The University of Michigan Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Office (LGBT-O) has decided that it must change its name for these reasons. Let me note up front that while I oppose "gay marriage," I believe we should at least be respectful of all human beings, and I don't write this to make fun of anyone or judge lifestyles. But if the liberal argument is that conservative government shouldn't interfere with individual lifestyles, then U-Michigan, a government the size of a mini-state, shouldn't have bodies that promote or hinder those lifestyles.

Hat tip to The Stranger out of Seattle for picking it up. Even some liberals like Donn Fresard in Ann Arbor, think its "silly."

It's more than silly. Look at the bureaucracy and bureaucratic mass that is involved in this "name change." It's as if they have nothing else to do, so they create a huge amount of work. And the name change itself is Orwellian.

Even "office" doesn't "reflect the work that we do for and with Allies."

*The current Office name does not reflect the work that we do for and with Allies."

How far can we take this linguistic assualt? "Office" isn't inclusive enough? By the way, what's government doing choosing "Allies" among its own citizens? Inclusiveness suggests everyone - not just "Allies". I thought diversophiles weren't supposed to see the world in "us v. them" terms. So much for true diversity.

The Ever-Changing Target of Diversity

What's the real thrust, other than to create work for the array of diversity bureaucrats who could find anything else to do with their time?

# The community is more complex than the letters L-G-B-T

*The letters LGBT, as representative of the identities lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender, are no longer inclusive of the diversity of the community.

Hmm. The "letters" ... "are no longer inclusive of the diversity." It's changed? ZR has repeated used the term the "fad" to describe diversity. The "diversity" movement has pinned American values on an ever-changing, malleable fad. Principles and values - like equality - do not change. That's why values are valuable.

Below the fold I paste the whole document for your humor:

Read more »

Time to revive an old ZR analysis of U-M data manipulation. Read that along with with last week's ZR exclusive on U-M administrative growth, and yesterday's piece by Marisa Schultz of the Detroit News who writes here about the statewide wave of tuition increases.

And guess who's allegedly to blame again - anybody but the administrators at the schools. The legislature isn't appropriating enough of your money.

Hammered by six years of state appropriations reductions, U-M has taken considerable cost-cutting measures, from motion sensors that activate lights only when someone's in a classroom to reducing the number of deans in the College of Engineering, said U-M Provost Teresa Sullivan. "But finding additional things to cut is getting harder and harder."

In 1960, state funds comprised nearly 80 percent of U-M's budget; now that's 24 percent, and tuition is the largest stream of revenue, she said.

"We are in a situation in which our state appropriation has been under considerable pressure," Sullivan said.

Wait, there hasn't been "six years of state appropriations reductions" - there have been six years where legislative appropriations have stagnated or modestly increased. More importantly, that quote on the 1960 comparison of "relative % of legislative funding" is an extension of the fabulous lie first perpetrated by former president James Duderstadt in the mid-90s, when he pointed out that U-M's 1986-1996 "share" of state funding as a percentage of U-M's overall funding fell from 18% to 12%, and blamed the legislature for the "cut". Sullivan deserves credit for the novelty of expanding the time-frame to 1960 to increase the magnitude by a factor. Still, ZR debunked the original horrible twisting of statistics which applies today, pointing out that U-M averaged 17% growth in administration over the same time while the legislature gave 8% more over the time. That's twice the rate of inflation (quadruple for expenditures and other revenues including tuition increases and federal sources) - the legislature lived up to its end of the bargain, yet U-M blamed it on them in the bustling 90s and still uses the same old saw today.

Although the Detroit News writer is doing the best she can with the beat she's assigned, the problem is when you're forced to take the word of U-M officials you're in for some surprises.

"Time and time again we've made the cuts and we've done the reforms," said Regent S. Martin Taylor, noting U-M has slashed $120 million in costs in five years. "We've done those things and then we recognized that (in order) to keep Michigan great, we have to increase revenues."

Just last night State Senator John Pappageorge told a Rochester gathering a story. You go into your boss's office and ask for a $5,000 raise. After much discussion about your value and productivity, and the budget of the company, your boss gives you a $2,000 raise. You walk out of the office and tell your office-mates you just took a $3,000 pay cut.

In the University of Michigan shadow world of budgeting, an increase can be a cut. A look at the Provost's data reveals how words can be twisted - but ZR's favorite is when James Duderstadt tried to play the same trick in the mid-90s and ZR broke it down with this analysis showing that the decline was really an increase but decline relative only to outrageous 17% annual growth by U-M bureaucracy.

If U-M "cut $120 million" in expenses, it doesn't mean that it reduced its overall bureaucracy by that size. Either they cut a hypothetical $120 million that they might have spent in ideal circumstances, they cut something they were going to cut anyway or was at a natural end, they cut something but spent twice as much elsewhere, or any number of explanations. Regardless, I'd like to see the documentation of exactly what their cuts were, and methodology. And even if they saved a $120 million in future costs, its nearly a $3 billion dollar budget. Compare these explanations with last week's ZR statistical analysis of the last five years of U-M administrative growth.

Flip S. Martin Taylor's statement around. Instead of, "(in order) to keep Michigan great, we have to increase revenues," it should be "to keep Michigan great, we have to decrease costs." Does it really matter whether a student pays for his university education in tuition - or through his or her parents and future taxes. It's just a shell-game either way. The key is to reduce costs and provide better value. And with the salary analysis ZR has done, clearly that isn't happening.

Zarko Research again provides insight into the vaunted, but bloated, University of Michigan.

Like the ZR analysis of Michigan State University salary database trends over the last two years when it asked for a 9.6% tuition hike last week, ZR has been collecting U-M databases. An analysis of five year trend data provides a clear insight into why U-M tuition rates explode. There are 38,000 employees at U-M - and 3500 of them make more than 100K annually, a number itself that has an impressive growth rate.

The engorging is top-heavy - an outlandish growth rate among $100,000/year employees, percentage increases in the "Top 1000" by two measurements that are consistently in the 5% range (with a 7.5% average spike, and 20% total spending spike in 2001-2002, reflecting probably a "preparation" for bad times given the strong economy the previous year and the obvious signs of crisis down the road. But there has been no "crisis" for the purses and wallets of U-M bureaucrats, even as the Michigan economy has crashed. They keep churning out nickel increases while the Governor wants to appropriate extra pennies from the plebes to make up the difference.

Education is important. But out-of-check, unaccountable cost increases for top-level administrators do not guarantee any student a fair education. Check the tables yourselves. It's all there - or actually, its' all in Mary Sue Coleman's $600,000 (plus hidden benefits) salary. Imagine if that money went to students instead!

A google news search shows that no mainstream media outlet appears to have covered the change public comments policy at today's University of Michigan Board of Regents meeting. ZR chastises the media for its complicitly - although the public comments doesn't affect a media right (speaking is typically not done by the media), any assault on access rights is bound to come back and later hurt the media.

The Detroit Free Press first look at the Board meeting was this positive look at the two race-neutral scholarships the Board adopted to comply with Proposal 2. No doubt this was newsworthy, but as a capsule of the meeting woefully incomplete (both the stadium controversy and the Open Meetings Act issue must). It is possible we'll see more detailed analysis in the slower non-wire news cycle.

But in searching for open meetings issues, we found this interesting, now two-week old piece, about guess who? The MEA and a quorum of school board members illegally meeting in March over a teacher complaint.

Four Ypsilanti school board members violated the Michigan Open Meetings Act when they attended a March 8 meeting of teachers and staff who complained about then- High School Principal Layne Hunt, according to the Washtenaw County Prosecutor's Office.

Criminal charges, however, will not be filed, Deputy Chief Assistant Prosecutor Steve Hiller said in a memo released Wednesday to The News. Hiller wrote there is not enough evidence to prove that Amy Doyle, Andy Fanta, Cameron Getto, and Tom Reiber intended to violate the state law.

Hiller's nine-page memo dated June 5, stemmed from a meeting the board members attended at the Michigan Education Association's office on Carpenter Road in Pittsfield Township. Doyle and Getto have since resigned from the board. After much controversy at the high school, Hunt resigned as principal March 28.

