I recently mentioned that a complaint had been filed against a racially exclusive financial aid program at the University of Wisconsin. The Chronicle of Higher Education has reported that Wisconsin, bucking the trend of universities dropping, or at least disguising, their racially exclusive programs, is going to defend it. (Hat Tip to Dave Huber)
In an interview,
a spokesman for the university system, Douglas Bradley, said officials there have no plans to change the program’s eligibility requirements because they believe it is on sound legal ground, having been established under a state law enacted in 1985. “We think we are following the law, and we are going to continue to follow the law until somebody changes it,” Mr. Bradley said.
Mr. Bradley described the lawmakers who had created the program as “forward-thinking and progressive,” and said the system plans to defend it as “in the best interests of the students in our state.”
Fine. George Wallace tried with little success but much fanfare to interpose state law against federal law and regulations, but maybe this tactic will work better in Wisconsin. That argument at least is straightforward and above board.
But this one isn’t:
Minutes taken at the February meeting of the university system’s Board of Regents say that David Glisch-Sanchez, director of academic affairs at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, urged “a strong show of support for programs like the Lawton grants in order to send a clear message to those who would forsake race-conscious efforts.” He argued that the challenge to the grant program, and shifts by colleges away from race-conscious programs, ignore how poverty is tied to race and gender.
First, it violates the DISCRIMINATIONS rule against obfuscatory euphemism: “race conscious” admissions would accomplish precisely nothing without race preferences. You can’t honestly and forthrightly defend a program if you’re unwilling to describe it accurately.
Second, if you want to give preferences to the poor, then do so. Very few critics of racial preferences object to class- or economic-based preferences. It is either disingenuous or flat-out dishonest to defend racial preference as a proxy for economic preference. And besides, it’s a weak and ineffective argument because it is subject to the powerful rebuttal of pointing to all the un-poor minorities who receive the benefit of racial preference.
So, preferentialists, pay attention! If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, begin by making a serious argument.
What is especially troubling is that, especially here at Michigan these days, supporters of racial-preferences are attacking opponents for “mischaracterizing affirmative action”. The Daily said something to the effect of “the MCRI says it’s opposed to racial preferences, but really it’s trying to eliminate affirmative action”. Our good friend Mary Sue Colemen has added her own take on the same line many times, claiming that the MCRI is deliberately misleading people by, apparently, saying exactly what it will do: ban programs that assign preferences based on race.
The entire University stance is mind-bogglingly obfuscatory, especially when affirmative action at Michigan is all about racial preferences. I would argue that affirmative action in its pure sense is possible (and maybe even more effective) without racial preference (instead focusing on proactive recruitment and additionally scholarship opportunities for the truly economically disadvantaged). However, to say that U of M’s policy does not involve racial preferences is simply a lie.
The hypocrisy is troubling. First, if affirmative action at Michigan isn’t about racial preference, then Michigan doesn’t have to worry about the MCRI, because it only bans racial preferences. Also, the U claims to encourage diversity and open debate, yet squashes debate on a key issue by covering up the very nature of the issue itself. I would be much more open to their arguments if they would simply give me a good reason (other than remedying discrimination, which the Supreme Court has rejected in Bakke, and economic disadvantage, which is, well, economic- and should be addressed as such). Instead, they choose to hide behind the tired mantra that affirmative action does not discriminate.
Also, check out http://www.michigandaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/04/15/425f631f92323
Apparently, a U of M prof and outspoken critic of U of M admissions, is starting a five week course on affirmative action. He describes the course as openly biased against AA, and says,