eventuality, Americans deserve honest answers. Why haven't we found any weapons? Why are American troops still dying in Iraq, acting as, dare I say, nation builders, rather than soldiers? Nine out of ten militant Iraqis agree - U.S. troops are only slightly better than Saddam. But this isn't something the presi- dent is interested in discussing, espe- cially with attention shifting to an impending re-election bid. Bush seems genuinely confused as to why people are beginning to wonder where the weapons are, calling these attacks "outrageous," and "revisionist history." Revisionist history? This has happened before. Bush has become adept at redirecting the fear that terrorism has created for great political gain, mostly by making promises. Promises to capture those responsible for 9/11. Promises to cap- ture Osama Bin Laden. Promises to find Iraqi stockpiles. According to Bush, we got our man: "The regime of Saddam Hussein is no more, Amer- ica is more secure, the world is more peaceful and the long-suffering peo- ple of Iraq are now free." Mission accomplished! But for those of you keeping score, he's 0 for 3. Call me a revisionist, but that is unacceptable. Unacceptable, because empty and unfulfilled promises have given Bush the support he's needed to do what he wants overseas, yet not given Ameri- cans the return promised on their investment of men and material. Unacceptable, because one large conglomeration of horrible weapons has now been moved (to where we can't seem to find them) or worse, spread out into many smaller caches. Unacceptable, because it just is. Where are the weapons, Mr. Bush? Adams can be reached at dnadams@umich.edu. Our background and our beliefs AYMAR JEAN No RtiYME, JUST REAS NEW YORK - Last week the U.S. Supreme Court scorned the University's admissions procedure but upheld the con- cept of diversity. In a well timed maneuver, the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives released, on behalf of Presi- dent Bush, a position paper extolling the virtues of charitable choice, giving reli- gious groups and other charities the right to base their hiring decisions on religious and sexual orientation. According to the paper, such insti- tutions have "the right to hire those individuals who are best able to further their organizations' goals and mission." "And if faith-based organizations are deterred from providing services, the real losers are the poor," stated OFBCI director H. James Towey. How the White House can fault affirmative action - ignoring Bush's half-hearted, almost disingenuous approval of the court's decision - and yet propose this plan is beyond my understanding. It points at the hypocrisy of this administration, and their misin- terpretation of the role both charities and universities play in society. Universities are federally subsidized, and all three branches of the federal government have proclaimed their com- mitment to diversity. As public institu- tions, one of their "missions" - in addition to providing education and fos- tering an intellectual society - is to promote diversity. A faith-based or charitable organi- zation has a mission - like a universi- ty, it has a societal purpose. Specifically, these organizations can provide job training, drug-addiction rehabilitation, counseling and shelter. The difference between universities and charitable organizations is that universities must consider race - pos- sibly some other factors - to promote diversity, but religious organizations need not consider sexual orientation to "help the poor," as Towey claims. The release of this position paper should send a signal to America. It shows Americans, a sizable percentage of whom believe race should not be a factor in admission, that the idea of race still matters. In fact, in a broader per- spective, Bush's hypocrisy and even the hypocrisy of Justice Clarence Thomas in the recent affirmative action cases both point to one conclusion: Our background and our beliefs still matter. Thomas is a tragic figure - and not in the literary, heroic sense. During his life, affirmative action continually ele- vated his social/economic status. And so, since his race played a role, he rep- resents (in addition to the sanctity of law) a black man who has progressed and succeeded. He also represents, as New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd suggested in her Wednesday col- umn, a black man in inner peril. Thomas called diversity an "aes- thetic" that "does nothing for those too poor or uneducated to participate in elite higher education." In his argu- ments, hidden behind his insecurities on racial privilege, he argued the virtue of equal access - the access that will be denied homosexuals if Bush gets his way. But also, his inflammatory dissent in the admissions' case is a clear indi- cation of the emotional and institution- al significance of race. Race is not a non-issue, yet. Apparently sexual orientation mat- ters. Some argue, rather effectively, that a gay priest knows the Bible just as well as a straight one. So why should his orienta- tion matter? Because it is supposedly not in line with the institution's beliefs. Why should race matter? For essentially the same reason, because it does matter to the institution - it is in line with the institution's beliefs. We consider these factors in relation to the organization. We're not all the same, and we're not all created equal. Maybe someday we will be, but for now, our background and beliefs still matter. Concepts like race and sexual orientation are fluid, and their significance shifts according to the situation. So the use of race does not beget the discriminatory use of orienta- tion. And maybe Bush and Thomas real- ize this, but they should remember that these facets of our personality should not prohibit access to educational or professional opportunities. Jean can be reached at acjean@umich.edu.