It's nice to know a County Prosecutor got involved (that's one of the great things about the OMA, they do have that discretion although we rarely see it used), and that the ultimate outcome was two board members doing the right thing and resigning. Here, the MEA used its own offices, not to subvert FOIA but rather OMA. It's unknown as to whether Principal Hunt should or shouldn't have resigned, but its clear the pressure was on him, to the point of illegal secret meetings.

UPDATE on Ypsilanti secret meeting.

This Ypsilanti Courier piece gives us far more detail on the issue of the secret meeting:

Washtenaw County Deputy Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Steven Hiller ruled last week that a March 8 meeting with Ypsilanti High School teachers and staff who had concerns and complaints about then-principal Layne Hunt was in violation of the law.

Hiller said he would not prosecute the matter, however, because he could not prove there was intent to commit the violation.

In a nine-page memo, Hiller outlined the case against the four trustees, Amy Doyle, Andrew Fanta, Cameron Getto and Thomas Reiber, who attended the meeting after a communications snafu. Doyle and Getto have since resigned from the board.

Hiller then concluded the board members had broken the law by deliberating on the issue of firing Dr. Hunt. If the trustees deliberated and/or made a decision regarding the issue, the meeting would have been a violation of the OMA because no notification was given and no minutes were taken.

But, attendees at the meeting insist the session was for information-gathering only and no deliberations or discussions were held.

"It was for information-gathering purposes only," insists Kelly Powers, president of the Ypsilanti Education Association. "That's what they [the trustees] said at the beginning of the meeting and that's what happened. They listened and took notes."

Big things come in small packages. One of the great things about little newspapers is they cover their local stories in better detail than the regional newspapers we are all accustomed to seeing. And the internet finally picks most of them up now.

You have to love that Orwellian spin coming from Kelly Powers, of the YEA (Ypsilanti Education Assocation). "Information-gathering purposes only". "Deliberations" on the other-hand is a pretty big thing to define. I suggest that if you gather information - or prostrate yourself in front of a union leadership group who is feeing it you your daily dose - you are deliberating (perhaps in a non-meaningful way, but ... ). Deliberating is the act of working toward a decision. Collecting information is a vital and integral component of working toward that decision. The difference that YEA alleges is superficial.

The reason we have an open meetings act is so that no "special" (interest) sub-set of the population has secret access to our public official in the decision-making process. The Michigan Education Association, NEA, and its satellites (HEA, YEA, etc), fight long and hard for their special privileges and access. And whether its unions or corporations, it's time to say no more.

David Boyle, a liberal Democrat who has fought in favor of race preferences but is now fighting the University of Michigan Athletic Department's expansion and commercialization of seats (luxury) at the historic Michigan Stadium, has sent me this hat tip. While ZR takes no formal position on Michigan's move to change the feel of the Stadium, we sympathize with the treatment and strong-arming of those who have objected. As usual, Michigan "leaders" have ignored public input and engaged in tactics to avoid debate and public engagement.

The University of Michigan Board of Regents, a body dominated 6-2 by Democrats, is considering a policy change on its public comments rules. The plan is to reduce the number of comments from 12 maximum to 10 maximum - retaining the 5 minute limit per person. They've also added a clause that gives priority to individuals who have not spoken to the Board in the previous two months.

This is yet another disgusting, anti-Democratic move by an administration and institution that seeks every bit of control and governmental edge it can obtain. Reducing public comments is just a visible symptom of the large disease infecting the university's administrative process.

The Michigan Open Meetings Act would seemingly come to the rescue in such a situation, and it may, but its not entirely clear. MCL 15.263(5) is the key section of the OMA here:

(5) A person shall be permitted to address a meeting of a public body under rules established and recorded by the public body.

