November 11, 2006; Page A7
Wall Street Journal
Ward Connerly has done
it again: A striking 58% of Michigan voters gave the Michigan Civil Rights
Initiative a thumbs up; only three counties voted against it.
The language of the
MCRI closely tracks California's 1996 Proposition 209, also led by Mr.
Connerly. It amends the Michigan Constitution to "ban public institutions
from using affirmative-action programs that give preferential treatment to
groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national
origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes." The
political and business establishments, pressure groups like the AARP,
labor-union leaders, religious spokesmen, the professoriat, the major Detroit
newspapers -- all were opposed to MCRI. But a substantial majority of ordinary
voters were thinking for themselves.
Patty Alspach was
perhaps a typical supporter. A Democrat, she signed the petition putting the
proposition on the ballot. Meanwhile, opponents loudly claimed that the measure
was misleading, that voters were being duped, that it should be tossed off the
ballot. "I read it," replied Ms. Alpach. "I understood it. I
signed it. Now let me vote on it."
While Mr. Connerly is
the father of the civil-rights initiatives, in Michigan his role was that of
mentor and fund-raiser; Jennifer Gratz, MCRI's executive director, was in
charge. She'd been the lead plaintiff in Gratz v. Bollinger, one of the
University of Michigan cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2003.
The Court agreed that race-driven admissions policies were okay as long as they
remained a bit subtle -- but no naked point system for the color of an
applicant's skin. The drive for the MCRI was launched immediately after the Gratz
and Grutter decisions were announced.
The initiative's
opponents enjoyed a five-fold funding advantage, which they used to broadcast a
series of scary messages. The MCRI would be a tragedy on the scale of 9/11; it
would perpetuate a "culture of inequity," and "endanger access to
life-saving health-care services that apply only to women" -- the language
of the initiative to the contrary notwithstanding. Opponents even found
basketball coaches to tout the importance of seeking "diversity." In
response to that last stunt, the tiny band of full-time, young MCRI workers
(five on the payroll) sent a staffer -- a very short Korean immigrant,
carrying a basketball and dressed for the court -- to the coaches' press
conference where he stated his eagerness to add "diversity" to the
game.
Such episodes reveal
the youthful idealism and commitment of Ms. Gratz, 24, and her staff, so
reminiscent of the civil-rights movement in its heyday. They were all
20-somethings, ready to sleep under their desks and work nonstop. Despite the
provocative ugliness of the MCRI's opposition, they stuck with an unwavering,
positive message -- leavened with wit.
The ban on preferences
will affect the state and local government, but the University of Michigan will
feel its impact most keenly. In the closing pages of "The Shape of the
River," William Bowen and Derrick Bok's celebrated book on preferential
admissions, the authors warn that, if barred from using racial
double-standards, institutions of higher education will find another way to
achieve the desired racial mix on campuses. Straight out of the Bowen and Bok
playbook, University of Michigan president Mary Sue Coleman issued a statement
on Tuesday night (even before the final results were in): "Regardless of
what happens with Proposal 2, the University of Michigan will remain fully and
completely committed to diversity. I am determined to do whatever it takes to
sustain our excellence by recruiting and retaining a diverse community of
students, faculty and staff."
Brave words in the
face of utter defeat. To be sure, Supreme Court opinions can often be
circumvented behind closed admissions-office doors; that was certainly the
story after the 1978 decision in University of California v. Bakke,
which (on paper) sanctioned the use of racial identity only as a
"plus" factor, one consideration among many in admitting students.
But state constitutional amendments are seriously constraining, as the
experience in California in the years since the passage of 209 suggests. Racial
double-standards in college admissions has been markedly curtailed at the
state's flagship schools.
Buried in a lengthy
speech to University of Michigan students on Wednesday, Ms. Coleman did say,
"of course the University of Michigan will comply with the laws of the
state." It was far from her first thought, however, and she has asked the
school's attorneys "for their full and undivided support in defending
diversity." They'll waste their time. As George Mason University law
professor David Bernstein notes, "the chances that the university would
ultimately win such litigation approach zero."
Ms. Coleman's other
problem is that the much-vaunted "diversity" of the university is
something of a sham, as an editorial writer for the very liberal Daily Michigan
newspaper has suggested. The campus "is starkly segregated . . . We live
in different student neighborhoods. We go to different bars on different
nights. We join in different student groups. There are even separate Greek
systems." While Ms. Coleman has made the usual noises about building a
"community" and "creating a diverse, welcoming campus" --
whom was she kidding? Apparently no one.
Dishonesty has always
been the coin of the realm in this country when it comes to race -- from the
days of the Declaration of Independence to "separate but equal" and
beyond. The use of race as a decisive factor in admissions at selective
colleges and universities is no exception.
The modern-day
survival of racial preferences depends on sympathetic judges willing to spin
dubious arguments and ignore widely available data on the pernicious impact of
such preferences. But, this time, the University of Michigan may find itself
without judicial recourse. The Supreme Court has never said that universities
are constitutionally obligated to institute "diversity" policies.
Public universities are funded by taxpayers. And those taxpayers have spoken.
Ms. Thernstrom
is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and vice-chair of the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights.