The all-seeing Howard Bashman links to a remarkably simple-minded mangle of the Michigan cases at Poynter Online, the surprisingly influential journalism site.
Why does Poynter consider the cases important? Because journalists are considering the impact the decision will have on the future of the profession.
Whatever [the justices] decide, the ruling could affect the number of students of color that are admitted to colleges, and subsequently, the number that choose journalism as a career. Journalism educators and industry leaders who have struggled to invite diversity into their classrooms and newsrooms worry the decision could mean a setback.
Well, I suppose that’s one way of looking at it, but it may be alarmist. After all, Jayson Blair never graduated from college, and that didn’t get in the way of the NYT’s diversity hire.
And what is it exactly that Michigan does? (Remember: Poynter is supposed to be at the top of the journalism heap).
The University counts the race of applicants when selecting its undergraduate and law school students. By the end of the month, the Supreme Court is likely to decide whether that kind of counting is constitutional.
And what kind of counting is that? Counting the race, like the more popular taking race into account and race conscious, is a euphemism.
A sidebar at the top of the article falls deeper into a conceptual hole.
In Gratz vs. Bollinger, the Supreme Court Justices will be balancing the right of access to education for minorities and for non-minorities.
What about Barbara Grutter and the law school case? No matter. Neither case involves balancing the right of access to education for anybody. They both involve whether the right to be free from racial discrimination is subordinate to the desire for racial diversity.
But wait! Here’s Grutter
Barbara Grutter and Jennifer Gratz, the students who sued the University of Michigan, contend that the admissions process gives minorities too much credit for color
No, they both argue any credit for color is too much. Of course, the Supremes are perfectly capable of concluding that 20 out of 150 points (undergraduate admissions) is too much, and leave hanging the question of how many is too much.
Don’t go away; there’s more.
If Michigan wins, campuses can assign points for ethnicity or gender or other defined criteria. But if Michigan loses, the ruling could chill the environment for diversity, according to Caesar Andrews, editor of Gannett News Service, who is also a member of the Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.
Of course, if Michigan loses it could continue assigning points for other defined criteria to its heart’s content. But chill the environment for diversity ? No wonder Poynter is upset. No one likes a chilly environment.
There are also the usual platitudes from media mavens. Here’s an example:
Greg Schmidt, vice president at LIN Television , says his company filed because LIN wants its news stations to reach viewers, and a diverse staff extends that reach.
We need the diversity of our workforce to reflect our communities, says Schmidt. Everybody [including the university] needs to help at each stage.
I wonder if Schmidt’s community has drug addicts, devil worshippers, and high-school dropouts. I wonder if his newsroom does.
But I’ve saved the best till last, and that requires us to bring back Caesar Andrews, the editor of Gannett News Service quoted above.
People hostile to affirmative action may see a vote against Michigan as license to stop diversity efforts or to scale back. But for those in the academy and the industry who value diversity, according to Andrews, there shouldn’t be any uncertainty.
Some of the ‘how’ may have to change, but the ‘what’ of diversity should continue, he says.
Actually, the only part of the “how” that would have to change if Michigan lost is the racial double standard.
The Supreme Court just split the baby, the Gratz 20 points were too much, but Grutter got burned by “diversity”, which is now defined as a government interest that can survive strict scrutiny (at least the “diversity program” still needs to be narrowly tailored). Powell’s sloppy language now affirmed, and affirmative action survives constitutional scrutiny.