Detroit Area Newspaper Letters on the MCRI

July 13, 2006

An article in today's Detroit Free Press by Professor Mark J. Perry of the University of Michigan-Flint is well reasoned and timely. Together with yesterday's article (printed below) it adds logical analysis to a debate that has up until now been characterized by fear mongering.

In pursuit of equality
Justice demands end to racial double standards

July 13, 2006

Fifty years ago, it was common for American universities to require applicants to submit a photograph with their admissions materials. This practice allowed some universities to engage in racial profiling, denying admission to qualified black applicants to maintain predominantly white student bodies.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination based on race, color or national origin, and effectively ended the practice of racial double standards in college admissions. Universities started practicing race-neutral admissions.

But racial discrimination in college admissions resurfaced in the 1970s under the name "affirmative action." The old practice of submitting photographs was replaced with the new practice of checking boxes on the college application that identified a student's race and ethnicity, which entitled some students to preferential treatment.

In what will shape the future of college admission policies in Michigan, voters will decide in November whether universities that accept public funds can continue their current admissions practices of double standards and racial preferences.

To understand why it's time to end racial preferences in higher education, consider the following scenario.

A university professor walks into class at the beginning of the semester. After a review of required texts, assignments and examinations, the professor discusses grading. The professor explains that there is a new university policy that applies a double standard for grading and is an extension of the university's race-based admissions policies.

A standard grading scale will apply to all white, Asian and Arab students. African-American and Hispanic students will automatically receive extra points for all assignments and will receive a final letter grade based on a preferential grading scale.

Most people would find this a blatant form of discrimination.

First, the students receiving academic favoritism might justifiably object that they are being stereotyped as a homogeneous group. It would be offensive to many of those students to assume automatically that they all need preferential academic treatment.

Second, this form of academic profiling creates a disincentive for black and Hispanic students to study as hard as they would otherwise. Moreover, these students could face a special-preference stigma when they enter the job market or apply to graduate school. Their academic credentials could justifiably be questioned.

Finally, most everyone would object to the fundamental unfairness of giving preferential treatment to certain groups of students. The students who didn't receive special grading preferences would rightfully feel they were being treated unfairly and being discriminated against. Why should an Arab or Asian student with an 85% score in an accounting class get a letter grade of B if a black or Hispanic student with the same percentage gets an A?

These and many other reasons explain why the only acceptable practice in the classroom is the equal treatment of all students as individuals, without regard to race, sex, ethnicity or religion.

And yet the hypothetical classroom-based discrimination is exactly the type of admission-based discrimination that prevails at some public universities in Michigan. And it is the obvious objections to academic favoritism in the classroom that explain why racial favoritism in college admissions is being legally challenged.

Students are already treated as individuals without regard to race by university professors once they enter college. Treating all students as individuals when they first apply to college will ultimately move us further along toward the ideal of a colorblind society than maintaining the current admissions practices of double standards, special preferences and racial discrimination.

President John F. Kennedy said: "Simple justice requires that public funds, to which all taxpayers of all races and national origins contribute, not be spent in any fashion which encourages, entrenches, subsidizes or results in racial discrimination." Hopefully, Kennedy's vision will prevail this fall when Michigan voters have an opportunity to end state-sponsored racial discrimination in college admissions at Michigan public universities.

MARK J. PERRY is a professor of economics and finance at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan. Write to him in care of the Free Press Editorial Page, 600 W. Fort St., Detroit 48226 or oped@freepress.com.



July 12, 2006

This is the first day on which this BLOG, Racefreezone.com, becomes operational. I cannot think of a better way to introduce our readers to the main issues addressed by the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), which will appear as a proposal on the Michigan general election ballot in November of this year, than to reprint the article below from today's Detroit News.

Your comments for publication are appreciated.

Thank you,

Jack Lifton

_______________________________________

From the Detroit News (Op-Ed page) for July 12, 2006


Why don't rights ballot foes want a vote?

Racial preference supporters thwart democracy, lack confidence in stance

Douglas A. Kahn

Opponents of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative have tried a variety of ways to try to keep it off the ballot, even though supporters provided more than enough valid signatures. The initiative proposes barring the state, its schools and other units of government from giving racial preferences in awarding benefits.

I have difficulty understanding why many opponents are so determined to squelch an issue that is so ripe for discussion and prevent the public from debating and resolving it. The extent to which they have sought to prevent a vote does not speak well of their commitment to democracy or their confidence in their position.

The passion this issue arouses in its opponents apparently may cloud their own sense of official and ethical responsibility.

Tax-funded partisanship?

A recent example involves the chair of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission, which has issued a report accusing Michigan Civil Rights Initiative proponents of fraud in gathering petition signatures. Several weeks after this, Commission Chair Mark Bernstein held a $150-a-person party in his Ann Arbor home to raise money opposing the passage of the initiative.

This partisanship suggests the commission's report may be nothing more than advocacy by opponents of the referendum. It is important for government officials to appear to be impartial as well as to be so.

Commission members can have their personal views on issues, but when Bernstein plays an active role in stirring up opposition to a ballot measure, residents can't trust his judgment when he acts in his official capacity as the Civil Rights Commission chair.

House Speaker Craig DeRoche has requested the state auditor general and attorney general to investigate the commission and the Michigan Department of Civil Rights to determine if they may have exceeded their powers by investigating the MCRI's signature gathering. He wants to know if the Civil Rights Commission used taxpayer dollars to pursue a political investigation it shouldn't have done.

Other ethical violations

Other unethical breaches have occurred. The Board of State Canvassers initially refused to put the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, or MCRI, on the ballot because of worries about how the signatures were gathered. It did so even though Attorney General Mike Cox made it clear to the board that it lacked the authority to pass judgment on questions of alleged misrepresentations.

Proponents of the initiative obtained a court order requiring MCRI to be placed on the ballot. After a messy hearing in which a group calling itself "By Any Means Necessary" disrupted the proceedings, the board again failed to put the measure on the ballot.

Fed up with the board's intransigence, the Michigan Court of Appeals then bypassed it and scheduled contempt hearings for two Democratic members who had prevented the MCRI from going on the ballot. Both eventually ended up resigning from the State Board of Canvassers. Both had to pay fines to resolve the cases.

Having lost that round, opponents are concocting other anti-democratic strategies. An officer of By Any Means Necessary is reported to have said that if she and her allies can't block MCRI through court actions, they will urge city and county clerks to leave it off the ballot even though that would violate their official and legal obligations.

Instead of engaging in anti-democratic practices, opponents should be wrestling with the legitimate questions the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative has raised about the fairness and ethics of using racial preferences.

Wrestling with fairness

The University of Michigan Law School adopted a policy of affirmative action 42 years ago, and I was part of that committee. I was uneasy about basing decisions on racial differences, but I concluded that it was necessary to do so then to stimulate progress for a people who had been repressed for many years.

The affirmative action program has been successful. But the situation today is quite different from what it was 42 years ago.

Many people balk at the notion that racial preferences should continue for 50 or 100 years -- or perhaps forever. The issue is whether, after four decades, current circumstances justify continuing the practice in university admissions, state government hiring and government contracting. I suspect that most Michigan voters don't think so.

But opponents of the initiative are doing their best (or actually their worst) to see to it that we never find out how most Michiganians will vote on this issue.

Continuing racial preferences raises hard questions about ethics and fairness. One can only speculate about why the supporters of racial preferences are so afraid to have those questions answered by the citizens of Michigan.

If the issues are laid on the table and discussed, the public will come to the right conclusion -- whatever that might be. Let the debate commence.

Douglas A. Kahn is the Paul G. Kauper professor at the University of Michigan Law School in Ann Arbor. Please fax letters to (313) 222-6417 or e-mail them to letters@detnews.com.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------