Over at the fabulous "Empirical Legal Standards" blog, a new program unveiled by the University of Michigan Law School called "Wolverine Scholars" is criticized as a move away from standards and a "rankings grab" designed solely to artficially bump U-M's average Law student GPA so as to also bring U-M up in national prestige rankings (which include GPA as a criteria).

One of ELS's comments points out the "elephant in the room," that the program, which would allow only U-M undergrads with a GPA greater than 3.80 who have not yet taken an LSAT to apply to Law School under "holistic review", would give U-M a perfect opportunity to bypass Proposal 2 (since it can't ask other undergrad schools for racial IDs, and since a student on U-M's own campus will have a reputation including racial identity that can be easily ascertained by fellow U-M Law School admissions officers with a few phone calls) because it further clouds the process and eliminates a standard of measurement (the LSAT test, meaning that future racial compositions couldn't be easily challenged because some of students wouldn't have comparative LSAT data EVEN AVAILABLE for review). The nice think about ELS's though, in a way, is that it ignores the race preference issue and is critical of U-M solely because the new system is standardless and will create other unintended consequences.

Read the whole analysis, and you'll get the gist of what's going on. We're following the story deeper as well, so stay tuned.

Jason Gillman over at Michigan Taxes Too Much raises a nice point about how "non-profits" really exist at the expense of the taxpayer and are "public". While this doesn't change the current interpretation of the law treating non-profits as private entities, it is a valid point philosophically so we reiterated our position generally against the very idea of non-profits (in the sense of government subsidy through by giving tax breaks to donors, not as a concept where someone or group spends after-tax dollars without making a profit).

Regardless, you can catch the full exchange at Gillman's site.

Ah. It's a bit more clear why the Detroit News opined against 10% plans.

According to the Michigan Daily, Rep. Rick Jones (R-Grand Ledge) proposed it in legislation recently. His idea, while I understand it is well-motivated, is misguided. MCRI's goal was never to dictate exactly how universities would respond - only to set the guidelines. Let's allow universities some time and flexibility in their response and see where that puts us before adopting anything like this.

Send Jones a (polite) note opposing this proposal at this time.

We missed covering it here during our upgrade of blog software, but this one is priceless.

Priceless.

If you're a regular, you'll remember Doyle O'Connor, former Board of Canvasser member who refused to follow a court order to place the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), or Proposal 2, on the ballot.

Well, the State Bar remembers him too, and they are investigating him for disciplinary action in his behavior on MCRI, according to this March 14, 2008 Livingston Argus-Press story. Zarko Research has known of the complaint for some time for various reasons, but we couldn't go into it because of our own involvement in the matter (which includes the video link below).

The priceless part? Obviously forces are rallying to call Doyle a hero and say the Bar should drop charges. One them is Michigan Democratic Party ruler Mark Brewer, known for his own iron-fist within the party (honest Dems will tell you many a story).

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.

"It's really an outrage," said state Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer. "If lawyers are going to be subjected to this kind of second-guessing for acts as a public official, why would any lawyer want to serve in public office? This is a political vendetta."

Wait. That's the same Mark Brewer that swatted at our cameras 2.5 years ago when he was giving the same Doyle O'Connor "orders" on how to vote. I guess he doesn't want anyone second-guessing O'Connor's "acts as a puppet-err-public official" while operating under comrade Brewer's orders.

Here's Brewer (check him out 28 seconds in), caught red-handed giving Doyle his marching orders, and not so happy at my camera.

Rarely does this site do pitches for advertisers, but Ward Connerly's special to us.  Yes, I worked for him in the past - but this site is an activist site in addition to providing original investigative news and opinion analysis. And Ward Connerly certainly has relevance to Michigan - even though the battle is currently joined in Missouri.  And National Review Online considers Ward's "call to action" news as well, over at the Corner.

At right, I've created a clickable banner ad at the right while the offer lasts.  Ward realizes that when he asks people to work they need at least some compensation - even while they are ideologically motivated. Even left-wing petitioners and blockers pay their people - and in Missouri, the blockers are getting heavily paid, or are permanently payrolled union and BAMN thugs.  The anti-equality forces are throwing all they can at Ward, and he needs committed individuals to go to Missouri to help him collect signatures.  Missouri is a "non-residency" state, so anyone can petition.  And Ward's PAYING TRAVEL and you can easily make a thousand or more a week.

Great opportunity for college students, under-employed, or anyone wanting a couple of weeks "working vacation" learning the politics of another state and what petitioning is all about.  I've create this auto-forwarding e-mail - send your name, phone, and other contact info and it will get to Ward's staff immediately, or call the number on the ad and mention you saw the ad here. 

