Peter Schmidt, who writes about affirmative action and other things for the Chronicle of Higher Education, is at it again, sort of. Today’s long article on the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, like most of his, is well-written and, generally, fair minded and balanced, and you should read the whole thing. There were, however, a few more lapses that I’m accustomed to seeing in his work.
First, the lede:
Jennifer Gratz is at it again. As a lead plaintiff in one of two legal challenges to race-conscious admissions policies decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003, Ms. Gratz failed in her effort to persuade the court to completely strike down such policies at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.
Now Ms. Gratz is trying to accomplish at the polls what she could not in the courts….
This is not so much inaccurate as misleading (not to mention uncharacteristically snide); Ms. Gratz’s case did not “persuade the court to completely strike down [racial preferences] at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.” Still, it should not be necessary to read two thirds of a very long article to learn that Ms. Gratz actually won her case.
More substantively, Mr. Schmidt asserts as a fact something that is not: that the passage of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) would curtail “outreach” programs by universities. Universities could continue to reach out to whomever they please. What they would no longer be able to do, however, is to prefer members of one group over another in admissions, financial aid, etc. I think this is clear, but what is absolutely incontrovertible is that supporters of MCRI have presented this interpretation of the effect of their initiative vigorously, and a journalist shouldn’t simply assert the opposite with no evidence and no acknowledgment of the fact that supporters of MCRI dispute his claim.
Mr. Schmidt’s claim was itself even broader than his assertion that “outreach” would be curtailed:
[MCRI’s] impact on Michigan’s public colleges would stretch well beyond admissions, and affect recruitment, outreach, scholarship programs, and student-support services.
What I have said about “outreach” also applied to “recruitment.” With regard to scholarships and student services, what would clearly be outlawed would be scholarships limited by race or ethnicity (something the Fourth Circuit barred long ago in Podberesky; see here, here, and here). Of course, scholarships could still be based on what no one contests, need, and on other factors such as to students who are the first in their family to attend college, etc. And what “student support services” would be affected? The only that I can think of are support services that exclude some students because of race, etc.
In a similar vein, Mr. Schmidt reports without comment another baseless claim of MCRI opponents:
Few people are more tied into Michigan’s power structure than Ms. [Debbie] Dingell of the One United Michigan campaign. She is the scion of one of the Detroit auto industry’s founding families, a former top Washington lobbyist for General Motors, a member of the boards of several Michigan nonprofit organizations, and the wife of one of the longest-serving members of the U.S. House of Representatives, John D. Dingell, a Michigan Democrat.
….
She told the crowd that the measure would be especially harmful to professional women, hindering efforts to help them up the corporate ladder. “We have had to work twice as hard as a man to ever get credit for anything we do,” she said.
Neither Ms. Dingell nor Mr. Schmidt explained how a constitutional amendment that would bar racial preferences only in public institutions and agencies could have any affect on women moving up corporate ladders.
There was, however, some good reporting in Mr. Schmidt’s article, including the deliciously welcome welcome observation of “William S. Ballenger, editor of the nonpartisan newsletter Inside Michigan Politics,” who said “he believes that BAMN is ‘killing’ the campaign against Proposal 2 by alienating white voters.”
Schmidt also reports that student leaders at the University of Michigan who support preferences and thus oppose MCRI “have been trying for several years to distance themselves from the militant organization.”
The dog that did not bark here, however, is that no efforts to distance themselves from the close embrace of BAMN were reported on the part of Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Mayor Kwame (Stand In the Schoolhouse Door) Kilpatrick, UM President Mary Sue Coleman, or the state Democratic Party.
Probably the silliest argument on MCRI is that it will harm women. I was a first year law student at Boalt when California passed its substantially identical measure, Proposition 209. The difference in racial make-up between my class and the next was immense; my class had a couple dozen blacks while the next had only one – and he was a deferred admit from my class. But along gender lines, the only change was a slightly higher percentage of females in the class of 2000 vs. 1999. The best inference I can draw is that if there was any sex discrimination involved in pre-209 affirmative action, it was discrimination against women, not in their favor. I doubt Michigan’s any different in this respect.
[Technically, the ACLU’s frivolous court challenge and Thelton Henderson’s frivolous ruling prevented Prop 209 from taking effect in time to affect Fall 1997 admissions. Non-technically, this didn’t matter, as SP-1 and SP-2 just happened to take effect at the same time that Prop 209 should have.]
I think the reason why the # of females may have increased after Prop 209 took effect is that among the groups that previously got affirmative action (blacks and Hispanics), men on average are worse academically than women, so the beneficiaries of affirmative action were mostly men, not women.
Notice the euphemism for anti-white race preferences the author uses: “race-conscious admission policy”. I guess if George Wallace called the anti-black admissions policies of the University of Alabama in 1963 “race-conscisous admission policies” instead of “segregation”, nobody would have complained?
John,
I believe Jen would concede to you or anyone in a conversation that she failed in her larger goal of striking down the whole system of preferences. In fact, I’ve heard her say that before, so I’m not surprised Schmidt would lead with it – she may have said it to him that way.
There are some other issues you raise, but I think he is just relaying the opposition’s weak arguments. He certainly could have done better here, but the piece is pretty good (awesome by Michigan-media standards).
