Speaking to a group of alumni at the Bay Harbor Yacht Club in northern Michigan last Thursday, U-M president Mary Sue Coleman said the passage of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative “would be a black mark on the state of Michigan.”
She said the constitutional amendment could challenge U-M programs with goals like bringing more men into the nursing field, increasing racial diversity in classrooms and encouraging women to pursue study in the sciences.
The MCRI ballot language that President Coleman opposes says that state agencies
shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
Even leaving aside the interesting question of why President Coleman opposes being challenged to encourage more men into nursing, more women into the sciences, etc., it would be quite educational to hear exactly why and how she thinks passage of MCRI would have those effects. If she really believes that an insufficient number of men in nursing or women in science would violate the new requirement not to discriminate, why doesn’t she believe that the university is guilty of discrimination on those facts right now?
Since it would be foolish to assume that President Coleman is dumb or ignorant of MCRI, perhaps the good news here is that her blatant misrepresentation of what MCRI would require is evidence not just of loathing but of real fear on the part of MCRI’s opponents — those who want to preserve racial preference at all costs, “by any means necessary” — that it appeals to a majority of Michiganders and will pass if people are allowed to vote on it.
Why this blatant misrepresentation itself by the president of Michigan’s flagship university is not itself a “black mark” on the state is something for Michiganders do decide.
CORRECTION
As a commenter below accurately points out, I have misread President Coleman’s remarks here. I apologize. There is no good defense against dumbness (in this case, mine), but I’ll try not to make it a habit. I have yet, however, to find any antidote to stubbornness, and so, also in a comment below, I have attempted to argue that even though I misread President Coleman’s remarks, she’s still guilty of misrepresentation.
UPDATE [1 August]
It now appears that there’s no end to what I missed in Mary Sue Coleman’s remarks. See the excellent comments below by Chetly Zarko, who is in Michigan working with MCRI.
John-
Not to be a pain but I think you’re misreading Mary Sue’s statement. When she says the proposed amendment “would challenge U-M programs”, I believe she is speaking of existing programs. That is, programs the U-M currently has in place that will be made to go away should MCRI pass.
A program to bring more men into nursing, one would suppose, involves some special stipend for male nursing students. Seems to go against the language in the amendment.
A program to increase diversity in the classroom probably pays or admits more “diverse” students on the basis of their race, ethnicity, or gender. Also violates the language in the amendment.
Finally, a program to bring more women into sciences would probably award positions or payment to women who study the sciences. One more time, MCRI says not to do that.
So I think your argument with Mary Sue is with something she does not say. I am guessing that you believe that the list of things that will be eliminated is a list of things that should go away BUT that is not what you seem to be talking about.
-bcl
I’m most surprised that a PC warrior would use the term ‘black mark’ in the first place.
bci:
Not to be a pain but I think you’re misreading Mary Sue’s statement. When she says the proposed amendment “would challenge U-M programs”, I believe she is speaking of existing programs. That is, programs the U-M currently has in place that will be made to go away should MCRI pass.
bci: On re-reading, I am embarrassed to say that I think you are absolutely right. What President Coleman was saying, as you point out, is that MCRI would force Michigan to stop offering preferences to men in nursing and women in science. I apologize for my dumb misreading, and will add a mea culpa update on the post itself.
At the risk of digging my hole even deeper, however, let me add that there’s a good chance her statements still amount to a misrepresentation. MCRI poses no challenge whatsoever to “goals like bringing more men into the nursing field, increasing racial diversity in classrooms and encouraging women to pursue study in the sciences.” What it would prevent — and all it would prevent — is the use of discriminatory means to achieve those goals.
Thus President Coleman and her minions would remain completely free to encourage women to go into science, men into nursing, and “diverse” people into everything to her and their hearts’ content. But preferences to or discrimination against individuals on the basis of race and sex would no longer be allowed. Liberals like Coleman used to thing that itself was a worthy goal.
Of course, it doesn’t answer the question of why U-M should care about “bringing men into the nursing field.” Why is it any of U-M’s business?
John,
You missed the whole reason why I thought this article was so spectacular when I read it a couple days ago.
Mary Sue Coleman ADMITS THAT U-M IS DISCRIMINATING AGAINST WOMEN OR GIVING PREFERENCES TO MEN.
Consider the ramifications of that if true. Among the many ramifications, a woman denied admission into the nursing program would have “traditional” discrimination against U-M.
Of course, Coleman’s statement is deceptive -a strawman lie to completely distract from the brunt (or entirety) preferential direction. It simultaneously serves as a political mollifier to men – and a moral agent in an attempt take the “sting” out of the argument that preferences are immoral. If U-M discriminates for and against everybody in different situations (nursing v. science), and those differences have a rational basis, the discrimination is more palpable.
And it bears to my prediction, in the MCRI press release last December http://www.michigancivilrights.org/male-achievement-pr12212004.pdf , that MCRI would end discrimination against women as well as men. I received an email on that release saying my factual claim regarding preferences for men was not plausible. I guess Mary Sue just vindicated me.
I should have added “lawsuit” into the ramifications paragraph.
A woman would have a “traditional” discrimination lawsuit against U-M if Coleman’s statement is true.
Another problem with giving preference to men in any situation is that Grutter requires that once the “preferred groups” are defined, the amount of preference can’t be heavier for one group than any other preferred group. Coleman implies discrimination amongst preference weight and situation – likely to be illegal even under Grutter.
I wonder if the “educational benefit” of “diversity” applies to nursing (or science or math) under Grutter? Grutter addressed benefits solely in law schools (which are “critical” to the national justice system) and “general undergraduate populations” (where general interaction produces a fuzzier benefit). Micromanaging specific classes or programs where diversity might not be as critical could change.
Did Grutter even address “gender diversity” having any benefits? U-M’s science addresses only/mostly racial diversity benefits. I wonder if gender preferences aren’t currently illegal under present law and case law? If so, U-M’s political argument that it gives preference to women is either disingenous (I’m leaning to that – Gratz and Grutter are women) or admission of illegal activity.
Of course, getting a specific program out of these guys when asked is almost impossible.
For book showing how race and gender critics prefer beating up on white males to solving social problems, see Dan Subotnik’s “Toxic Diversity: Race, Gender, and Law talk in America.” NYU 2005. Reviewed in WSJ July 27, 2005 at D10.
Blurbs: