Kary Moss has for a long-time been the misguided leader of the Michigan Chapter of the ACLU - a chapter ZR has reported is odds with the D.C. Chapter on petitioner rights, and a chapter that has gone hog-wild on Proposal 2 litigation.

She writes an op-ed here in the Detroit News defending the ACLU's continued litigation against Proposal 2. The thrust of her defense is that the ACLU consistently fights "majority views" that violate "minority rights" - unfortunately, in the case of Proposal 2, no minority right is violated. Most curiously, she labels as a "principle" the ruling that "race and gender can lawfully be considered when making admissions decisions". Here's the full quote:

After a hopelessly confusing election, in which a federal judge found that systemic fraud characterized the process by which Proposal 2 got onto the ballot, we sought a court ruling that interprets that amendment in line with recent cases decided by the Supreme Court that uphold the principle that race and gender can lawfully be considered when making admissions decisions in institutions of higher education.

Principles are big things - like equality, free speech, etc. I didn't know there was a "principle" as specific as considering race and gender in admissions. That was a ruling, and indeed, as she points out, interpretation, of Constitutional principles. But it by itself not a principle. And it is also a vast misstatement of the Supreme Court's actual ruling or interpretation. The Grutter Court was as clear as day though on its interpretation - which is why the ACLU's current legal challenge is so wasteful and subject to criticism. The Supreme Court said that State universities were not barred from preferences if they were narrowly tailored, but they were not obligated to use them, that states like California and Washington which banned them were to be used as models to develop race-neutral alternatives, and that the compelling interest of 2003 might not exist in 2028. Hardly a "principle that race and gender can lawfully be considered" - rather a narrow exception to the larger principle of equality written in terms that gave life to preferences, but not eternal or of the bedrock nature that we'd label principle.

And while "majority will" often imposes on minority rights - perhaps the most appealing argument that could be formulated against any proposal - in the case of MCRI and Proposal 2, we need ask how it imposes on a "minority right". Do minorities have a right to preferences? That's a dangerous road to go down, and there is no logical or reasonable justification for them.

Moss makes the same old tired arguments about confusing, deceptive language, and does nothing to answer this fundamental question. If she could convincingly show that minorities have a right to preference, she could win the debate. She can't because there is no good argument for it.

Last night, Ron Gettlefinger, President of the United Auto Workers union, spoke with former Detroit Mayor Dennis Archer and Wall Street Journal senior economics editor Stephen Moore on the "Business Case for Diversity" and Proposal 2 effects at the University of Michigan Dearborn.

Aside from the lopsided (2-1 speaker ration supporting preference), which I complained about and will note later in another post, Gettlefinger was most agressive in his public statements saying that MCRI was deceptive and that's why it won. Dennis Archer admitted it won for other reasons - citing the fact that most blacks voted against it - "proving" they understood it (while that logic has a deep flaw, the central point that 93% of the City of Detroit voted against MCRI does demonstrate that blacks weren't hoodwinked BY MCRI - but maybe by a liberal establishment that promises them the moon and delivers something closer to, well, what we see now in cities.

Regardless, I made a point to introduce myself to Mr. Gettlefinger after the event. And while I know Dennis Archer to be a decent man who respects that there can be an importance difference of opinion (and his interaction with Stephen Moore demonstrated that), Ron Gettlefinger's a bit different. I began by noting that I worked for Ward Connerly in the past, and he initially responded cordially. When I noted that I was disappointed in his over-reliance on the "deception" argument, and that I was one of the individuals legally responsible for the signature-gathering, he turned and sharply chastised me, saying "what you did was awful." I retorted along the lines that "You've done a number of awful things yourself," and he turned away. I have to give him credit - at least he sticks to his story and is consistent. He's a good hack. Shortly after he turned, I noted that he was in yet another sharp conversation with what appeared to be a reporter and he was chastising them for reporting something he felt untrue - I could only guess it had to do with the leaked Center for Automotive Research claims that the unions would have to negotiate concessions with GM to survive, something which Gettlefinger was quoted as saying was premature.

Dennis Archer on the other hand is a formidable speaker and has a nuanced understanding why One United Michigan lost.

Sometimes you run into a real head scratcher of a quote.

When the President of the Michigan State University (MSU) gets an opportunity to talk about race preferences and it gets published, I get an opportunity to see it, usually through my google alerts. President Louanna K. Simon is quoted in the State News here:

Although the concerns of neighborhood residents was the focus of the discussion, Simon also was asked to address the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, a November ballot initiative that would end the use of preferential treatment for minorities in government hiring and university admissions.

"It has very broad language that could affect programs in ways that are unexpected," Simon said.

She said that affirmative action, which often benefits women, could have helped her in life.

"There's been lots of progress for women in my lifetime and I've gotten some good opportunities," Simon said. "I've got to be intellectually honest with what's helped me."

Now it turns out for you English purists that there is considerable academic debate about when the use of the word got and gotten are proper, but it always revolves around recency of acquisition. (In the Queen's English, it's apparently been out completely for 300 years.) It seems that got has to do with get, and to get something requires temporal recency. To "have gotten" something means to recently acquire it. We all know as a childhoo that it's improper to use got interchange-ably with have. Here the President of the Michigan State University not only uses it that way, she uses it redundantly with "have" through the conjunction "I've". Maybe she's right about needing those preferences? At least she's intellectually honest.

The Lansing State Journal reports important news that Governor Jennifer Granholm is "open" to a Con-Con:

Granholm also said:

• She is open to the idea of a constitutional convention and ideas like the establishment of a progressive state income tax and changes in term limits for legislators.

I've extolled the dangers of the Con-Con, but if Granholm supports it ... and look at the combination of terms there! Establishment of income tax changes, term limit expansion, and a Con-Con.

Zarko Research continues to bring the spotlight down on the "China Scholarship Council," and is now confident to label this the first (known) documented violation of Proposal 2. The only thing preventing that claim in our previous post 12 hours ago was that the public website information posted was slightly dated, could have pre-dated MCRI's effect-date, and contained an "under review" disclaimer (itself a sign the policy was given some kind of thought). Below, is a transcript of a session provided by an authorized internal user of the University of Michigan system, demonstrating post-Court-Order (December 29, 2006) and post consent-agreement failures to comply with the law. This material crosses the temporal t's and i's and demonstrates that the changed policy - mentioned on the publicly accessible site cited by ZR's previous report (and specifically noted as "under review") - is clearly in violation of Proposal 2.

This story also involves dramatic international relations and economics issues, and evidences a complete and fundamentally unsound approach to the "China issue" by the University of Michigan. If the President of U-M were elected, she would properly be subject to recall for the potentially disastrous effects on the Michigan economy and national security. Imagine not only sending our best engineering knowledge to the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War, but guaranteeing Russian scientists five slots in our best university in a deal written to their benefit, at the expense of American citizens (black and white and even Americans of Chinese descent)? ZR will open some more cans of worms on this issue shortly, but the Proposal 2 implications themselves are crystal clear.

Here's a pasted session transcript of the internal U-M Engineering website. I've highlighted the parts necessary to formulate a Proposal 2 violation:

Don't forget to logout when you are finished.

CSC Postdoctoral Scholars Program
CSC Doctoral Student Scholarships

CSC Postdoctoral Scholars Program. In October 2005, the CoE and the China Scholarship Council (CSC) entered into an agreement to foster academic exchange and research collaboration between Chinese scholars and CoE [ed: College of Engineering] faculty members. (View the signed CSC agreement here). The terms of the postdoctoral program are listed below:

1. The postdoctoral scholar must spend a minimum of 9 months and a maximum of 11 months at the UM. The CSC strongly prefers that postdocs begin their UM work in September. A typical postdoc work period would be September 1 – July 31 of the following year.
2. The CSC will support the visiting postdoctoral scholars with round-trip international airfare and a monthly stipend of not less than $1,150 during their time in Ann Arbor.
3. The CoE postdoc Advisor will provide medical insurance and a supplemental monthly stipend of not les than $500 while the scholar is in Ann Arbor.
4. The CSC will support scholars for a second year only if they return to China and complete the project work at their home institutions. The work plan for the second year (laboratory space, equipment, supervision, etc.) should be developed by the CoE faculty member in cooperation with the scholar’s current supervisor in China.
5. All postdoctoral scholars must be citizens of the Peoples Republic of China, have earned doctorates from Chinese or overseas institutions within the last five years and have the necessary English linguistic skills to interact with their advisors and complete the project work in English.
6. All CSC postdocs will travel to the United States on J-1 exchange visitor visas and will be expected to return to China upon completing their research periods. All J-1 visitors are subject to the Two-Year Home Physical Presences Requirement (HPPR) or 212 (e).

