Mary Sue Coleman, Standing In The Schoolhouse Door II

[Updated on Nov. 10]

Mary Sue Coleman, president of the University of Michigan, has delivered an amazing speech on her determination to keep fighting for “diversity.” Her speech is so overheated that I found myself hoping that after she delivered it she took a couple of aspirins and lay down for a while.

Whatever else may be said about it, racial and ethnic preference is only one cylinder in the engine of producing “diversity.” (Remember how its advocates always insisted that race was only one of many factors considered, etc., etc.?) Yet Ms. Coleman says several times, in several ways, that Michigan is “diversity”: “it is what makes us the great university we are … the University of Michigan is diversity.” Coleman reacts to being deprived of the authority to discriminate to produce diversity (actually, to what she regards not as actual deprivation but as the threat of deprivation) as though some skinhead majority of racist yahoos had burned down all her libraries and forbidden the legislature to appropriate money to buy more books.

She does, begrudgingly, pay at least lip service to the obligation to limit her efforts “to overcome the handcuffs that Proposal 2 attempts to place on our reach for greater diversity” to “every legal option.” She says, in passing, that “Of course the University of Michigan will comply with the laws of the state,” but the tone and substance of the speech nevertheless bristles with resistance and defiance and anger at the substantial majority of Michigan voters who have placed her in the “handcuffs” of no longer being able to engage in racial discrimination. Actually, she doesn’t even recognize that the Michigan Constitution does place her in “handcuffs,” only that it “attempts to.

Coleman’s speech is thus worthy of being placed alongside a similar speech by Detroit Mayor Kilpatrick as a worthy successor to George Wallace’s determination to stand in the schoolhouse door. As I said, it bristles with defiance, not with determination to work within the new limits imposed by her employer, the citizens of Michigan. Some examples:

  • … we will not be deterred in the all-important work of creating a diverse, welcoming campus. We will not be deterred….
  • … we pledge to remain unified in our fight for diversity
  • I am standing here today to tell you that I will not allow this university to go down the path of mediocrity…. Diversity makes us strong, and it is too critical to our mission, too critical to our excellence, and too critical to our future to simply abandon.
  • [Proposition 209 in California] is an experiment that we cannot, and will not, allow to take seed here at Michigan. [An “experiment”? It was a constitutional amendment in California, as it is in Michigan!]
  • I will not stand by while the very heart and soul of this great university is threatened. We are Michigan and we are diversity.
  • Let me say that again: I am fully and completely committed to building diversity at Michigan, and I will do whatever it takes. [Her allies in BAMN have said this a bit more succinctly: “by any means necessary.”]

It seems to me that President Coleman has two choices: after the delaying legal maneuvers have run their course she can defy or evade the new prohibition on racial preferences, or she can find new, race-neutral ways to promote what she regards as “diversity,” i.e., a sufficient representation of students with various skin colors. But, as I pointed out yesterday (here), if she is now successful in finding race-neutral ways to promote racial diversity she will be in effect admitting that the university did not do what was required even by Grutter, which is to engage in

serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives that will achieve the diversity the university seeks.

Finally, I found one of the milder resistance measures she announced yesterday every bit as interesting as the more fire-breathing ones:

In the short term, we will seek confirmation from the courts to complete this year’s admissions cycle under our current guidelines. We believe we have the right, indeed the obligation, to complete this process using our existing policies. It would be unfair and wrong for us to review students’ applications using two sets of criteria, and we will ask the courts to affirm that we may finish this process using the policies we currently have in place.

President Coleman is so caught up in the mystique of “diversity” that she fails to see the irony (or something worse than irony) in believing it “unfair and wrong” to review one set of applicants under a system that pushes some toward the front of the line and others toward the rear based on their race alone and another set of applicants according to race-neutral standards, but she sees nothing wrong with— indeed, she asserts that the very essence of the university requires — rewarding some and punishing others because of their race.

What a sorry spectacle….

ADDENDUM

In the article I refer to in the post immediately above this one, Roger Clegg notes that

as more and more universities stop using racial-admission preferences, it becomes harder and harder for the remaining schools to insist that one simply cannot run a decent university without them.

In fact, I would argue, as Clegg implies, that it should already be impossible to make that argument with a straight face. Thus when President Coleman boldy proclaims that

I am standing here today to tell you that I will not allow this university to go down the path of mediocrity. That is not Michigan. Diversity makes us strong, and it is too critical to our mission, too critical to our excellence, and too critical to our future to simply abandon

— in other words, that Michigan without pigmentary “diversity” is not Michigan — she is in effect saying that Berkeley and UCLA have been mediocre non-entities for the past decade. But then I suspect most clear-minded readers of President Coleman’s speech will see that she really did not make it with a straight face but rather with a face that was distorted ideological dyspepsia. She was displaying the difficulty she’s having digesting the fact that the citizens of Michigan have forced the university, kicking and screaming, to treat all its applicants and employees without regard to their race.

