We're moving our reporting of the Howell School e-mail FOIA lawsuit over to OutsideLansing.com, even though it began here 17 months ago, since it fits that topical site better. But for those of you following it - the Livingston Circuit Court ruled in favor of us and the schools over the Michigan Education Association. There's plenty to follow, so stay tuned.

Shikha Dalmia is a Michigan writer formerly with the Detroit News. Here, in Forbes, she opines on how race preferences could be replaced with socio-economic alternatives - and how, if Barack O'Bama did it, he could transform the political landscape. The article was written just before O'Bama expanded his narrow margin, so keep it in that context. With his current margin, I'd expect to see nothing unusual out of his campaign - but that begs the question of whether he should act transformatively. For all the bluster of his change themed campaign, there is little substantively tranformative, especially on race issues, from O'Bama.

This is a topic I've addressed many times, dating as far as a Michigan Bar Journal op-ed I wrote in 2003 and other pieces for regional papers. I've suggested here recently that O'Bama could transform the landscape, as have observers like John Rosenberg over at Discriminations. Dalmia is spot on in her analysis, but, alas, I don't think its in O'Bama's heart and even if it were, we're not likely to see it from him pre-election, because his core constituency would react too harshly.

But imagine it as a mid-term ploy to help O'Bama 2012 re-election?

The brand new American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) blog (Ward Connerly's national organization focusing on race issues), run by well-known blogger LaShawn Barber, has this piece pointing out a Saginaw News article two weeks ago about Saginaw Valley State University's reaction to Michigan's Proposal 2 of 2006 (Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, MCRI).

The article, by Andy Hoag, begins with this ridiculous assertion for a media source claiming to write news:

Michigan's ban on affirmative action has hurt minority recruiting at some colleges, but Saginaw Valley State University isn't among them.

Where's the evidence of a "hurt minority recruiting"?

Of course, the article is a glorification of how SVSU has evaded Proposal 2, as we'll implied in the lede. But get this:

By using focused recruiting and special scholarships as tools, SVSU has increased its share of under-represented minorities -- blacks, Hispanics and American Indians -- by 4.25 percent this fall, to 245 freshmen from 235.

This is the first full freshman class since voters passed Proposal 2 in November 2006, banning preferential treatment based on race. Some minorities already had received scholarships for fall 2007 before the proposal's passage.

It has hampered colleges such as Grand Valley State University in Allendale, where the number of under-represented minorities is down 30 percent this fall.

At Ann Arbor-based University of Michigan, which defended its affirmative action policy all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, enrollment of minority students dropped to 10.47 percent this year from 10.85 percent last year.

Reverse engineer the math in paragraph one, and you realize that that's a 4.25% increase in absolute enrollment. Says nothing about overall percentages or relative increases in percentages. Then the third paragraph refers to a 30 percent decline, but we don't know whether that's relative to other percentages or absolute. U-M's decline is measured in relative percentages (not noting that the absolute number increased because overall enrollment also increased slightly faster than minority increases), and the fall is a tiny 0.38% fall, or relative to the base 3.5% change. Hardly a falling sky.

SVSU details some of its policies, which are right at the edge of legality:

''We make sure our admissions representatives are visiting high schools that have a large percentage of minority students,'' SVSU spokesman J.J. Boehm said.

SVSU also has relied on other scholarships -- private ones, which Proposal 2 does not affect -- to keep up minority freshmen enrollment.

''Through our private SVSU Foundation, there continues to be individual scholarships for which ethnicity is a consideration, based on the wishes of the donor,'' Boehm said. ''But those are administered through the foundation, not through the university's general fund.''

While visiting high schools with high minority populations might be good recruiting and legal, if that is the sole criteria of visitation and you admit it, it might be a violation. The true criteria for recruitment should be race-neutral NEED -- high schools that are underperforming, including rural and urban schools. That will automatically give you more minorities -- but the initial criteria is need, not race. Here, it sounds like Boehm's criteria is race.

Still, a tough area to litigate.

The good news is that there are some scholarships that are need based, as the story of Jerika Beckom demonstrates.

A regular scholarship was key for SVSU junior Jerika Beckom.

Beckom, who grew up in Detroit and went to Detroit Community High, a charter school, received SVSU's Presidential Scholarship, a merit-based academic scholarship that provides full tuition for its recipients.

''It was extremely important for me to get that,'' she said. ''I come from a family that doesn't have a large income, and without that scholarship, I wouldn't have been able to go to school. People talk about getting loans, but it's hard to get them if you don't have parents with a decent credit score.''