Check out the Time piece for a solid piece of professional writing on the issue.
Chet – I generally like what Schmidt writes, but I think this effort is not as good as most of what he does (although certainly by Michigan standards, as you say, it’s terrific). I didn’t say his point about Jen not succeeding in striking down preferences altogether was wrong or inaccurate, just that it was a weak and I believe misleading way of introducing a case that she actually won. Better would have been something on the order of “She won, but….”
At some point in time, Negro leaders are going to have to get up off their knees (begging white leaders for a hand-out). As it stands now, all our Negro leaders are running about attempting to convince the Master of the House that we should keep affirmative action since the white woman is the greatest beneficiary.
Do these Negro leaders seriously think white leaders NEED Affirmative Action to hire their women? White men only kept their women at home in order to build a world for her in the first place. After white women jumped on the Negro bandwagon and started claiming that they too were being held back, white men decided in order to calm the Negroes down while keeping their women happy – they would enact a law (that they had no obligation to respect – Supreme Court, 1857, Judge Tawney) and then they gave the jobs to their own women.
Does it not even ring a little bell in the heads of Negro leaders that it is a White woman (Jennifer Gratz) who now wants to annul the law? She has decided that since a few black people are getting in front of her, she does not want it enacted AT ALL!! But the Negro leaders keep running in circles claiming that Ward Connely is the culprit. I know he’s a safer target for these Negro cowards. But all of the assertions as to why we, black people, should work to keep Affirmative Action a law are a complete farce.
As it stands right now, we (black people) are asking for a little Affirmative Action on the part of the Negro leaders and the Black media. Stop using your positions to push YOUR POINTS ONLY and allow a REAL DISCUSSION.
Cherice writes:
>>>”As it stands right now, we (black people) are asking for a little Affirmative Action on the part of the Negro leaders and the Black media. Stop using your positions to push YOUR POINTS ONLY and allow a REAL DISCUSSION.”
LOL…what “Black Media” are you referring to? LOL!
Second, who appointed you spokesperson for “black people?” You claim to be a “black person” or “negro” as you repetitively write. You certainly don’t speak for me, as I don’t presume to speak for you.
Cherise writes:
>>>”At some point in time, Negro leaders are going to have to get up off their knees (begging white leaders for a hand-out). As it stands now, all our Negro leaders are running about attempting to convince the Master of the House that we should keep affirmative action since the white woman is the greatest beneficiary.”
Either you’re channeling Harry Belafonte, or you’re driving down a road that your allies on this blog might not want to drive down with you. You’re ADMITTING America is built upon white supremacy (“Master of the House”). I wonder what those who constantly deny this when I mention it would say when someone like YOU posts it?
Hmmm…I wonder.
Will writes:
>>>” I guess if George Wallace called the anti-black admissions policies of the University of Alabama in 1963 “race-conscisous admission policies” instead of “segregation”, nobody would have complained?”
Well, Will–during his Inauguration Speech in 1963 he made some other “interesting” statments:
>>>”… We invite the negro citizens of Alabama to work with us from his separate racial station . . as we will work with him . . to develop, to grow in individual freedom and enrichment. We want jobs and a good future for BOTH races . . the tubercular and the infirm. This is the basic heritage of my religion, if which I make full practice . . . . for we are all the handiwork of God.”
http://www.archives.state.al.us/govs_list/inauguralspeech.html
See how “conciliatory” that sounds? Of course, that part of the speech comes after his infamous “Segregation now..segregation tommorrow..segregation forever..” line.
But this IS Alabama, Will…and a funny thing happened at the polls recently:
>>>”If Wallace could be brought back to life today to reprise his 1963 moment of infamy outside Foster Auditorium, he would still be correct. Alabama voters made sure of that Nov. 2, refusing to approve a constitutional amendment to erase segregation-era wording requiring separate schools for “white and colored children” and to eliminate references to the poll taxes once imposed to disenfranchise blacks.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16443-2004Nov27.html
John writes:
>>>”The dog that did not bark here, however, is that no efforts to distance themselves from the close embrace of BAMN were reported on the part of Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Mayor Kwame (Stand In the Schoolhouse Door) Kilpatrick, UM President Mary Sue Coleman, or the state Democratic Party.”
Well, John I don’t see Ward Connerly or Jennifer Gratz running away from Michigan’s Council of Conservative Citizens…
http://www.micofcc.org/
…whose Statement of Principles includes this BEAUTY:
>>>”We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called “affirmative action” and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.”
http://www.cofcc.org/manifest.htm
Wow. You would think a guy like Ward Connerly would be AGHAST at such a group and disavow them completely!
Well…
>>>”The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), a ballot initiative to eliminate affirmative action programs in Michigan, is being supported by at least two white supremacist groups active in the state. The Michigan chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens and the United Northern and Southern Knights of the Ku Klux Klan are both actively encouraging their members to vote in favor of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative when it appears on the ballot on November 7 and organizing to build further support for the initiative. Ward Connerly has even had his picture taken shaking the hand of Michigan Council of Conservative Citizens leader John Raterink (Raterink has also subscribed to the newspaper of the neo-nazi National Alliance:”
http://www.mediamouse.org/features/101306racis.php
Very interesting…
–Cobra