Marvin Krislov, vice president and general counsel of the University of Michigan and one of the leaders of its defense of racial preferences, recently spoke to the Muskegon County Unity Breakfast.
He quoted Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s expressed hope that in 25 years there would be no need for what she called “racial preference” to remedy past and present racial discrimination. [Emphasis added. Should she have called racial preferences something else?]
“Those of you who look at the numbers might say she’s an optimist,” Krislov said. “But if nothing else, her statement should be taken as a call to action to narrow the gap so we do not have to continue to rely on affirmative action indefinitely in the future.”
But what exactly would be the problem with continuing to rely on affirmative action indefinitely in the future? If “diversity” is so important, isn’t it too important to leave to the free market? Won’t racial and ethnic regulation always produce a more desirable mix than the unregulated myriad choices of individuals?
Indeed, instead of ending the racial regulation of college admissions, shouldn’t that regulation be extended into realms where it has not yet reached? Why, for example, should not lending institutions and realtors be required to promote residential “diversity” by rewarding minorities with favorable rates etc. until all neighborhoods are properly “diverse”?
“Why, for example, should not lending institutions and realtors be required to promote residential “diversity” by rewarding minorities with favorable rates etc. until all neighborhoods are properly “diverse”?”
But this is happening with lending institutions. A few years ago I analyzed a large dataset for a lending institution. The data did not have headings although I could guess what some of the columns represented. The bank I was consulting with wanted me to determine what the main risk factors for loan default were. According the data two items were very highly correlated with loan default controlling for the other items. After I presented my findings to the bank I found out that the items were race and zip code. The bank could have improved its profits by not loaning to any blacks or to people from certain neighborhoods. Of course, such a policy would be illegal and you can understand why it would be. But at the same time aren’t government requirements that loans be made to people who are a higher risk essentially government imposed subsidies?
But at the same time aren’t government requirements that loans be made to people who are a higher risk essentially government imposed subsidies?
Heartless: Good comment, and question. But does the govt really require that “loans be made to people who are a higher risk?” Or does it require, only (!), that no one be automatically denied because of race or zip code?