While the Presidential Scholarship is not based on race, other private scholarships are available to minorities and underprivileged students through organizations such as the Mott Foundation.

Beckom said she is among 15 students from her senior class to attend SVSU because of those scholarships.

''It's important for those to remain available for us,'' she said. ''Most of us are coming from families with low incomes or families that haven't secured money for us to go to school.''

That should be the model. Beckom proves that you don't need a race-based scholarship system and that the real question of opportunity and equality is based on money and low incomes. Indeed, Beckom's own words echo this and say nothing about race - rather it says everything about financial obstacles. This echoed by yet another student:

''We have to have funds,'' said Davis, 21. ''In my case, I wouldn't be here without financial aid.''

If the left were truly invested in social equality, it would abandon the notion that race is the issue, and focus on the real obstacles.

The private scholarship question raised by SVSU Foundation rests on facts - is the SVSU Foundation truly private. That's a very interesting, and nuanced question. It will require some digging.

Alan Foutz, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, points up an attempt by the Michigan Department of Transportation to mis-read and misuse the federal requirement exemption of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), or Proposal 2 (2006 - 02), here in a Lansing State Journal column. I encourage readers, despite the passing of the October 1 deadline for comments, to send MDOT and other relevant actors their own comments. The attempt mirrors California's equivalent of MDOT's attempt last year to get the US Department of Transportation to approve race-preferences and then to argue that the approval constituted a "requirement" conditioning federal money, which would thereby exempt the policy from the CCRI (or in this case MCRI). It should be vigorously resisted.

Here's a clip:

All contractors who want their bids evaluated in accordance with Michigan law and without regard to their race or sex, or the race/sex of the competition, should take note. MDOT will most likely continue to seek authorization for its race-conscious programs until it reaches the conclusion that it simply may not employ race- and sex-based preferences. Or until it gets sued.

Taxpayers should likewise be concerned, if not outraged. Studies have shown that race-based preferences result in higher construction costs.

However, there is an alternative. MDOT can comply with the Michigan constitution and remain eligible for its federal funding by committing to accomplish its 10.5 percent disadvantaged businesses participation goal by using race-neutral methods. Also, contractors competing for work on federally assisted projects will have their bids evaluated without regard to race or sex and Michigan taxpayers will be spared the extra costs of race and sex preferences.

MDOT has invited questions and comments that must be submitted before noon on Oct. 1. This is an invitation that should be accepted by anyone concerned with MDOT's race-conscious contracting programs.

If you're a follower of this blog, take heed. If you need help on how to help, contact me (my first name at firstnamelastname.com) and I'll give you some direction.

Doyle O'Connor, the former member of the Board of Canvassers' that refused to abide by a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling, has evaded sanctions from a 3 person panel in the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission hearings over his misconduct, according to this Detroit Free Press article. Democrats and other interests pushed hard politically against the State Bar for even bringing the charges, and reading between the lines at least one of the two votes on the Commission's panel bought into the political arguments. Here's the key passage, with the most important point emphasized:

O’Connor’s lawyer, Kenneth Mogill, said two of the panelists had said the facts didn’t support the charge against O’Connor. Mogill said one of them said the grievance commission shouldn't be proud of itself for bringing the charge. Voters passed the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative in 2006, 58% to 42%. It banned race and gender affirmative action in university admissions and in government and public school hiring and contracting.

Proposal 2 got onto the ballot despite complaints that sponsors duped voters, especially blacks, into believing it promoted affirmative action. Supporters denied that.

The grievance commission, which investigates and prosecutes lawyers for alleged misconduct, said O'Connor refused at a July 2005 meeting to approve putting the measure on the ballot despite a state attorney general opinion that canvassers had no legal authority to look into petition fraud. And then, in December 2005, despite a Michigan Court of Appeals order to certify the proposal, he abstained.

O'Connor said he thought he was abstaining on a motion to close debate. The next month, he voted to put the measure on the ballot.

More than a dozen individuals and groups, including the Michigan Democratic Party and the League of Women Voters of Michigan, have urged the state Attorney Discipline Board to drop the charges. The board tries and disciplines lawyers for alleged misconduct.

How would O'Connor's attorney have inside access into the thoughts of panel members, even before they issued a written opinion? And the thought itself - that the very bringing of charges is something the AGC "shouldn't be proud of" - demonstrates that that panelists decision was based not "on the facts," but on an emotional and political calculus far outside of the facts.

But when you have the Chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party (Mark Brewer) on your side, and you're taking orders from him as Zarko Research video proved 3 years ago, its only natural he'll pull some strings for you to protect you from the consequences of your corruption.