Say What? (15)

  1. Shouting Thomas November 9, 2006 at 10:56 pm | | Reply

    Well, people don’t give up political patronage systems easily.

    This women need to resign or be fired.

  2. Den November 9, 2006 at 11:16 pm | | Reply

    This is merely the beginning. I predict (any takers on a wager?) that a dumb, life-tenured federal judge will be found who will announce, ala Thelton Henderson in San Francisco in 1997, that a ban on race preference is unconstitutional racial discrimination. Of course it will be overturned, but that takes time, lotsa time, not to mention bucks, even if now the attorney general or secretary of state or some such are formally obligated to defend this new part of the state constitution.

    And now that the head of the state’s leading university, supported presumably by all the other powerful groups in the state who opposed the initiative, is calling for resistance, it seems certain that every single person who reports to her will be obligated to follow her lead, or be in jeopardy of being fired. Actual compliance is therefore many, many years in the future, if ever. A full generation, maybe two, is what it will take, IMHO, to get people to stop being afraid of being labeled “racist” for treating individuals as individuals, and not as members of groups who may or may not have a claim to formal “victim” status. A nice thought, though, the MCRI. Maybe I’m just a pessimist.

  3. John Rosenberg November 9, 2006 at 11:45 pm | | Reply

    Den – One interesting thing about the BAMN suit is that all of the defendants actually support racial preference and opposed MCRI, raising the possibility that they will not really put up much of a defense. Of course, before it can even get to that point some creative lawyer will have to come up with an explanation as to why BAMN and many of its co-plaintiffs (such as unions) have standing to complain about the possible effect of Prop. 2 on universities.

  4. M. J. Wise November 10, 2006 at 1:36 am | | Reply

    The interesting twist is that the current and re-elected AG of Michigan (Cox) was one of the few if not the only major statewide official to speak in favor of the MCRI, so I expect he will actually defend it well.

  5. Federal Dog November 10, 2006 at 6:50 am | | Reply

    John–

    That’s definitely the part I don’t get. How do any of the plaintiffs in the BAMN suit have standing? Was that filing just a stunt?

  6. John Rosenberg November 10, 2006 at 7:34 am | | Reply

    M.J. – I hope you’re right, or that the judge, if he doesn’t dismiss this complaint out of hand, allows intervenors who will defend MCRI.

    Federal – I also don’t understand what a plausible argument for standing for the BAMN plaintiffs would look like. As for BAMN itself, not so long ago a Revolutionary Marxist group that proclaimed from the rooftops, and in its name, that it felt no obligation to obey the law (“by any means necessary,” after all) that tried to insinuate itself into a coalition of Demcrats, liberals, unions, and church people would have been booted out as an agent provocateur. Today’s preferentialists, however, are so in thrall to the thrill of “diversity” that they happily enlist the devil to do their dirty work. And then, beyond the reach of hypocrisy, point an accusing finger at Ward Connerly when he’s quoted out of context and falsely portrayed as welcoming support from the KKK….

  7. Darren November 10, 2006 at 12:00 pm | | Reply

    I linked to your two Coleman posts. Well written–and of course, right on the money.

  8. Den November 10, 2006 at 3:12 pm | | Reply

    Was the standing issue addressed by the plaintiffs in CA in suit to overturn Prop 209 in 1996 (was the ACLU the plaintiff)? Or was the question of standing simply ignored by Judge Henderson in his ruling? Anyone familiar with the details of that litigation, which should be at least a little instructive for Michigan?

  9. Cobra November 10, 2006 at 11:30 pm | | Reply

    John writes:

    >>>”And then, beyond the reach of hypocrisy, point an accusing finger at Ward Connerly when he’s quoted out of context and falsely portrayed as welcoming support from the KKK….”

    You DID watch the video clip of Ward Connerly saying “God bless the KKK” that I posted, did you not?

    –Cobra

  10. John Rosenberg November 10, 2006 at 11:59 pm | | Reply

    Yes, I did. In fact, I’m quite familiar with this episode. And I hope you and others on your side will continue bringing it up as often as possible. As Brian Dickerson, a columist for the Detroit Free Press who opposed Proposal 2, wrote today:

    The suggestion that Ward Connerly and Jennifer Gratz were tacitly in league with the Klan insulted many voters who oppose affirmative action on philosophical grounds. Like other efforts to vilify Proposal 2’s supporters, its primary effect was to drive reasoned debate underground. Embarrassed and angry at being equated with bigots, many of those sympathetic to Proposal 2 couldn’t wait to vent their resentment in the privacy of the voting booth.

