Congratulations to President Barack O'Bama on his historic moment. His inaugral speech hit mixed notes in my mind, I'll point to two.

In my mind, this is the most interesting passage of the speech (which had no "zingers" like "fear itself" or "ask not"):

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

There's a definitely an element of the diversity and multi-cultural "speak" in this, but I'm drawn to the way it is not written. It is not written as an attack on America's past, but as a recognition of the past as perhaps a proof that the "other old hatreds" (Arab-Israeli conflict, the religious battle lines that dominate foreign affairs, and simpler, smaller hatreds that dot the world) can be overcome. His line "the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve" is certainly hopeful and could be construed in a conservative and individualistic light, but it is unclear where O'Bama would deviate the tribalist policies many in his party support or how he intends to get us there.

Here's the second:

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

The first sentence is interesting in that while it seems to be an attempt to change the paradigm debate on "big v. small government" to "effective government." But if the question is "whether it works" and the answer is "no" much more often than it is yes, will we truly see the programs end? Of course, the reason small-government conservatives are for small government is not just for the sake of liberty - it is because we believe, more often than not, bigger government doesn't work. He's set himself up for a test here - does government work? Will Barack O'Bama's version of government work? If it does not, then we must "hold to account" the leader. If he fails to "spend wisely", to "reform bad habits", or most importantly do business "in the light of day" - he must be held accountable. As a fervent believer in open records and meetings, I wish him the best of luck in increasing government transparency - if that is what he means. And if he "spends wisely" and does those things, he'll be hard to beat.

That is the test he should be held to in 2012!

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.

Took some finagling, but we're back up. The database is fixed and linking to us is possible again, using the perma-links.

There are some browser sizing issues, so if its too wide for your screen, I apologize. I'm working that bug out later.

Christine Barry of Blogging for Michigan (BFM) reports on how she hired us to be a surrogate FOIA requester to the Shiawassee County Sheriff's department.  The local news - the Argus - seems to be taking recognition of the value of the local story. We have no opinion on whether the Sheriff's actions were inappropriate, but have no problem helping anyone get public records to draw conclusions for themselves. But the questions Barry asked were specific, and specific enough to get good FOIA results. And the response of the Sheriff publicly in the newspapers suggests some nerve was touched.

Sometimes the "surrogate FOIA" is an appropriate tool for credibility reasons, and will get a job done faster than other methods.  If you need similar work, contact us.

Cross-posted at OutsideLansing.com.

Well, not Zarko Research directly. It's owner, me. My name, Chetly Zarko, something bloggers have from day one noticed (most liking it and mostly positive comments), and something I rather like (thanks Mom), has been deemed "VERY porn-worthy" by writers at Michigan Liberal.

And, you know, it is Halloween, so I guess I could turn, err, accept this trick with good humor. In fact, it is pretty funny - much better than the other name play I've received during this Halloween season from the infamous Jack Lessenberry himself. You see, Jack has taken issue that I wrote a letter to the editor of the Metro Times two weeks ago that took issue with his labeling of Leon Drolet (in pig costume tonight, no doubt), and he launched on a tirade of name-calling in an e-mail exchange that I also published two weeks ago. So today, the Metro Times published his most recent column, and Jack accuses me of being humorless, and launches on yet another set of attacks on my name.

What Jack wasn't getting is that his poking fun at a name wasn't the subject of my letter. It was the equation of Leon Drolet with the "fascists" of the Mussolini regime in Italy, where he directly likened recall drives to "murder and intimidation" of that era. As a I recall (no pun intended) from my history lesson, Mussolini was running around Italy in 1935 running signature drives. There's a difference between the humor of being "porn-worthy" (creative), or even being called "Zark Vader" (less creative) by Jack Lessenberry, and equating people to mass-murderers and calling them fascists. There's a difference between Jack humorously calling Leon a "man of the pink pig," and erroneously equating the use of a core part of democracy (the recall process) with evil. One is funny, and one is smear and Lessenberry would prefer to have you confuse the two - but just for him. That is, he believes his smear doesn't stink. I'll bet his sh*t [redacted solely to avoid possible search engine penalties] doesn't stink, either?

You can be sure that if someone on the other side call Lessenberry a derogatory word meaning gay, or said he was a Stalinist, you'd hear how that was inappropriate discourse. And it would be inappropriate - indeed, Lessenberry alludes to Ann Coulter in his column, and, where Ann Coulter has crossed line I and others have condemned it.