Steps for hosting a CSC Postdoc. All items must be completed by March 20, 2007.

1. Review application materials and select scholars. Note: Candidates will apply directly to CoE engineering faculty for postdoc positions.
2. Issue a formal letter of invitation and send it directly to the postdoc candidate. This letter will be critical for CSC approval and the U.S. visa application.
3. Send a copy of the invitation letter to Amy Conger (aconger@umich.edu), International Programs in Engineering Office.

CSC invitation letters should include:

* The candidate's full name and institution
* A brief description of the postdoc position/research project
* Start and end date of the postdoc position
* Financial support that you will provide (amount of monthly stipend + medical insurance)
* Your full name, title and signature
* View a sample invitation letter

CSC Doctoral Student Scholarships. The CSC will offer travel and living stipends to Chinese students who wish to pursue doctoral studies at the UM. The terms of the scholarships are listed below:

1. CSC will provide round-trip airfare and a living stipend of $1,000-$1,100 per month for students who are admitted to UM doctoral programs with an offer of tuition support. Please note that this tuition support must be provided by the UM faculty or department.
2. Students who are already enrolled in a Chinese doctoral program may come to Michigan for a shorter period on a "non-candidate for degree" (NCFD) basis. These students are eligible for the same CSC stipend listed above and any tuition funding must come from the UM department.
3. Eligible students must be currently studying or working in mainland China (students currently at Michigan or the U.S. are not eligible to apply).
4. All CSC fellows will travel to the United States on J-1 exchange visitor visas and will be expected to return to China upon completing their degrees or short-term study/research periods. All J-1 visitors are subject to the Two-Year Home Physical Presences Requirement (HPPR) or 212 (e).
5. Doctoral students must [sic] their admission and funding offers before the CSC deadline of March 20, 2007 in order to complete their individual CSC applications.

We expect that top Chinese students will be in the CSC competition. UM admission letters may include full funding offers and/or explanations that departmental funds will be adjusted if a CSC scholarship is awarded. Rackham views the CSC doctoral fellowship as a contribution to the costs of supporting the student, not as a supplement to full funding.

Questions about CSC programs may be directed to Amy Conger (aconger@umich.edu), International Programs in Engineering. Tel: 647-7026.
Contact Us | Site Feedback | Emergency Procedures
Copyright © College of Engineering, University of Michigan
Last edited on 02/13/2007

"Top Chinese students" can compete on their own. And I'm almost certain China will still want access to our universities (maybe we should charge them a HIGHER rate than Michigan or US citizens - if the market will bear it - but that's a radically different issue than simple equality, which alone would be an improvement) without subsidy, and if they don't, there will be another full-tuition paying person to replace them. We don't need to reserve slots for them or allow the Chinese to "leverage" their investment with Michigan tax dollars.

The complete lack of wisdom for Michigan - as a university and a State - in this agreement is the fourth subpoint in both lists of rules. The scholar MUST RETURN TO CHINA in his second year and his mentors here must give him the tools to complete his project IN CHINA. No chance of intellectual capital staying in Michigan or even the US, and plenty of opportunities for intellectual property transferrance (theft), etc. Not only is this policy not in our interests and unwise, its in violation of our law and we're giving the farm away for $1150/mo. to the foreign national who is coerced to return to his closed state.

Write your state representative and Governor on this one (and I don't ask that very often). And don't forget Mary Sue Coleman and the Board of Regents. marysuec@umich.edu and regents@umich.edu Copy me on the message if you'd like (My first name at my first and last name dot com).