While I have a difficult time saying that a 55 page decision is well-written, I must give Judge David Lawson credit where it is due, and apologize for pigeon-holing him as a Clinton-appointee (although he does give unnecessary deference to really bad arguments, he doesn't take nearly as much liberty in wasting space on attacking the personal character of litigants like Judge Arthur Tarnow did in September 2006). Other than nitpicks, I'd have a hard time really trashing this opinion, which gets it (mostly) right, and certainly right in result.

Been reading the Judge Lawson 55 page tome on why BAMN's (and a novel new ACLU generated argument) convoluted, but I guess creative in its own perverse sense, arguments on why MCRI should be unconstitutional.

What's interesting is this new argument by the ACLU - that amending the Constitution is too hard and that MCRI, by amending the Constitution, has "changed the political structure" in a somehow unfair sort of way such that groups can no longer (as easily) lobby their universities for policy change. By changing the political structure, MCRI has violated equal protection.

These (ed: the "Cantrell"/ACLU) plaintiffs support their claim that obtaining a voter-approved constitutional amendment is more difficult than successfully petitioning individual university governing bodies to alter admissions policies by alleging, inter alia, the fact that access to the state ballot requires gathering signatures totaling “‘not less than eight percent . . . of the total vote cast for all candidates for governor at the last preceding general election.’” Id. at ¶ 53 (quoting Mich. Const. art. 2, § 9).

Of course, it is true, in an off-hand way, that petitioning individual university governing bodies is "easier" when you happen to control all the lobbying buttons in that arena (from professors to university administrators). The question is - does the ACLU, rife with resources, have equal access to the ballot system? Of course it does. But when you play on an unequal playing field for years, and control all the decision marbles at universities - save one, the voter who ultimately owns the universites - you might suddenly come to think that the world got awfully uneven.

But here's what I take from this perverse ACLU argument, by its own admission - what we accomplished at MCRI was awfully hard. Really, really hard. Of course, that's beside the point, and Judge Lawson thankfully saw through this - everyone has the same obstacles to face in amending the Constitution.

But here's another upshot - a contradiction. It was often argued, and indeed cited as a justification for legislation to make signature gathering even more difficult or impossible (through "buttons" identifying paid status, prohibitions on payment by signature, etc.) -- it has been repeatedly said that "signature gathering is too easy" and rules should be put in place to slow it. Well, from none other than the liberal "Ballot Initiative Strategy Center," a Soros operation that supports liberal ballot drives and helps (try to) utterly crush conservative or libertarian drives, Kristina Wilfore, says that the Michigan process is tough. Really tough.

There is also some ambiguity concerning just how onerous it would be to secure an amendment repealing Proposal 2. Kristina Wilfore, executive director of Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, Inc., a non-profit organization that researches and trains people in the ballot initiative process, has submitted a declaration on behalf of the Cantrell plaintiffs positing that state-wide ballot initiatives are typically expensive and time-consuming and often unsuccessful. She has also suggested that repealing Proposal 2 would be particularly difficult due to unique features in Michigan’s ballot initiative process and specific factors inherent in the subject matter of affirmative action. According to Wilfore, Michigan poses obstacles because (1) it is a “politically competitive state . . . with a large number of initiatives vying for voters’ attention on any given ballot”; (2) its media market is expensive when compared with other states; (3) the state constitution requires filing of petitions.” Cantrell Mot. for Summ. J, Ex. C, Wilfore Decl. at ¶¶ 29-32. In addition, she says that Proposal 2 would be particularly challenging to repeal due to the fact that (1) polling data regarding affirmative action is unreliable, i.e., individuals often behave differently when they get to the voting booth; (2) affirmative action is a tough cause to market because it is complex and elicits emotional responses; and (3) “[t]here is no single obvious financial benefactor who would support the pro-affirmative action policy.” Id. at ¶¶ 36-37.

Other than blatant and bold lied (no "obvious financial benefactor who would support the pro-affirmative action policy") at the end, Wilfore makes amending the Michigan Constitution sound sufficiently difficult. Add that to a list of contradictions MCRI opponents have uttered.

And while I'd admit the process is difficult, it is no more or less difficult than anything else in politics. In fact, in the case of this issue, the pro-Proposal 2 side faced a far more difficult signature-gathering task than a pro-repeal Proposal 2 petition-drive would ever face, at least on the signature end. That one side or the other might face a harder time with the voter is a political question - not judicial one.

The State News at Michigan State University gets this priceless quote from one of the MSU Trustees:

Joel Ferguson, chairman of the MSU Board of Trustees, said he hopes Proposal 2 is overturned, but isn’t optimistic.

“I don’t necessarily think they can succeed,” he said. “Anybody can file a lawsuit.”

True indeed.

It's too bad he hopes Proposal 2 is overturned, but you know the lawsuits are mighty frivolous when the cheering section says that.

