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.

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."

Marisa Schultz of the Detroit News reports here on the what is allegedly the effect of Proposal 2. Before imagining the sky falling, remember that U-M predicted that in the wake of a preference elimination that numbers would fall from 12% to as low as 4%. Here's the actual picture.

African-Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans make up 10.7 percent of the freshmen who have paid enrollment deposits to reserve a place at U-M this fall, compared to previous years when minorities typically comprised 12-15 percent of each class.

The figures paint the most complete picture yet of what the first class admitted under Proposal 2 will look like. Proposal 2, the Michigan constitutional amendment that banned the consideration of race, gender and ethnicity in university admissions, took effect in January for U-M, midway through its admissions cycle.

And on cue:

"With one- half of a year with Proposal 2 and you are already seeing a drop (in minority students)," said George Washington, attorney for By Any Means Necessary, a pro-affirmative action group suing to overturn the amendment. "You are really talking about more of a drop next year."

Surprisingly, the news story uses an interesting word:

The dip in minority representation comes at a time when a record number of students applied to U-M, with applications topping 27,400. Applications from black, Hispanic and Native American students also went up, but the number accepted dropped.

Shockingly, U-M spokepeople actually something interesting:

U-M officials did not comment Wednesday on the diversity of the class. However, they said it should be one of the "most highly qualified and intellectually dynamic ever admitted."

Hmm. One wonders if there's a correlation to Proposal 2 and that.