James (Jim) Fett, an attorney from Pinckney, MI, an ardent Proposal 2 supporter (including pro-bono work for the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative Committee), has added to his impressive litigation resume.

He sued the City of Inkster Police Department on behalf of an hispanic denied promotion because only blacks were being given access to specific slots. The Detroit News reports here:

A federal civil jury awarded a $254,000 verdict to an Hispanic lieutenant with the Inkster police Wednesday, ruling the department discriminated against him because he was not black.

Here's an example of what not to do in court when you're the police chief:

A development that Fett said had an impact on the jury was the city's agreement that Deputy Chief Gregory Hill testified falsely last week when he said under oath that he attended and obtained a degree from Western Michigan University. Hill could not be reached Wednesday.

Although Fett mentioned Proposal 2, this kind of "intra-minority" favoritism that is caused by the inevitable logic of preferences is illegal at the federal level and even a no-no in the Grutter and Gratz v. Bollinger decisions. It's also a solid argument against preferences. Since the logic is infinitely divisible and there is no moral foundation or line once you go down the preferences road, they are infinitely arbitrary. And they create resource battles even among the alleged preferred groups. This case proves why One United Michigan and other arguments trying to expand the universe of "beneficiaries" to women, latino/as, and even men (in nursing), is such a sham. First, its untrue, and second, if its true, where do preferences end?

Zarko Research is deeply exploring a major research exclusive. ZR has filed a FOIA for more details.

Based on a tip from a source, Zarko Research has become aware of the "China Scholarship Council," a branch of the People's Republic's of China (PRC)(yes, that's the nation of China), and an agreement they have with the University of Michigan (UM) to provide special access to U-M. During 2006, much was made by Democrats in the Gubernatorial election and elsewhere of all the jobs Dick DeVos was sending to China directly, and indirectly how Republicans generally were allowing jobs to go to lower-labor rate countries and China in particular through support of trade policies (regardless of the fact that trade agreements have all had bi-partisan approval, including President Clinton, over the decades). In the meantime, UM had and still has a deal to guarantee slots to Chinese engineers - in crass terms that unions and corporations alike should understand, Michigan taxpayers are funding and subsidizing our competition's long-term growth. The double-and-triple ironies here are numerous - I'm expecting (perhaps naively) the Democrat Party to remain consistent here and rally around at least this limited aspect of what MCRI prevents (special deals with foreign nations to give them inside-access, in preference over Michiganders or US citizens, to our education system -- quotas to groups that have no need for the preference and are already competing). ZR opines that Chinese nationals should have at most equal access to US educational facilities - not subsidized access. Chinese nationals have for a long-time had open-access to our institutions and the Chinese government is free to subsidize that as they will, but U-M need not add to the subsidy and advantage thereto received.

Proposal 2 provides that no university:

"...shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin..."

I have emphasized the key phrase.

Below is from the top-linked U-M description of the program I was alerted to. Much of the material still remains in password protected areas of the U-M website, now subject to a ZR FOIA. I've italicized key parts of U-M's violation of Proposal 2 - since the PRC is funding the scholarship, that is itself not a violation of the law - but U-M's reserveration/quota of 5 seats and co-pay guarantees of free medical insurance and other costs, in combination with the limitation of PRC citizenship, make this program a violation of Proposal 2:

The CSC-UM Postdoctoral Fellowship Program 2007-08
The application process for the CSC-UM Postdoctoral Fellowship for 2007-08 is under evaluation at this point in time and we will post the application information both on this website and in an e-mail to the University of Michigan academic community as soon as it is available.

Background:

The China Scholarship Council (CSC) and the University of Michigan (UM) have agreed to launch a joint postdoctoral program with the goal of fostering academic exchange and research collaboration between Chinese scholars and the faculty of the University of Michigan. Every year, up to five postdoctoral fellowships will be awarded to nationals of the People's Republic of China. The UM Center for Chinese Studies at the International Institute will be the coordinating unit responsible for collecting UM faculty applications and providing liaison between the participating programs and CSC. Postdoctoral Fellows should have their Ph.D. degree in hand by the time the fellowship begins, and should have obtained their doctoral degree within the last five years in a Chinese or overseas institution.