Here's the humorous clip from Michigan Liberal. We are worthy - porn-worthy:

A respected reporter and columnist recently accused political bloggers of using pseudonyms that are porn-worthy. As I am someone who is far too prudish to watch porn, I am unqualified to judge the accuracy of that accusation. So I thought it would be a good idea to consult someone that is an expert on such matters. Unfortunately, I don’t know any directors, actors, actresses, or even camera operators who work in the porn business.

But I do know someone who considers himself a connoisseur of porn. He goes by the name Goober. He’s 41, has never been married, and lives in Lansing. He’s the one that informed that there is in fact such things as Clown Porn and Pregnant Woman Porn. I took his word on it and have not confirmed his claims. (FYI, "Goober" is not his real name.)

So I ran a lot of blogger pseudonyms and proper names by Goober to see if he thought they were porn-worthy.

Let’s start with Hazen Pingree, I said.

“Isn’t he a dead guy?” asked Goober.

Yes, he was mayor of Detroit and then Governor of our state.

“Not porn-worthy.”
rich :: The Porn-Worthiness of Blogger Pseudonyms

What if say, it’s a challenge for Hazen to control his Pingree? Or, put your Pingree back in your pants?

“Mmm-no. Too much of a stretch.”

Chetly Zarko?

“Porn-worthy.”

That’s not even a pseudonym.

“All the same, that’s a VERY porn-worthy name. Trust me.”

Okay, I will. Emptywheel?

“What’s an empty wheel and how can wheels be empty?”

I dunno. Got me.

“It’s nonsensical. Definitely not porn-worthy.”

The Howell Public Schools has witnessed its third school board resignation in six months. In addition to the two elected seats in May, that means that the majority of the board will be completely new by the time the next selection is made.

Howell is clearly a district in turmoil. Zarko Research met (and indeed communicated with) for the first time on Monday evening Howell's notorious Vicki Fyke, at a Duncan Hunter speech here in Oakland County we were covering for OaklandPolitics.com. Fyke informed us of Doug Norton's retirement, and attributed part of the cause of that to Zarko Research FOIA work. Nonetheless, we would disagree with that interpretation and suspect Norton's reasons were broader. The ZR FOIA simply wasn't that important and at best only exposes conditions in the district, not creates them. Clearly the district has issues that are affecting a whole range of people, and our reporting can not be a driving force behind that. Here's Howell's press release yesterday:

The Board of Education of Howell Public Schools announces a second Board Member vacancy, effective October 11, 2007.

Parties interested in applying for this unexpired Board Member term should do so at the Board of Education Office located at 411 North Highlander Way, Howell, Michigan.

PLEASE NOTE: Anyone who showed interest in the seat made vacant by Mary Jo Dymond’s resignation, MUST RESUBMIT A LETTER OF INTEREST for filling the vacancy left by Susan Drazic’s resignation.

In order to apply, interested parties must submit a brief letter of intent or Interest in Board Vacancy Form, in hard copy, (no emails or faxes will be accepted) at the Board of Education Office no later than 3:00 PM on Tuesday, October 16, 2007. Material received after this deadline will effectively disqualify the late candidate from being considered by the board on October 22, 2007.

When the letter is submitted, each party will be provided with a more detailed set of qualifying questions which should be completed and returned in hard copy (no emails or faxes will be accepted) to the Board Office no later than 11:00 AM on Friday, October 19, 2007. Materials received after this deadline will effectively disqualify the late candidate from being considered by the board on October 22, 2007.

Qualifying candidates will be screened and interviewed in person at a Regular Board of Education Meeting set for Monday, October 22, 2007, at 7:00 PM.

During the interview process, each candidate should be prepared to give a brief oral statement. The board will then do its evaluation and decide on the appointment.

The candidate appointed, as early as October 22, 2007, will serve only the unexpired term until the point of the upcoming School Board Election currently scheduled for May 6, 2008.

Philip Westmoreland, President

Howell Board of Education

UPDATE: RepublicanMichigander, a former Howell resident, has excellent ongoing coverage of the issue. 17 people applied for the first seat, and no doubt most will double up for the second. Fyke is among them, apparently.

The folks at State Sunshine and Open Records blog, also operators of the fabulous "WikiFOIA," have posted their interview of me here. The interview gets into some of my ancient past FOIA history - something I don't go into much detail on here. I recommend reading their other interviews though and using the wiki tool -- the breadth of advice on FOIA there is astonishing and only likely to expand.

