Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed

  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!



    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    Law? What Law? - U of M President Ignores MCRI

    By JGillman, Section News
    Posted on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 09:40:09 AM EST
    Tags: MCRI, Michigan, U of M, Mary Sue Coleman, Jen Gratz, Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (all tags)

    Ann Arbor is hardly a bastion of right wing sympathy, and in fact has been referred to with many different flavors of name calling suggesting socialist, communist, and otherwise far leftist philosophy.  The population as a whole is decidedly left of center on most issues. It should come as no surprise that discover the leadership of the resident university is quite comfortable with that characteristic.

    But at what point does having an opinion that differs from that of a majority of Michiganders become an action that differs with a rule of LAW?

    The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative which was passed in November of 2006 and became law December 22nd, that same year. The MCRI made illegal, the preferential practices based on race often used with university admissions.  At least the case that spawned the initiative Gratz V. Bollinger was a result of the mechanisms of those university preferences.

    But has it stopped the University of Michigan from basing its admissions on race? The MCRI is law, yet there may well be a purposeful attempt to ignore it, and continue practices Michigan residents had already found to be distasteful enough.. to make illegal.

    In the University of Michigan Application, there is a Race  / Ethnicity section (shown above) that is optional.  But this is really not an issue with admissions, and is simply a statistical tool.  Typically the data entry associated with this would have nothing to do with the selection of students and reviewers would never see it.  

    There is another section which is quite an eye raiser.  In fact enough so, that Michigan Alumni Michael Gillman (my father.. for those who might be curious) felt compelled to write Ward Connerly, the founder and the chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute, who was a strong advocate and supporter of Jen Gratz and the MCRI in 2006: (enclosure referenced directly below the letter)

    re: University of Michigan Doesn't Give up!

    Dear MR. Connerly

    This is written to remind you (if reminder is necessary) that our PC-driven universities don't give up easy even when voters make "affirmative action" illegal

    You efforts in Michigan culminated in an overwhelming rejection of race based admission policies. Voters in 80 of Michigan's 83 counties agreed that our constitution should remain color blind.

    But the enclosure shows how the University of Michigan (my own alma mater) refuses to accept that message.  Undergraduate applications are evaluated on SAT and ACT scores, school records, and a single essay question.  When one thinks of literally thousands of potential philosophical, economic or political issues that could be used to test the thinking and writing skills of applicants, the use of the single question by the U of M represents an amazing coincidence!

    We start with a single given pronounced by the U of M president Mary Sue Coleman: "We know that diversity makes us a better university-better for learning, for teaching, and for conducting research." That is presumed to be the factual basis for the essay, even though recent research has demonstrated the exact opposite.  The student is then asked to "share an experience through which you have gained respect for the intellectual, social, or cultural differences. Comment on how your personal experiences and achievements would contribute to the diversity of the University of Michigan."
    To use journalistic jargon, the question is a "twofer."  The university official reviewing that question can determine both the race of the writer and the political acceptability of that writer's personal beliefs!   Essay questions are designed to be screening devices. It is clear whatthe screen is intended to include and exclude by use of this question.

    This is merely written to let you know that your hard won gains can, and are being eroded.

    Very Truly Yours,
    Michael J. Gillman  (LSA, 1961)

    Indeed the University does not give up.  Perhaps it is the liberal mindset  to support law until it contradicts their political philosophy?  The question now revolves around the legality of the application's obvious use of this screening method.  Given the Michigan Constitution now holds language barring such screening it seems an institution receiving public monies should perhaps stop receiving them, or..  the removal of such a device, or perhaps even better..  the leadership.. is necessary.

    < A Resolute New Year | What has Lansing done for our great state in 2009? >

    Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

    Display: Sort:
    FOIA time! (none / 0) (#1)
    by jgillmanjr on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 12:54:15 PM EST
    As I've mentioned to my dad when we were originally talking about this at our Christmas Eve get together (Politics at family gatherings are indeed a Gillman tradition), this is where someone needs to FOIA the application data with it's link to the applicant being accepted or not.

    I have a suspicion that running the data through the stats grinder will show that those not answering the essay question in a "pro-diversity" (really pro-affirmative action) way will be those more apt to be denied acceptance.

    Of course if that's the case, it would clearly be time to litigate. In addition, I think the hurt should be put on the administration and others involved in making that application.

    U-M (none / 0) (#2)
    by Rougman on Fri Jan 01, 2010 at 09:23:08 AM EST
    I have never understood that whole "diversity is our strength" canard.  

    It seems to me that America is great not because of its diversity, but because Americans are generally willing, on principle, to ignore each other's diversity.  Our little experiment here allows people of different cultures to gather together and to move forward as Americans...you know...from many, one.  

    This infatuation so many people have with multiculturalism is anathema to the American ideal.  To think that students might learn better because they happen to sit next to someone in a classroom with a different skin tone or speech inflection is silly.  This happens how, through osmosis?  

    We see similar monuments to diversity in many places on campus.  Yet, these monuments do nothing but hinder mingling.  Go to the Women's Center on campus and see how many men are milling about.  Go to the Gay Alliance office and document all the straight people there.  On and on.  These offices dedicated to diversity serve as protected safety zones for those whose group is being celebrated.  Mike Adams, a professor at UNC-Wilmington, has done a lot of writing on this subject.

    Chief Justice John Roberts said it best..."The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."  A comment that is lost on people like Mary Sue Coleman.  

    Diversity or Fragmentation (none / 0) (#4)
    by Bruce on Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 10:50:08 AM EST
    From last June:

    There is an often stated position that the strength of the United States comes from its diversity. There is no doubt that diversity of opinion and ideas has provided the necessary force to strengthen the "muscles" of our nation. Complacency is not allowed as our nation faces both external and internal challenges.

    Truth for our society is not absolute. We hold these truths to be self-evident really overstates the case considerably. We have never been one country in terms of religion, ideologies, politics, ethics, or morality. Yet, we have always maintained the public position that there are certain "American values" that are delineated in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. We do not elevate Catholic values or English values or African values or anything specific to precursors of American values.

    Each group... religious, political, or ethnic... has retained its flavor but only as part of the American stew. We accept the fact that once we are Americans we subordinate our personal histories to the American values. We choose to be diverse as Americans, not Americans fragmented by ethnicity or gender or other values. Or do we?

    Perhaps that is why it is so difficult for so many people to accept that a Supreme Court nominee... who may become the guardian of American values... remains so focused on her ethnic ways. It appears that she subordinates American values to her ethnic experience. Appearances may be deceiving, but she is not doing anything to dispel that notion.

    Display: Sort:


    Make a new account

    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search