CSC and UM will jointly participate in the selection of fellows to ensure good match of expertise and interests between UM faculty and the candidates. Specific goals of the program are: 1) to involve the postdoctoral fellows in ongoing faculty research projects at the University of Michigan, and 2) to promote UM-related academic exchange and research capacity building in China. The postdoctoral period is intended to be up to 2 years, the first academic year to be spent at the University of Michigan and additional time up to one year to be spent in the P.R.C. Alternative proposals for the duration and location of the post-docs will be considered as long as they meet the above goals.

This program will initially be implemented for three years to begin fall semester of 2005 with the possibility of renewal at the end of three years and expansion at any time at the agreement of both parties.

Financial and Logistic Arrangements:

The China Scholarship Council will provide each fellow with international airfare and a monthly stipend of no less than $1,150 while the postdoctoral fellow is at the University of Michigan. The UM programs and faculty hosting the fellows will provide medical insurance and a supplemental monthly stipend of $683.33 while the postdoctoral fellow is in the United States and $416.67 while the postdoctoral fellow is in China to match current UM and Chinese minimal postdoctoral stipend levels. The UM Center for Chinese Studies will assist UM-units with J1 postdoctoral scholar visa applications to the United States as well as help arrange housing and other university paperwork while the postdoctoral fellow is at UM. The UM Center for Chinese Studies will also determine the feasibility of any proposed second-year Chinese arrangements. The program will be open to full-time faculty from any academic unit on the Ann Arbor campus.

Selection Process:

Application to the CSC-UM Postdoctoral Fellowship Program is open to PRC nationals who have obtained their doctoral degree within the last five years in a Chinese or overseas institution and who must have the Ph.D. in hand by the beginning of the fellowship.

The selection process will have two stages. First, a UM postdoctoral fellowship selection committee will be established to select five or more UM faculty postdoctoral fellowship proposals. The committee will include representatives from the UM Center for Chinese Studies and the International Institute. The committee will consider the following criteria in selecting the proposals: first, the quality of the research project; second, the extent to which the project meets the two goals of the postdoctoral fellowship program, including the extent to which the project commits to investing faculty time and project resources in mentoring the postdoctoral fellow.

UM faculty proposals should include the following:

1. Project description of research questions and methodology (2-3 pages)

2. Sources of project funding

3. Job description for the postdoctoral fellow

4. Expertise or skills required of the postdoctoral fellow

5. Expected output at the end of the fellowship period

The Center for Chinese Studies and CSC will publicize the UM postdoctoral fellowship opportunities both inside and outside China. CSC will forward up to three eligible candidates for each postdoctoral research position (candidate can apply to multiple projects, but must rank-order their preference), and the UM faculty in charge of each postdoctoral project will select the fellowship winner from among the proposed candidates, reserving the right to refuse all candidates if they are academically unsuitable.

Chinese national applicant proposals to UM should include the following:

1. Letter of interest

2. Detailed curriculum vitae

3. Sample publications

The letter of interest should include a 1-2 page statement for each project to which applicants are applying of its relevance to their research interests and training highlighting the expertise they bring to the project.

Application Schedule for 2007-08 fellowships - To Be Determined

Evaluation:

Postdoctoral Fellow Faculty Advisors are responsible for annual reports evaluating the performance of each CSC-UM postdoctoral scholar including a list of all co-authored working papers and publications.

Administration:

Interested UM faculty should send their application to Summer Tucker (summert@umich.edu) at the Center for Chinese Studies, Suite 3668 SSWB, University of Michigan, 1080 South University, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1106.

Back to top

This may be the first documented violation of Proposal 2. ZR will both seek more information and agressively pursue a wider audience.

The Daily Illini, a student paper of the University of Illinois, reports on comments of its president, a former vice-provost at U-M and the "Interim" President at the University of Michigan for a short time, comments here:

University President B. Joseph White received his doctorate from the University of Michigan and also served as interim president, dean of the business school and faculty member during his time there.

In a phone interview with a reporter from The Daily Illini, White said one of his primary concerns during his term as interim president at the University of Michigan was to preserve Michigan's freedom and right to make admissions decisions.