    Connerly’s comment reminded me of nothing so much as the remark attributed to Lincoln, when he was attacked for accepting support from slaveholders: “I’d love to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky.”

  11. David Nieporent November 11, 2006 at 2:23 am | | Reply

    Was that actually what he said, Cobra? Or are you cutting his statement in half to completely misrepresent what he actually said, Cobra?

  12. Cobra November 11, 2006 at 5:27 pm | | Reply

    John writes:

    >>>”And I hope you and others on your side will continue bringing it up as often as possible. As Brian Dickerson, a columist for the Detroit Free Press who opposed Proposal 2, wrote today:”

    Who is Brian Dickerson?

    On multiple occasions, I have stated that it is possible for an individual to oppose Affirmative Action on principle, without racial animus.

    What the pro-white-think-tank-financed hustler named Ward Connerly has done is defiantly blaspheme that above group by invoking God to “bless” the most virulently anti-black/minority organization to ever walk the face of America.

    You’re a bright man, John. You don’t need me to start listing the murderous attrocities of the Ku Klux Klan for you to understand how satanic Connerly’s quote is, do you? Or do you welcome support for your cause from every hate-monger you come across as well?

    If you do, John…I’ve got a little hint for you. The Klan indeed hates black men like me, but if you think they’re sending Jews pretty flowers, you’ve better check with your florist twice before accepting THAT bouquet.

    >>>”WE BELIEVE in an existing being known as the Devil or Satan and called the Serpent (Gen. 3:1;Rev. 12:9), who has a literal “seed” or posterity in the earth (Gen. 3:15) commonly called Jews today (Rev. 2:9; 3:9; Isa. 65:15). These children of Satan (John 8:44-47; Matt. 13:38; John 8:23) through Cain (I John 2:22, 4:3) who have throughout history always been a curse to true Israel, the Children of God, because of a natural enmity between the two races (Gen. 3:15), because they do the works of their father the Devil (John 8:38-44), and because they please not God, and are contrary to all men (I Thes. 2:14-15), though they often pose as ministers of righteousness (II Cor. 11:13-15). The ultimate end of this evil race whose hands bear the blood of our Savior (Matt. 27:25) and all the righteous slain upon the earth (Matt. 23:35), is Divine judgment (Matt. 13:38-42, 15:13; Zech. 14:21).”

    http://www.kkkk.net/doctrinalstatements.htm

    This is all a simple equation. There were more white people in Michigan than non-white minorities on election day. Exit polling verifies this. That’s why the MCRI passed. A white majority won’t always be the case, John.

    Even the KKK knows that.

    –Cobra

  13. Chetly Zarko November 17, 2006 at 10:02 pm | | Reply

    Cobra,

    As David points out, you cut the statement in half, just like the media did, to twist your point into a grossly distorted attack on Ward. You’re intentional deletion of half the statement is therefore dishonest and disgusting.

    That said, I made clear (and took some heat for) in the days after Ward’s remark was distorted that I felt Ward’s remark itself was a mistake, because we must always condemn the Klan at every opportunity and Ward is smart enough and experienced enough to know his words will be twisted. Knowing Ward well, he was caught in one of those moments of glibness few can avoid if exposed to the media as much as he is as many times as he is.

    But while it was a mistake (mostly in the long-run, and mostly from a personal, not political perspective) for Ward to use the unfortunate phrase “god bless” in conjunction with the Klan, it was a bigger mistake for the media and OUM (OUM pushed the last one, not BAMN) to try to push it. They had cried wolf so many times before it merely added to the effect Dickerson outlines. It drove debate underground. And people may not memorize the rules of logic, but they understand the lack of logic in associational guilt. That said, both the KKK line of attack and the general BAMN vitriol that MCRI was racist, fraudulent, dirty, rotten, cheaters (and now you have nicely added Satanic), was a horribly counter-productive strategy, because people who supported MCRI or leaned toward for what they believed were reasoned beliefs took the attack personally and hardened to any reasoned messages OUM put out. I predict that had OUM and BAMN NOT RUN A CAMPAIGN AT ALL, or simply run a grass-roots word-of-mouth effort with no media, they would have lost but only by margins in line with California. They grew the margin for us with non-sense.

    And its not just white voters. Exit polls showed 20% of blacks voted for it, and we know the polls were underreporting by about 7 percent for the overall population. It could be higher for blacks because they are even more under social pressure not to answer “wrong” on this one. Sure, the top number at best would have been 40% (one EPIC-MRA poll a while back), but nationally one study showed 70% of black high school juniors had serious fairness concerns about preferences, even when explained in glowing terms.

    We get jaded when we get older, don’t we?

  14. Chetly Zarko November 17, 2006 at 11:00 pm | | Reply

    Cobra,

    Oh, I notice something so priceless in your response I must point it out.