Of slight note is the non-response by Lou Anna Simon (now earning over $420K a year), and the wierd "equality-is-non-equality" argument from former Democratic Party co-chair Melvin Hollowell, now relegated to plaintiffs attorney in frivolous filings:

Melvin Butch Hollowell, counsel to Detroit’s chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, is on the plantiffs’ legal team. He said the case will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

“We believe that this is the most important civil rights case,” he said. “We are seeking the lawsuit to place students of color on equal footing as all other students in the admissions process.”

MSU President Lou Anna K. Simon said she was unable to comment on the case because the litigation is ongoing and it targets universities.

Orwell would be proud. War is peace. Unequal is equal.

Someone pointed this one out to me the other day. Wayne State has decided to put Ward Connerly "on trial" - a mock trial intended to coincide with BAMN's federal lawsuits against MCRI which will be heard next week.

What's unusual about this trial? It appears to have no advocate for Ward. That is, its a trial without fair representation. We've asked the Dean of Students what they've done to balance the trial, and even offered them the assistance of Zarko Research. As a reminder, Zarko Research will speak to public audiences on the issue of MCRI or affirmative action generally, and we've been invited by moderates on both the right and left of this issue - including Reginald Turner, former State and National Bar Association president and current Board of Education member for the state of Michigan, who unfortunately favors preferences.

Here's WSU's entire calendar entry on this matter:

Ward Connerly on Trial: The Road to the Supreme Court
Wednesday, February 6, 2008 from 8:45 AM to 1:45 PM
The event will include the premiere viewing of video taped excerpts from the day long BAMN deposition of Ward Connerly who was the spokesperson for Proposal 2. Interspersed with debate and discussion of his arguments against affirmative action and the plaintiffs arguments in favor of affirmative action.
Category:
Other
Location:
Ballroom of the Student Center Building
Contact:
DOSO Dean of Students Office
313-577-1010
doso@wayne.edu
Permalink | Print This | E-mail This

I put this here because it is most in line with the mission of this blog, as opposed to my main Michigan and local news blogs. The Michigan Student Assembly (MSA) - that University of Michigan "student government" that can tax and spend small little bits of tuition away for the whims of a few student wannabee bureuacrats - narrowly avoided funding a blast e-mail that would blast Proposal 2.

Yes. Proposal 2 has been passed for 15 months now. And BAMN infiltrants into student comm... government wanted to send out a rhetoric e-mail to all students. Wiser moderates on the MSA narrowly voted against it, according to this Michigan Daily article. That's a first - its a surprise - and it shows waning BAMN power.

Next week, the Federal District Court in Detroit will hear arguments on whether to hold a full trial for the lawsuits challenging the constitutional amendment. The e-mail would encourage students to attend the hearing, scheduled for Feb. 6 in Detroit.

Several MSA representatives who opposed the resolution said they did so because the specific language of the e-mail was unavailable when the vote took place.

"If the e-mail text was there, I probably would have voted for it," said Rackham representative Michael Benson, chair of the Rules and Elections committee.

Art and Design representative Liana Mulholland, who sponsored the resolution, said MSA President Mohammad Dar would write the e-mail if the vote had passed.

MSA representative Ashley Schwedt, who voted for the resolution, said it was important for MSA to remain neutral on the issue of affirmative action.

"As a Democrat and as a minority I feel uncomfortable taking a stance on this issue because I feel that we should be an unbiased group," she said.

LSA junior Maricruz Lopez, co-chair of the Defend Affirmative Action Party, spoke on behalf of the resolution. She said the decision showed MSA representatives were afraid to represent their constituents and work in favor of the interests of students.

BAMN is willing to do anything.

Whoa, and does he ever.  He accuses this writer's past - and society's continuing - nemesis, By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), of "killing our children" (and I can't say that's wrong).
This is why Akindele's Unleashed blog is clearly one of the best in the Michigan blogosphere.

Here's a sample of his powerful critique:

Every now and then I look at what BAMN is doing in the community. Here are a socialist group of bandits that causes more hell than a headache.

First, they were against my friend Ward Connerly and the whole affirmative action thing. Thank God my sister Jennifer Gratz and company won that war. We thought BAMN would go away and crawl back in their cave.

I guess not.

Now, these misfits are having a town hall meeting on solving the crisis of public education in Detroit. [Dec. 6 if you're interested].
...
Again, where is BAMN on these critical issues [charters, parenting, and choice]? Where are those quacks Steve Conn and Heather Miller?
...
BAMN is doing nothing but keeping our children angry. Our children do not need anger. Our children and parents need options.

Having seen the Conn game and Ms. Miller an action, I'm fond of Akindele's use of terms here, even if it is slightly over-the-top. When you incite riots and take your children out of classes for your political machinations and you're a public school teacher, the term "quacks" is has a descriptive truth to it despite its ad hominem nature.

