The Racial Runaround
University of Michigan isn't accepting voters rejection of affirmative action.
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Page
Friday, December 15, 2006
On Nov. 7, voters in Michigan passed Proposition 2, which prohibits state and local government from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to--in the language of the ballot--"groups or individuals based on their race, gender, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes."
The new law is supposed to take effect on Dec. 22. But it seems that affirmative action is not over yet. University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman apparently believes that the democratic process is valid only when the voters agree with her.
On Nov. 8, Ms. Coleman vowed that she would "immediately begin exploring legal action" against Prop 2. "I will not allow this university to go down the path of mediocrity" she told a cheering crowd. "Diversity makes us strong, and it's . . . too critical to simply abandon."
Since then, Ms. Coleman has backed off some of this fighting language, saying, for instance, that "we recognize the voters' decision." But her latest action suggests that she's sticking with her first sentiment. The University of Michigan (along with Michigan State and Wayne State universities) has gone to court to ask for a delay of Prop 2. The administrators of these schools are claiming that the admissions process for 2007-08 is so far along that it would be impossible to revamp it until at least next May. Meanwhile, Ms. Coleman's anti-Prop 2 allies, led by the radical group By Any Means Necessary, have filed a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the measure.
Prop 2 was, in part, a reaction to the Supreme Court's 2003 decisions about a pair of Michigan cases. In Gratz v. Bollinger, the court struck down the University of Michigan's policy of awarding points for race in its undergraduate admissions. In Grutter v. Bollinger, however, the court gave a green light to efforts by Michigan's law school to favor certain applicants in order, then-Justice Sandra Day O'Connor opined, to achieve "diversity."
As we wrote at the time, "a cynic might conclude that the decisions mean universities can still discriminate as long as they're not too obvious about it." That is exactly what Wayne State is doing. Its new law school admission guidelines, unveiled last week, avoid mention of race and other preference criteria explicitly banned by Prop 2. Instead, applicants will be invited to describe their family's socio-economic status and educational history, past experiences of discrimination, any foreign languages spoken at home, etc.
Many of these categories sound familiar. Russia's Bolsheviks used similar questions to root out class enemies and to elevate those with authentic proletarian origins. Of course, Wayne State may do nothing more brutal to its qualified bourgeois applicants than deny some of them admission in favor of candidates deemed disadvantaged.
Whether the law school's new criteria are simply code for race-based and other discriminatory admissions policies may eventually be decided by a court. Yet right now, all eyes are on the cases already under way that seek to thwart implementation of Prop 2.
opinionjournal.com |