    You offer detailed quotational evidence that in addition to being total kooks and nuts, 1) the Klan believes in a Satan (which it defines as Jews and inferior races) 2) You acknowledged your own personal belief in Satan (as an enemy of God) when you labelled Ward’s statement “Satanic”.

    By associational logic you must support the Klan because you both believe in Satan.

    Then again, this should be no surprise since you go by a psuedonym invoking the image the snake, which is the biblical image of Satan.

    What’s up with these connections, Cobra?

  15. Cobra December 16, 2006 at 12:48 am | | Reply

    Chetly Zarko writes:

    >>>”As David points out, you cut the statement in half, just like the media did, to twist your point into a grossly distorted attack on Ward. You’re intentional deletion of half the statement is therefore dishonest and disgusting.”

    What are you talking about? I posted the link to the You Tube video where the statement spews forth straight out of Connerly’s lips. Are you saying Connerly himself is speaking out of context?

    I also posted a link to a photograph of Ward Connerly shaking hands with John Raterink, director of the Michigan Chapter of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a white separatist group.

    http://www.cofcc.org/index.php?start_from=15&ucat=&archive=&subaction=&id=&

    I may think a lot of things about Ward Connerly, but ignorance about white separatist groups like the KKK and the CC of C is not among them. I believe Connerly knew EXACTLY what he was doing when he said “God Bless the KKK” and when he met with the CC of C. They’re solidarity messages to the “base” of the white male ascendancy movement, followed by hastily prepared “clarifications” to calm confused white moderates. Now, you also have to acknowlege that there are plenty of Americans still left who really don’t have a problem with the Klan’s philosophy anyway, despite whatever statements to the contrary they may make in mixed company, or blog posts. That’s Cobra Argument #1 about America still being a racist country.

    Chetly writes:

    >>>”That said, I made clear (and took some heat for) in the days after Ward’s remark was distorted that I felt Ward’s remark itself was a mistake, because we must always condemn the Klan at every opportunity and Ward is smart enough and experienced enough to know his words will be twisted. Knowing Ward well, he was caught in one of those moments of glibness few can avoid if exposed to the media as much as he is as many times as he is.”

    So the mistake was one of bad marketing strategy?

    Come on, Chetly. From the posts I’ve seen you write here, and your website (which I do visit), you seem to come to this debate as an academic excercise. Though I vehemetly disagree with you 98% of the time, I don’t get the impression that you’re doing this for anything other than some “principled stance on conservativism”, or some similiar windmill-tilting judicial grandiosity. You certainly, to your credit, go OUT OF YOUR WAY to distance yourself from blatant and infamous hate groups and individuals.

    No reasonable person, however, looking at the growing evidence on Ward “do-and-say-anything-to-keep-the-pro-white-think-tank-grants-flowing-in” Connerly, can come to that same conclusion.

    Chetly writes:

    >>>”That said, both the KKK line of attack and the general BAMN vitriol that MCRI was racist, fraudulent, dirty, rotten, cheaters (and now you have nicely added Satanic), was a horribly counter-productive strategy, because people who supported MCRI or leaned toward for what they believed were reasoned beliefs took the attack personally and hardened to any reasoned messages OUM put out.”

    I’m sure MCRI supporters hardened up, just like voters in Alabama did recently:

    >>>”The constitution still requires racially segregated education in the state (Section 256). Although this provision has not been enforced since the 1960s, the continued existence of these provisions is seen by some in Alabama as an embarrassment to the state. A proposal to strike the segregation requirement was defeated narrowly in 2004.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Constitution

    But those Alabamans did manage to pass something else in 2000…

    >>>” Alabama voters on Tuesday repealed the state’s century-old ban against interracial marriage, an unenforceable but embarrassing throwback to the state’s segregationist past.

    The vote was running 59 percent to 41 percent, with 58 percent of the voted counted.

    The vote removed the dubious distinction of Alabama being the only state in the country with such a relic from the segregated South remaining in its constitution.”

    http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/07/alabama.interracial/

    Maybe that’s why Ward is making Western states his next targets, and avoiding the deep South….hmmm. Anyway, there are more than enough angry whites in America still afraid of integration and (GASP) miscegenation to pass ANY ballot initiative that even hints at being against minorities, despite whatever noble, academically profound rationale you want to sweeten the bitter pill with.

    Chetly writes:

    >>>”And its not just white voters. Exit polls showed 20% of blacks voted for it, and we know the polls were underreporting by about 7 percent for the overall population.”

    It was actually 86-14 for blacks AGAINST Prop 2. And Hispanics voted against it as well. Face it, Chet…it’s a white voting majority that passed this thing.

    Now,on to this Satan stuff…

    You actually make a cute observation, here. Touche.

    Never let it be said I don’t have a sense of humor.

    :-)

    –Cobra

    “Please allow me to introduce myself…”

Say What?