Zarko Research was at Pontiac High School taping a political rally last night. We found this sign to be a particularly ironic thing to see at a school.

In addition to questions raised by a Pontiac city councilman about alleged "threats" made to stop Pontiac school from hosting a political event (the Councilman referred me to his wife, who refused to answer after a political operative told her who he thought I worked for, which ironically isn't true), the sign was about the most interesting thing we saw in a boring three hours. The meeting, advertised as a "Town Hall", was an orchestrated rally. No "Town Hall" style questions were asked, the audience was all partisan and given pre-fabricated "convention-style" signs saying "IMPEACH", and the 5 person panel a hand-picked, lopsided panel all advocating for an anti-war position. When I was asked by an activist/operative from the other side why certain Congressmen (Knollenberg or McCotter) "didn't show up," I clarified that I didn't know what the representatives' thoughts were but asked why Senator Levin didn't show up (answer: how interesting that Carl Levin, who voted to approve money for the war and is also up for re-election, wasn't "invited") and suggested that the event's rules and organization were so biased as to make such an idea ridiculous. This wasn't a "TownHall," as citizens of the 9th District (I am such a citizen) weren't welcome to ask questions and get response -- Bruce Fealk, its organizer, refused (again) to "give me a quote on [my] camera" when I started asking him questions -- I asked him how it was any different from him expecting answers to questions when he barrages into offices and camps out at private homes, but he just walked away. If Fealk really wanted to reach the public and persuade people from both sides of the aisle, he'd take all opportunities to answer questions (and to both Skinner and Peters' credit, they answered questions!).

Finally, I asked Nancy Skinner one question. Is she running. Her response is that she's not in or out and nothing is official yet. For those of you on the Republican-side "itching" for a Democratic primary, I've never been of the opinion that one side should care about whether the other has a primary or not. It's like sports playoffs - if you win too early sometimes the "rest" is good, sometimes the "rest" causes you to lose momentum (Tigers, 2006). Sometimes the "work" of playing into extra games both "steels" you (Piston', 2004) and sometimes it "drains" you (Pistons, in 2005). At best, Skinner adds unpredictability to the race and maybe slightly drains Peters (or even wins), at worst, she could help the Democrats. But it doesn't change the fact that there's a general election in November.

Gary Peters, who didn't give a speech like Skinner, was only available in the lobby afterwards. A Peters operative quickly pointed me out, suggesting I was there as an operative (which simply isn't true, although I have past ties with Knollenberg's son, I do not work for them currently, and am simply an interested 9th District citizen at this point, just as Nancy Skinner claimed of Bruce Fealk in her speech when she asserted that he wasn't paid for his activism). As he walked by, I asked Mr. Peters what his thoughts on the proposed racinos issue was, a reasonable question that I actually have an interest in hearing about from a perspective other than his race for Congress. His response as he walked by hurriedly was that due to Proposal 1 (2004), the people would have to vote on any such expansion and he left it at that.

The sign and councilman's comments prompted this letter and Michigan Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to Pontiac's superintendent:

Dear Mr. Calvin C. Cupidore, Jr.:

I was at the Pontiac High School last night videotaping a political rally. I took the attached photo of a sign apparently directed toward students.

It is misspelled. It's amazing to me that hundreds of teachers would walk by this and not see to it that it was corrected. Not only does such a sign (errantly) teach students by example, it is embarrassing to find at a school district. I would hope you correct the situation forthwith.

As to the political rally, pursuant to the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, I request all records related to or that document any threats or communications with the district regarding the rally. A city council person claimed in a speech that threats had been made to stop the rally. Additionally, I request a copy of the contract between the rally organizers and district to lease the space, the school policy on leasing space for non-school purposes, and any check and invoice related to that contract. Finally, I request any e-mail or other communication which you or other administrators, or any member of the school board, received or sent on the topics of the rally, the war in Iraq, or any political candidate for office over the last two months.

Thank you for your time. Documents may be faxed to the number below, and email returned here.

Truly,
Chetly Zarko

For readers familiar with my work in 2003 Wall St. Journal expose and FOIA work (resulting in another FOIA win for ZR, but only after U-M stalled it long enough to evade impact on the case) attempting to get the simple numerical underpinnings of the so-called expert testimony of Patricia Gurin which eventually became part of the rationale behind Grutter v. Bollinger, yesterday's commentary in the WSJ by Gail Heriot (now a Commissioner for the US Commission on Civil Rights!).