He said preserving affirmative action was a part of that freedom.

White obviously means the "freedom of Michigan government employees to overrule the people", but the way he said it he's right. Michigan does have a freedom and right to make admissions decisions, within certain bounds (like the Fourteenth Amendment, which is fully consistent with MCRI). What is Michigan? Michigan is its people and legal system, not just university administrators. The people exercised their freedom on November 7, 2006.

The Daily Illini, a student paper of the University of Illinois, reports on comments of its president, a former vice-provost at U-M and the "Interim" President at the University of Michigan for a short time, comments here:

University President B. Joseph White received his doctorate from the University of Michigan and also served as interim president, dean of the business school and faculty member during his time there.

In a phone interview with a reporter from The Daily Illini, White said one of his primary concerns during his term as interim president at the University of Michigan was to preserve Michigan's freedom and right to make admissions decisions.

He said preserving affirmative action was a part of that freedom.

White obviously the means the "freedom of Michigan government employees to overrule the people", but the way he said it he's right. Michigan does have a freedom and right to make admissions decisions, within certain bounds. What is Michigan? Michigan is its people and legal system, not just university administrators.

On the campaign finance trail, an interesting tidbit appears. One "Osric Wilson," an odd-enough name to generate google uniqueness, appears to have transferred his local Wayne County Political Action Committee (limiting him to Wayne candidates), called Committee for a Better Government (CBG) to a statewide level. The Secretary of State has yet to complete the paperwork, but the singular and only hit for "Osric Wilson" on google is a Michigan Family Independence Agency (FIA) fire-safety webpage listed him as one of the few City of Detroit approved fire inspectors. This would lead to an obvious question - does Mr. Wilson use his PAC to curry favor in the bidding and approval process with fire-inspection and other City of Detroit services? And why did he write the letter to the Wayne County Clerk on January 24, 2007 asking for immediate transferrance to a statewide PAC - is he expanding his business?

Also noteworthy - the League of Conversation Voters (LCV) has created a segregated fund here in Michigan as a PAC, and Dem Senator Dennis Olshove (Warren, Fraser, southern Macomb) has created a leadership fund.

It was formed today - we don't even know the names of the filers, but this committee is one to watch, especially if you're an Oakland County client.

The Michigan Chamber of Commerce formed a second committee, called dryly "Michigan Chamber of Commerce PAC II", but it is not a PAC, it's a ballot question committee. Most likely, this has something to do with term limits. And there's a new PAC called Progessive Choices, out of Evanston, Illinois (ooo, evil out-of-state money from the left!).

ZR has been doing a bit of research on Constitutional Convention in Michigan, and this fascinating history at the Bentley Historical Library's online archive, written in 1996 by a U-M researcher, presents to us revelation after fascinating revelation of the process by which the Michigan Constitution's equal protection clause only contained reference to race and national origin and not to sex. This, of course, was a core issue to the anti-MCRI group 44 years later, and also represents evidence of a danger of Con-Cons (Constitutional Conventions).

When Proposal No. 26 came back to the convention for a third and final reading on May 7, Cudlip noted that Kelly, Joiner, and many lawyer delegates were "very much disturbed" at the action the convention had taken regarding the sex issue. Cudlip read from Kauper's letter to explain why all reference to sex as well as the Donnelly amendment should be dropped from Proposal No. 26. "Women," he said, "need to be discriminated against for their own benefit many, many times."

There was quite a debate in 62 about the issue, and Proposal 26 was originally lost by 4 votes. Kauper is a U-M Law Professor who was giving the Convention scholarly advice. At that time, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had not been passed, and there was no experience with its "bona fide" exception (segregated restrooms, lockerrooms, etc.).

But that's a remarkable quote in a remarkable time-frame.

The rest of the scholarly history goes on to discuss other issues of the Convention, notably the controversy over creating a state Civil Rights Commission like the US Commission that had recently been formed at that time. The Commission was created.

If there is another Convention in 2009 or 2011 (hopefully there isn't, but...), let's work to abolishing both the MCRC and the Board of Canvassers. Keep that in mind if you're on the left and think a Convention might be a good idea - you can be certain I'll be running for delegate if it happens.