Cross-posted at EqualityTalk.com.

In what can only be called continuing open defiance of Proposal 2, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), the University of Michigan has announced that admissions counselors will still receive information about an applicants race. Since they not legally allowed to use the information, including the information in the packet decision-makers use is a clear sign that the University of Michigan is prepared to continue using "winks and nods" in its admissions process in open defiance of the people.

Read more »

The United States Circuit Court of Appeals (6th Circuit, Cincinnati) rejected as "moot" BAMN's appeal of Judge Arthur Tarnow's ruling in September 2006 that the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), or Proposal 2. BAMN's argument was that alleged fraud in signature collection should disqualify the initiative from reaching the ballot. The Court again gave lip service to the political legend fabricated by BAMN that MCRI leaders organized the greatest criminal conspiracy in world history (180,000 instances of fraud coordinated among thousands of individuals), short of perhaps the alleged "9/11 conspiracy". Yet there has never been a single trial and no due process afforded to any one accused of fraud (in fact, no individual has been accused of fraud).

The Detroit News reports here, and AP Wire here.

Here's an original link to the opinion in MCRI's legal victory on Tuesday (see entry below), which is cross-posted at EqualityTalk.com.

In the post below, you'll notice that I've cross-posted the subject to my new blog EqualityTalk.com. EqualityTalk is MORE THAN A BLOG THOUGH.

It's also a "Wiki". The purpose is to act as a clearinghouse and knowledgebase of race issues. I strongly encourage all my readers to help out and make entries, particularly about your own biographies and areas you are particularly involved. This is a long-term project - equipped with a technology - that I think has great potential.

EqualityTalk was originally designed to be a forum, but the forum technology just hasn't taken hold. So I've gone to a traditional WordPress blog - but I'd love to have two or three other co-moderators, so feel free to apply to me in person. ET is also non-partisan, although my position on the issue is clear, I would still accept moderators of any perspective as long as I deem them to be civil, respectful and someone I can work with. Anyone can participate on the comments forum, as well.

Finally, this allows me to do something I've wanted to do for a long-time. Split my blogging so that it has more topic focus. ET allows me to move all my race, gender, and equality traffic into a logical place, while keeping my Michigan politics angle here (and that may move, since this blog is still not that focused). So check both blogs if you're a regular reader, and add ET to your feed if possible. Also, add to the wiki.

Cross-posted at EqualityTalk.com (see next post for announcement).

Joining the pantheon of weird, and bad, arguments against anti-preference ballot initiatives, is this attempt to paint the Curator (like a Regent) of the University of Missouri and lawyer for the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative (MoCRI) as having a "conflict of interest" or being ineligible to represent MoCRI in court because he's on the board of control. The Columbia Missourian covers it here:

As a University of Missouri curator, David Wasinger has sworn to uphold affirmative action laws in hiring and admissions at the system’s four campuses.

As a private attorney, Wasinger and a colleague are aiding the effort to persuade voters in 2008 to dismantle racial and gender preferences in public employment, contracting and education.

Opponents of the anti-affirmative action proposal, known as the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative, call Wasinger’s involvement a conflict of interest that also damages the university’s credibility.

“This is an initiative that can do harm to the university and its admissions policy,” said Jim Kottmeyer, a Democratic political activist. “Yet you’ve got a curator out there representing the group.”

First, I doubt he's "sworn to uphold affirmative action laws" specifically, although even as a lawyer he's sworn to uphold them. Since MoCRI has no conflict with "affirmative action laws," its irrelevant anyway. Nonetheless, the curator is not using his title for the initiative, and you'd think from this argument that his status as curator strips him of his private First Amendment rights. Whether the initiative harms or helps the university is a matter of opinion, of course, but it doesn't matter either way.

Even the newspaper gets it right in the rare obvious editorial moment:

The curators’ conflict-of-interest policy prohibits members from voting or “attempting to influence the decision of the university” on any issues that would result in “material ... or personal financial gain.”

Under that standard, Wasinger’s dual duties would seem acceptable, barring a curator vote to support or oppose the ballot proposal.

Ah, but reality means nothing, as:

But the perception of undue influence remains, said Gwen Grant, president of the Urban League of Greater Kansas City.

“If it’s not a conflict of interest, it certainly smells like one,” she said.

Perception of conflicts of interest can be an important issue, but "perception" is too broad and malleable to allow it to take over your life. If it did, no one would do anything on this issue because opponents "perceptions" are so outrageous and detached from reality.

(in the world of academia, as this argument here proves, the reality is that you must support preferences and there is no other option)

The question I have to ask is: if someone working for or another curator of the university works to oppose the initiative, is that a conflict of interest? Will the Democrat leaders complaining here insist on their neutrality?