Take William Kidder, a University of California staff advisor and co-author of a frequently cited attack of Sander's study. When Mr. Sander and his co-investigators sought bar passage data from the State Bar of California that would allow analysis by race, Mr. Kidder passionately argued that access should be denied, because disclosure "risks stigmatizing African American attorneys." At the same time, the Society of American Law Teachers, which leans so heavily to the left it risks falling over sideways, gleefully warned that the state bar would be sued if it cooperated with Mr. Sander.

Sander's work on cascading and the implication that race preferences might actually reduce the number of blacks that become lawyers (increased students but increase bar failure rates that more than offset it) is the kind of the work that you apparently only get to do once in the diversity industry. The red-herrings of privacy are oft repeated - but the data almost never contains that personal information because by law and good practices that stuff has to be protected even from the routine users of the data when it is created.

Read more »

Cross-posted at Equality Talk.

The power of wiki allows me as a blog writer some new flexibility. Here's a "timeline" of events we've created on the Wiki. It covers literally every event on equality issues you might want to add, although I anticipate it will be more detailed as time goes forward than in the past (a longer term project). The tools allows organization of events, press releases, and news in time.

After the tease, you'll find my analysis of the Fiscal Impact statement from the City of St. Louis. ZR concludes that St. Louis has admitted to quotas and improper violations of federal law.

Read more »

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?

PR Newswire carriers Ed Blumn's new organization's (Project on Fair
Representation (POFR)), statement announcing a complaint it filed with the Department of Education against U-Texas Austin for "reintroducing preferences" following its 10 year experiment without them, brought on by the 1996 Hopwood decision.

Edward Blum, director of POFR, said "UT's recent reintroduction of
racial preferences in undergraduate admissions is illegal, to say nothing
of being unfair and polarizing. The U.S. Department of Education needs to
end this practice before the next round of freshman applications is
submitted."

The theory is that the reintroduction is not legal under Grutter v. Bollinger's "narrowly tailored" constraints because the alternatives Texas had adopted were working.

While this isn't a lawsuit, DiversityInc. is falsely reporting it as "Ward Connerly's Crony Sues Texas School." It's not a suit guys - its a request for a DOEd investigation and ruling. There's a difference between the executive branch and judicial one that DiversityInc. ignores, but it prefers to inflame its audience rather than report facts.

Eastern Michigan University Regent Jim Stapleton told WJR's Frank Beckmann this morning that they chose to fire EMU President John Fallon that they fired him Sunday to prevent him from using "an EMU forum," the Monday Regents meeting, as a forum to "attack the university." Furthermore, Fallon apparently sent emails or communications to the Regents suggesting his unhappiness - mostly revolving around a situation where the EMU Department of Public Safety (DPS) had allegedly covered up the existence of a dormitory murder. It is unknown clearly who and how many leaders knew of the cover-up.

Aside from the shocking murder cover-up, which may or may not have been simple bureaucracy-in-(non)-motion, Stapleton's explanation for the firing is absurd, hints at a violation of the Open Meetings Act, and reflects the overall attitude of leadership that lead to the larger international scandal that has erupted.

And international explosion it is. The Guardian Unlimited in the United Kingdom picks it up here (AP wire), the New York Times, the Detroit Free Press, and numerous other sources. Here the AP-Guardian piece:

The president, John Fallon, confirmed that he was fired Sunday evening by a unanimous vote of the Board of Regents, The Ann Arbor News reported in its Monday editions. Board secretary Jackie Kurtz on Monday confirmed the firing to The Associated Press.

Fallon told the newspaper that his termination letter was delivered Sunday night and did not state a reason for his firing. The letter said the board had voted unanimously to terminate his employment contract effective Sunday - two years after his five-year contract took effect.

``As a citizen, I am disappointed in this hastily called meeting, without any opportunity to be present or to respond,'' Fallon told the newspaper. ``I have a story to tell and intend to tell it.''

Look, it's not like firing him in a secret vote is going to stop him from speaking, or even speaking at an "EMU forum", since all he would need to do is attend the next meeting and speak in public comments. Let him have his out - and if he insults the board, obviously the relationship can't continue, then fire him. Give the public an opportunity to participate in the debate. This is why we have an Open Meeting Act, guys (and ladies).

The New York Times report pushes a bit deeper:

“We are committed to regaining the trust of all E.M.U. stakeholders, and all of the people of the great state of Michigan,” the board’s chairman, Thomas Sidlik, told about 200 people who jammed the regents’ meeting room today. “This board will not tolerate anyone who sabotages the educational mission of this university by participating in these destructive behavior patterns.”

