What is deceitful?
What is deceitful. . .
. . .the language of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative which is based nearly verbatim on the Civil Rights Act and simply adds “preferential treatment” to the prohibitions OR the claims by the opposition that it will “roll back the clock”?
. . .the MCRI petition language which the Michigan Supreme Court found clear and truthful OR the activists who claimed petition signers didn’t understand it?
. . .the MCRI language which prohibits preferential treatment in public education, public employment, and public contracting OR the scare tactics of the opposition who falsely claim that breast screening and battered women shelters would be outlawed?
Now, The Michigan Daily can add itself to the promoters of deceit by parroting the attacks of One United Michigan on Jennifer Gratz’s family. Gratz’s rejection letter states the following:
"All of the applications have now been reviewed and I regret to inform you we are unable to offer you admission."
How the Daily gleans acceptance from this sentence is beyond reason. To claim Gratz should have expected to gain admission by placing her name on the wait list ignores the University’s own recommendations:
"However, we expect to take very few students from the Extended Waiting List, and recommend students make alternative plans to attend another institution."
According to the Daily’s logic, rejection equals acceptance. George Orwell would be so proud.
[Online posting - The Michigan Daily. Posted 10/02/2006.]
1 comment:
Fact: Gratz received a letter from U-M stating she was not granted admission to the university.
Fact: The Supreme Court ruled in Gratz v. Bollinger that U-M’s admission policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. From the decision: “However, the Court finds that the University’s current policy, which automatically distributes 20 points, or one-fifth of the points needed to guarantee admission, to every single “underrepresented minority” applicant solely because of race, is not narrowly tailored to achieve educational diversity.” How important were the 20-points? According to the USSC: “…the LSA’s 20-point distribution has the effect of making “the factor of race . . . decisive” for virtually every minimally qualified underrepresented minority applicant…”
Your claim that as a female, she would benefit from affirmative action is pointless. U-M’s “affirmative action” program of granting preferential treatment did not grant additional points for gender; only color. Her grades, test scores and extra-curricular activities would have been enough to get her admitted if other applicants had not received 20 bonus points just because they were an “underrepresented minority.”
You stated “In any case, there are certainly much larger factors that go into the admissions process (grades, extracurricular activities, and so on).” If this is the case, WHAT’S THE PROBLEM? If the preferential treatment handed out by public universities and agencies is a minor factor, why does OUM claim this will “roll back the clocks” in Michigan? If preferential treatment is a minor factor, why do I read bogus research from Susan Kaufman claiming that minorities in California universities have been kicked to the curb? Which is it. Either preferential treatment is a critical factor and all the doom and gloom predictions of OUM are possibilities or preferential treatment is a minor factor and should have little affect. It can’t be both.
Finally, I realize I’m not going to change your mind and you are not going to change mine. In a nutshell, treating people differently because of their race or gender is wrong. It doesn’t matter why you treat them different. The objective of the Civil Rights movement was equal treatment. That is what the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative’s goal is too.
I leave the last word to you.
Post a Comment