University Of Michigan: Scofflaw?

The Detroit News reports this morning that “the University of Michigan launched a task force charged with ensuring diversity on campus.”

Called “Diversity Blueprints,” the group of students, faculty, staff and alumni will brainstorm creative solutions to sustain a “diverse learning community” within the confines of Proposal 2, which authorized an amendment to ban government affirmative action. The best ideas will be backed by “significant resources,” according to an e-mail to the university community.

“Our university thrives on finding solutions to vexing societal issues,” U-M President Mary Sue Coleman and Provost Teresa A. Sullivan said in the joint e-mail.

“This is an historic moment, and an opportunity to apply our collective creative, energetic thinking to discover the most effective ways to support diversity. We will succeed only if we have thoughtful input from everyone in our community.”

I hope this effort is successful. Diversity — even the limited pigmentary “diversity” to which elite institutions are addicted — has much to recommend it. But there is an ironic problem with any success this task force may have: to the degree that it is successful in finding ways to promote “diversity” without relying on racial preferences, it will have indicted the university for not having done so earlier, despite the strict requirements laid out in the Grutter opinion.

As I wrote recently, here:

if [U-M president Mary Sue Coleman] 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.

UPDATE [23 Nov. – Thanksgiving!]

Under the title “MASSIVE RESISTANCE IN MICHIGAN: YOUR IDEAS WANTED,” Powerline posted the letter that U-M president Mary Sue Coleman and Provost Teresa Sullivan sent out to the entire University of Michigan community soliciting ideas, suggestions, input to the new “Diversity Blueprints” task force.

This task force, the letter states,

will begin its work immediately. Its first task will be to engage the U-M community in developing fresh, innovative approaches to sustain and enhance diversity. Through e-mail, a website, brainstorming sessions and other means we will encourage alumni, faculty, staff, students, and others to consider the question, “How can we maintain and enhance diversity at U-M in the years ahead?” Areas for specific input include recruiting, precollege/K-12 outreach, admissions, financial aid, mentoring/student success, climate, curriculum/classroom discussions, diversity research and assessment, and external funding opportunities.

The ideas submitted may range from general insights to detailed plans. In the true spirit of brainstorming, all ideas will be considered regardless of how ambitious or unconventional they may seem. We will commit significant resources to some of the best and most promising recommendations that the Diversity Blueprints task force brings forward.

….

We are asking the Diversity Blueprints task force, and our entire community, to leave no stone unturned as we explore ways to encourage diversity within the boundaries of the law.

Again, what I find most striking about this commendable effort is that it was not undertaken before the university turned to massive racial preferences as the solution to its “diversity” problem, and even more striking, that it was not done even after the Supreme Court in Grutter held that such an effort would be required in the future of any university that turned to racial preference (though it did not specifically require that effort of the University of Michigan).

Indeed, one useful (though I’m sure unintended) result of this task force, and this email outlining the U-M’s commitment to funding and implementing its best suggestions, is that it may create something a de facto standard that other universities will be expected to meet in order to meet their Grutter obligations.

Finally, President Coleman and Provost Sullivan ask for help and advice, which any reader should feel free to give:

You may share your ideas by writing to email hidden; JavaScript is required. More details will be coming soon about members of the task force and other ways you can get involved in this work, such as by attending a campus forum.

Many individuals in our community also have questions about how Proposal 2 affects specific aspects of our work. We have created a central e-mail address, email hidden; JavaScript is required, that will assist you in getting answers to your questions. Questions submitted to this address will go to the Office of Institutional Equity and will be routed to the appropriate areas for response.

In concluding, Scott at Powerline captures the priorities at U-M perfectly: “Do you get the impression that compliance with the law of equal treatment is not the highest priority of the university’s officers?”

UPDATE II [23 Nov.]

Steve Chapman makes many of these same points in his excellent Chicago Tribune column.

After the votes were counted on election night, there were lots of gracious concession statements by losing candidates thanking their supporters, offering to work with the winners and paying tribute to the virtues of democracy. Then there was Mary Sue Coleman, who was having none of this.

The day after Michigan’s citizens voted to ban the use of racial and gender preferences by public institutions, the president of the University of Michigan gave an embittered speech telling them to take a long walk off a short pier. Her message was that the school would do “whatever it takes” to delay, frustrate and circumvent the clearly expressed will of the public. She could have been more succinct if she had merely repeated the words of Dick Tuck after losing a California state senate race in 1964: “The people have spoken — the bastards.”

Coleman has been a staunch champion of the idea of correcting racial discrimination by practicing racial discrimination. The University of Michigan’s admissions policies have the effect of accepting many black and Hispanic applicants who would be rejected if they were white or Asian-American. [jsr: And, correspondingly, of not accepting that exact same number of whites, Asians, or others who would have been admitted if their race had not been “taken into account.”]

….

The good news, she said, is that a variety of “outreach” programs will remain in operation despite the new law. This is a surprising revelation, since before Nov. 7, opponents of the ban insisted it would doom efforts to recruit minority and female students. Now we are told that it won’t. Were we being misled then, or are we being misled now?

The same question applies to her insistence that the university can still achieve the kind of diversity it prizes. Before the vote, supporters of the initiative said it would not make the campus a sea of rich white kids. Now Coleman seems to concur. That, or she plans to defy the new policy by using race surreptitiously to achieve the same old ends.

Say What? (1)

  1. Chetly Zarko November 23, 2006 at 4:43 pm | | Reply

    John,

    It is all ironic and contradictory, of course, and suggestive of lack of effort in the wake of Grutter. But we on this side need to move beyond that somewhat – I recommend that all of us identify a specific program or idea and submit it to U-M through the email address.

Say What?