 |
|
Thursday, January 16, 2003
previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)
MICHIGAN'S AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Lots of
MICHIGAN'S AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Lots of blogosphere kudos to President Bush for his decision to oppose the University of Michigan's affirmative action plan (Here's Josh Chafetz and Andrew Sullivan). Yesterday, the New York Times made its views known with a truly misleading editorial: "The two cases, which challenge the University of Michigan's use of race as a "plus factor" in undergraduate and law school admissions, have huge implications for the nation's efforts to widen racial equality and increase campus diversity by opening institutions of higher learning to more blacks and Hispanics. Moreover, in the aftermath of the Trent Lott embarrassment, the administration's stance will be seen as an indicator of the president's commitment to moving his party and the country beyond the segregationist past." There are serious errors in both sentences. Arguing that opposing affirmative action is the equivalent of supporting segregationism is absurd on its face. As for the implicit notion that opposition to affirmative action indicates racism, liberals of good conscience were careful to flatly reject that assertion during the height of the Lottroversy. As for the description of Michigan's use of race as a "plus factor," here's the Chicago Tribune's description of the exact weights used: "The Michigan undergraduate program awards students up to 150 points for a variety of factors, including 20 points for African Americans and some Hispanic students. That's more than a student can earn for having perfect SAT scores (12 points) or for having an outstanding essay (3 points), and is often enough to be the decisive factor for a student's admission, administration officials said. Michigan's law school sets aside a specific number of seats each year for minority students." (my italics) Face it -- these are quota schemes. The Tribune also has a nice profile on how Michigan's obsession with racial diversity crowds out other forms of diversity. posted by Dan on 01.16.03 at 11:18 AMComments: I am a 17 yr old college student. I didn't get in the university that I attend b/c I'm black. I got in b/c I carried a 3.7 GPA through middle & high school, I graduated from the Spanish Immersion Program in which I studied for 11 years, i showed determination in graduating a whole year early, and I was involved in just about every extracurricular activity there was. It is sad to think that if it weren't for affirmative action I, even with all my credantials & acomplishments, wouldn't have the same chance as the student who's name on the application doesn't sound "black". It is sad to say, but racism is still very much on the rise. It is just seen differently. Society has been made up to keep everyone in there class. My parents have done a good job of raising me, but i don't care to stay in that class. If it were up to those already on top I'd be still at the bottom doing all I can to get to the top while they continue to build up those who already have been given a chance. My chances at getting a job, into college, or even a part of programs became twice the job when I was born BLACK. posted by: Arion on 01.16.03 at 11:18 AM [permalink]I can understand Arion's complaint. As for myself, I have more than twice the difficulty because my parents were dropouts, I wasn't born rich, I have no family social contacts, I didn't go to a premium school, and I'm not an athlete, and the white who ran the town where I lived (years ago) were from a different part of Europe. To make it tougher, I'm penalized because I'm white, and sometimes because I'm male. Now that I've enriched your educational experience with my diverse perspective, I invite you to enjoy the humor about Michigan's diversit policy, posted at my URL. posted by: Robert A. on 01.16.03 at 11:18 AM [permalink]Affirmative action needs to be rejected because it is immoral; it is an anti-merit system. If it weren't that way,there would be no need for such a policy as disparate impact, where any test or standard is ruled out if it affects a disadvantaged group more than some other group. Therefore, we should be anti-affirmative action, and anti-quota; the further the departure from a pro-merit system the worse the immorality. posted by: john s bolton on 01.16.03 at 11:18 AM [permalink]Post a Comment: |
 Politics, economics, globalization, academia, pop culture... all from a
Main home page  Reviews of DanielDrezner.com: "Sharp but informal commentary on politics and foreign policy." -- The New Republic "Dan Drezner is terrific.... Excellent blog." -- Andrew Sullivan "Dan's stuff is always worth reading." -- Eugene Volokh "One of the essential weblogs." -- Gawker.com "Old battle horse of the blogosphere." -- Jewcy.com "Soft porn." -- Amitai Etzioni "Spawned grave atrocities and vast destruction." -- Glenn Greenwald "Monday morning quarterback... conservative robot... the very foundation of troubles in this country." -- not-so-random readers Contact me at: ddrezner@gmail.com (But click here to read my e-mail policy) Search the Site TNR's Open University Jacob Levy Glenn Reynolds Andrew Sullivan Mickey Kaus Virginia Postrel The Volokh Conspiracy Josh Marshall Crooked Timber OxBlog Real Clear Politics Kevin Drum Across the Aisle Economist's Free Exchange TNR's The Plank NRO's The Corner TAP's Tapped America Abroad Duck of Minerva Opinio Juris Brad DeLong Jeff Jarvis Mystery Pollster Mark Kleiman Meryl Yourish Megan McArdle Marginal Revolution Michael Munger Chris Lawrence Matthew Yglesias Hit and Run Cold Spring Shops Stephen Green Outside the Beltway Pejman Yousefzadeh Laura McKenna (11D) Elected Swineherd Phil Carter Joe Gandelman Winds of Change Andrew Samwick Greg Mankiw Dani Rodrik Roger L. Simon Tom Maguire Greg Djerejian The American Scene Post Global Democracy Arsenal Recent articles online "Foreign Policy Goes Glam."The National Interest, November/December 2007 "Rise of the Hipster Statesmen." Newsweek International, November 1, 2007 "The New New World Order." Foreign Affairs, March/April 2007 "Mind the Gap." The National Interest, January/February 2007 "The Grandest Strategy Of Them All." Washington Post, December 17, 2006 U.S. Trade Strategy: Free Versus Fair Council on Foreign Relations Press, September 2006. Complete online article archive Blog Archives June 2008May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 Academia Area studies Book club culture economics fence-sitting from Blogger globalization homeland security international relations law Mediasphere My very important posts New Republic outsourcing personal politics Sports The blog paper the blogosphere thesis ideas Trade and Development U.S. foreign policy website maintenance See full archives listing Recent Entries • Someone keep Fleet Street away from Bill Clinton• It rivals Buckley vs. Vidal, I tell you • So.... are the Clintons morons? • The New York Times didn't ask me, but then again, that's why I have this blog • Monica Crowley's jet black pot • Al Qaeda is losing • Speaking of karma.... • The blog post that writes itself • What made me laugh today • Where should Hillary go? Site Credits 
|