Since Mr. Taylor was arrested and charged, Dr. Fallon has maintained that he was unaware of the crime and acted to the best of his ability. He was not specifically cited for wrongdoing in either of the reports but has been the primary target of parents’ and faculty members’ outrage.

The departures of Mr. Vick and Ms. Hall were agreed upon several weeks ago but not revealed until today. The board decided to terminate Dr. Fallon during a Sunday meeting by telephone after learning that he “may have been contemplating additional action that would have further damaged this university,” said James F. Stapleton, a board member who led the university’s efforts to investigate the handling of Ms. Dickinson’s death.

Mr. Stapleton declined to elaborate on his comment, saying that Dr. Fallon would probably make a public statement in the coming days. Dr. Fallon did not respond to messages left Monday at his university-owned home, which he has 60 days to vacate. The evening before his termination was announced, Dr. Fallon told The Ann Arbor News, “I have a story to tell and intend to tell it.”

Mr. Sidlik said in an interview, “There was a general falling apart of the relationship over the last few days.”

Dr. Fallon is the university’s second consecutive president to leave abruptly amid a scandal. His predecessor, Samuel Kirkpatrick, resigned in 2004 after it was revealed that the university paid $6 million — $2.5 million more than it had said publicly — to build a new home for him on campus.

All the elements of a culture of secrecy from the top down are there. And the elements of violation of the Open Meetings Act. And finally, note the suggestion in the comments section of the Chronicle of Higher Education story that the firing had motivations that went deeper - to the contract with the union Fallon recently negotiated.

ZR is probing this story further, as it represents a confluence of several issues.

In a lengthy article by Jonathan D. Glater and Alan Finder in today's New York Times entitled, "Schools Diversity Based on Income Segregates Some", we find some interesting statements. The story reads like a news analysis infiltrated with opinion, as is clear from its biased title.

First, in California, we have school attorneys that have forgotten where they live. Check this Bayview school general counsel.

David Campos, the general counsel to the school district, said the resegregation was so disappointing that the school board might try to test whether Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s opinion in the recent Supreme Court case left open the possibility of using race if other methods of integration fail.

“We stopped using race at some point,” Mr. Campos said. “And then for a number of years we have tried to use a number of race-neutral factors to achieve racial diversity, which methods haven’t worked. Should the board decide to use race, and they may or may not, we are a very good test case.”

Not only did Mr. Campos forget Proposition 209 would prevent his "test case" from even getting to federal court since it wouldn't be legal under state law, he seems to have the idea that he is entitled to experiment with our taxpayer money, and the quality of schooling students in the district receive (for if the school spends big legal bucks on test cases, it is distracting from and taking resources away from education). Indeed, Campos' belief that he is the arbiter of "test cases" is institutional arrogance. Public officials should generally avoid skirting the law or pushing its boundaries - "test cases" should arise from situations where an error or incidental encroachment is made - not where a public official decides to create a test case. Indeed, this is equivalent to a frivolous filing of a lawsuit, just in a less tangible and noticeable way.

As to the rest of this Times article, look at the title. "Schools Diversity Based on Income Segregates Some". At best, the conclusion is that it "Doesn't Desegregate Enough", not that socio-economic measures actually segregate. Their is pre-existing societal segregation - socio-economic solutions produce much more economic diversity, and are estimated to replace the (alleged) need for roughly 75% of racial diversity programs because of the pre-existing socio-economic racial imbalances. The article sort of recognizes that these are different scales and types of diversity, yet it attacks socio-economic programs for not being perfect (although helping) along one of the dimensions. Maybe socio-economic programs aren't perfect, but they are the best, and most moral, of types of governmental response, if there is to even be a governmental response, to such imbalances.

If perfection were the measure of any program, no program would be acceptable. Indeed, any program that seeks "perfection" is philosophically suspect by itself. Here, the Times and racial-criteria proponents equate "perfection" with "proportional representation". For there is only standard against which to measure "racial diversity" - does it match the relative population levels for that group. The idea that society would configure itself such that every region and school would exactly match that obliviates free choice, and as such is a utopian perfection that is philosophically suspect (and in my world view anti-utopian). Indeed, this is the fundamental hidden flaw of preferentialist-reasoning. Without even touching on its vast internal contradictions (for example, that black self-segregation is good or to be encouraged), it presumes a utopian world-view that is anti-freedom.

I am reminded of another sought-after-perfection from science fiction. "Resistance is futile."