More Biased Press Coverage Of MCRI

Central Michigan Life has just published the first of what threatens to be a four-part series on the debate over the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, “Proposal May Up Affirmative Action Debate.”

How does one “up” a debate? If this article is an example, perhaps by quoting heavily from critics of MCRI and sparingly from supporters. The article, to its slight credit, does provide Jennifer Gratz, the executive director of MCRI, the opportunity to make her typically strong arguments. On the other side, it presents opposition arguments from Gov. Granholm (which I discussed here) and Michael Powell, Central Michigan University’s affirmative action officer. Continuing that ratio, two high school students who support the continuation of racial preferences are quoted, compared to one who is opposed.

Now let us look more closely at the remarks of Central Michigan University’s Mr. Powell, since they are typical of the obfuscation and even misrepresentation that characterizes so much of the opposition to equal rights in Michigan and elsewhere. I have added numbers to Powell’s arguments in order to simplify replying to them.

Michael Powell, Central Michigan University’s affirmative action officer, said he was disappointed when he heard the initiative got on the ballot.

The only positive, Powell said, is the proposal should stimulate a conversation on why affirmative action is so important.

1. “We need to prepare our students for an increasingly diverse United States and workforce and an increasingly interdependent global society,” Powell said.

2. People do not realize affirmative action programs examine the person as a whole not just race, Powell said.

“We take individuals on a case-by-case basis and see what they bring to the table,” he said. “Race is just one of those (factors).”

Powell said MCRI glosses over the discrimination of the past and the effect it has on those today. He said equality, an ideal the United States was founded on, has not been achieved yet.

3. “Those ideals have never fully been practiced,” he said. “We’ve fallen short.”

1. It is hard to see how admitting students whose qualifications alone would not qualify them does anything to help anyone prepare for “interdependence” etc. The world is also increasingly competitive, and increasing the supply of comparative underachievers will do nothing in the long run to help them or the rest of us. (One typical straw man that is not present here is the assertion that critics of preferences claim affirmative action leads to the admission of unqualified students. It may, but the more typical, and much stronger argument we make, is that it leads to the admission of students who are less qualified than those whose places they take. If that were not the case, they would not need a preference to be admitted.)

2. If race is just “one of those factors” in the evaluation of “the whole person,” then eliminating that one factor shouldn’t make much of a difference in the make-up of entering classes. Well, how much difference would it make? To answer that question why don’t admissions officers at Michigan universities publicize, as part of “the conversation” Mr. Powell claims he would like to see, data on who actually benefits from all this “whole person” consideration? At the very selective University of Michigan, for example, what percentage of entering freshmen with SATs that are, say, 200 points lower than the entering average are minorities? If that percentage is very high, as I’m sure it is, does that mean that only minorities possess those non-racial “whole person” qualities that are allegedly sought?

And while we’re at it, even if it were true that race were “just one of those factors” that applicants “bring to the table,” what exactly is that “factor” and why should it be counted a plus for some and, of necessity, a minus for others?

Indeed, the unwillingness of admissions officers to release information about what they actually do is one of the best arguments they shouldn’t be doing it.

3. When Mr. Powell says equality is an “ideal” that has never been practiced, I wonder what he means by equality. Presumably he means treating people without regard to their race or ethnicity. He’s right about it not having been fully practices, but he’s wrong to continue not practicing it.

MCRI says the time to start practicing equal, non-discriminatory treatment is now.

UPDATE [28 March]

Central Michigan Life is published at Central Michigan University. The front page, at least as of this writing, reports, in the far left column, the results of a poll that asked:

What do you think about CMU awarding scholarships based on race or gender?

15.6% believe that “It creates an even playing field.”

80% believe that “It’s unfair to some.”

4% “don’t know.”

Say What? (6)

  1. mj March 27, 2006 at 2:11 pm | | Reply

    John,

    I’d like to dovetail for a moment. Listening to reasoning like this makes me believe those making the comments have never made a decision in their life. A factor can only matter in so far as it has the potential to change the decision. I have a similar view of those who claim we should consider international law in judicial interpretation, yet also claim it doesn’t mean it will lead to decisions not supported by the constitution. If the latter is true, why not add a caveat that it cannot change a decision. Perhaps then they will realize the positions are contradictory.

  2. Jennifer Gratz March 28, 2006 at 10:49 am | | Reply

    From my perspective, the most interesting admission in this article was this:

    Powell said if the initiative passed, his department members would have to focus on outreach and developing programs to help minority students better prepare for college.

    Programs that better prepare people for college would be a bad thing because … ??? Obviously, this would be one of the great “consequences” when MCRI passes. There would be more pressure on K-12 to actually prepare students for college!

  3. Michelle Dulak Thomson March 28, 2006 at 1:18 pm | | Reply

    “We need to prepare our students for an increasingly diverse United States and workforce and an increasingly interdependent global society,” Powell said.

    The second half of that sentence would seem to argue for preferences for students who are citizens of other countries over American citizens of any race. Is that really what he means?

  4. Cobra March 29, 2006 at 11:03 pm | | Reply

    Michael Powell writes:

    >>>”Powell said if the initiative passed, his department members would have to focus on outreach and developing programs to help minority students better prepare for college.”

    In other words, Powell and his department members–and I will repeat–Powell and his department members of Central Michigan University, not the State Legislature, town councilmen of Madison Heights (with it’s 1.8% African American population) and certainly NOT the MCRI–would have to take personal initiative to compensate for Michigan’s treatment of minorities, which is already in the dumps if EEOC reports are accurate.

    Are the advocates of this type policy stating that only Affirmative Action administrators at Universities are responsible for helping disadvantaged American children?

    I certainly hope not.

    Michelle writes:

    >>>”“We need to prepare our students for an increasingly diverse United States and workforce and an increasingly interdependent global society,” Powell said.

    The second half of that sentence would seem to argue for preferences for students who are citizens of other countries over American citizens of any race. Is that really what he means?”

    What I take from that is that, evidenced by the largest trade deficit in American history, corporate leaders are all too willing to discriminate geographically against the American worker, no matter what race that American worker is. Devah Pager and the EEOC proves that the deck is already stacked against blacks in the workforce. Powell is trying to keep a crack in the door for those who find it slammed in their faces most often.

    –Cobra

  5. Chetly Zarko April 1, 2006 at 3:15 am | | Reply

    Cobra, I would say exactly the opposite of this:

    Are the advocates of this type policy stating that only Affirmative Action administrators at Universities are responsible for helping disadvantaged American children?

    No, “administrators at Universities” should not be seen as the primary force for “helping disadvantaged children.” Politicians and others have abdicated much of their responsibility for such repair precisely because university administrators preferences help hide the problem.

    And MCRI would not impact the ability of policymakers to help “disadvanataged American children.” I see no clause in MCRI that prevents even preferences to the “disadvantaged.” If that’s what you really want, it seems to me that I and MCRI have given you the strongest possible political tool in persuading politicians.

  6. sasbe March 31, 2007 at 7:24 pm | | Reply

    It is admirable for Mr. Powell to feel passionate about the impact of this proposal and become involved, but that is clearly extraneous to his role at CMU. The resources of the university, a public institution, are allocated to provide higher learning.

Say What?