The Grand Rapids Press makes an excellent point in this op-ed about the City of Grand Rapids' new DBE (Disadvantaged Business Enterprise) definition, and it is worried about evasion of Proposal 2. Wow. I can't believe I said that about the Grand Rapids Press - but it appears that they have a rule of law streak, and Proposal's 2 reality instilled some common-sense in interpretation. Here's the op-ed's key punchline.

The designation "socially" disadvantaged raises alarm bells. While economic disadvantage could have a measurable definition -- time spent in business, number of employees, annual sales, for instance -- social disadvantage is more pliable, open to interpretation and potentially dangerous from a legal standpoint.

I recommend the whole thing. It's an excellent op-ed and represents a sharp turn from previous stances. Having a "measurable" definition is something that Justice O'Connor pretty much obliterated in her Grutter decision that allowed non-measurable policies but prohibited quantitative policies. Measurability is not just a key criteria in objectivity and fairness, but it is also a key to transparency. Applicants know where the bar is before hand - they know where they stand. And the accomplishment, once achieved by a minority or anyone, is unassailable. You hit the bar and any rational stigma is impossible. Of course, their are a number of other reasons for measurability. It is, by far, the easiest system to administer, and would have saved taxpayers millions in diversity staff. It also allows us to measure our failures - for example, we can improve regionalized failures of K-12 education by focusing on which schools aren't where they need to be, and we can do it in a relatively scientific way (another irony of the psuedo-science of diversity).

Here, in this Louisville Cardinal opinion piece by Philip Bailey, Ward Connerly upcoming appearance has been elevated to an "audacious ... assault" on the University of Louisville's "diversity" programs.

That is, Connerly's mere expression of ideas is so powerful that the speaking itself is now assault. Bailey opines:

Initiated by the Federalist Society and co-sponsored by the McConnell Center as a part of their "Variety: Left and Right" lecture series, the impending speech by anti-affirmative action activist Ward Connerly at the University of Louisville will be a most audacious public assault on U of L's diversity initiatives to date.

It will be more controversial because of the McConnell Center's tagline, "a black man's opposition to affirmative action."

He makes other mistakes of reasoning, but Bailey's equation of speech to assault is quite revealing. One can imagine what it would be called if Kentucky was a petitioning state.

Tomorrow's State of the State speech by Governor Jennifer Granholm already has a "sneak peak." We're told that a proposal called "promise zones" will be unveiled - modelling the privately-funded Kalamazoo Promise.

First, I propose that the passage of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative or Proposal 2 deserves at least partial credit for putting education reform on the top of the shelf of things to do.

Some conservatives are already afraid that we'll have even more of a tax-bill - and with good cause. But "Promise Zones" sound an awful lot like "Educational Enterprise Zones," a budding concept melding Jack Kemp-style tax-zones with education. No question that a Granholmian-implementation of the idea will present a pot of pork to teacher's unions, so we need to control and fine tune it, but we have a conservative opportunity here. Let's not be afraid of the Governor - she enjoins a battle on an issue of reform that we can win and only win by taking the lead in ideas.

So here's some counter-ideas. If we need educational zones where students are given assistance (we do), let's stick to some conservative values in those zones. 1) The zones should have additional provisions for school choice (public or private). 2) Measurements of success need to be tighter. Improve openness and standards. 3) Give schools greater authority to collective bargaining to move teachers around. 4) End the MESSA-insurance (teacher's unions requiring boards to buy insurance from a non-competitive union company that gives their lobbyists even more power) monopoly (I'd make a non-negotiable part of the deal). 5) Make all higher-education appropriations "portable" (this alone would allows us to give every student $6,000/yr, dwarfing the Governor's previous proposal of a one-time $4,000 grant). 6) Find ways to control overhead at K-12, and outrageous administrative salaries and other overhead at universities. Give parents and citizens more tools in access to information and their schools.

Throw all of those ideas into a pot and stir, and you might even get an education reform package that doesn't cost more or much more at all. But without fiscal controls, any promises will be meaningless as we educate students who flee Michigan because our tax base is non-competitive.