U-M would argued that its established rules (which now require a 24 hour advance sign up and max out 12 "first-come, first-serve" speakers) are recorded, and that's the end of the story. A variety of common-law requirements however, including the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, require such policies to be reasonable. For example, what if U-M kept lowering the number of speakers, in a "slippery slope", say to 8 then 6 or 1? What number is reasonable? Obviously a policy that allowed zero people to speak would be illegal, and a policy allowing say, only 1 speaker per meeting, would be unreasonable. 12 speakers - the current policy - seems to ZR to already be an unreasonably small number for a statewide body with a constituency of 7 million registered voters and thousands of out-of-state alumni, donors, and stakeholders.

Another consideration here would be the plain word and grammatical reading of section (5). Is not the phrase, "A person shall be permitted to address a meeting ...", even if under rules, not clear in its requirement that any person seeking to address a meeting entitled to address the meeting? It would seem that even the current U-M rule restricting the number of speakers to 12 is in violation of that requirement. While the law would seem to allow the public body almost complete flexibility in such things as time limits and other rules to insure order, it would seem that any restriction on number would violate the rights of persons to address a meeting.

If anyone has 11 people who want to speak at the next meeting, it would certainly be an interesting legal challenge to set up!

Whether you're on the left like David, an opponent of race preferences like myself, or of any logical political stripe, you can find solace and agreement with David's new website, Fire Mary Sue Coleman.com. While that would be nice start, we'd note that the administrative beast that is U-M is much broader-based than its figure-head and it is only a short-term fix.

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.

The Michigan Daily is reporting yet another devious strategy to bypass Proposal 2 - the allegedly "independent" 501-c-3 "Alumni Association" might finance race-based scholarships on the theory that it is a "private actor."

The first thing this will cause is a decline in donations to that organization. Nonetheless, it is questionable for many reasons as to whether the association is sufficiently distinct from U-M to survive the legal challenges. We'll keep an eye on this one.

This report, called "Science or Propaganda," published by the American Federation of Teachers (more on that later) attacks a group of 8 studies purporting to show that there is a so-called "liberal" bias in academia and the college teaching profession. The studies bear on the movement by David Horowitz to pass "Academic Bills of Rights" protecting students against such bias. Notables such as Stanley Rothman and President of the National Association of Scholars (NAS) Stephen Balch are among the published authors this report seeks to discredit.

The author of this report though is Dr. John Lee, of JBL consulting. It seems, according to google, that Mr. Lee is almost exclusively a funded-analyst for the American Federation of Teachers union lobbying group. There's nothing wrong with this, of course. But it seems that Mr. Lee might add to his list of scientific standards the fact that bias often originates from money and interest. Clearly, both AFT and Lee have a monied interest in attacking David Horowitz generally, and any research or critiques they might do would be motivated by its own bias. Again, this, in itself, says nothing of the truth or falsity of their claims is not in question here - it merely goes to the probability of their accuracy and their own potential biases in claiming that others are biased.

While I find the academic "intellectual diversity" debate interesting, what I find more interesting is the usefulness of the tools and standards this author is using to hold 'conservative research' accountable. Since every decent sword has two-edges, I'd like to apply the standards "intellectual (lack of) diversity" work equally to the "educational benefits derive from racial diversity" research proferred by Patricia Gurin and the Univeristy of Michigan.

What does the author of this defense of the lack of intellectual diversity on campus find to be the first criteria of good science?

Replication!

Wow. Replication is now important to the scientific-political left? Well, let's look at the other edge of the sword.

For new readers, my first foray into this field was in May 2003 when I published a Wall Street Journal expose/op-ed detailing how U-M refused to produce the data underlying the scientific research of one Dr. Patricia Gurin, an interim Dean of the LS&A school at U-M and psychology professor, who gave "expert testimony" in 1999 which was eventually cited in oral arguments before the Supreme Court. She was the exclusive expert testifying as to "scientific" evidence of "educational benefits," and therefore her role has a special place in history. It turned out that her husband, a retired psychology professor had analyzed the same data 5 years earlier and co-authored a report with "mixed" conclusions, much of it contradicting or at least "balancing" Gurin's "glowing" testimony. I discovered that report through FOIA in a secretly held portion of the U-M archives, and when I understood its importance I immediately requested Gurin's complete dataset (so I, or other researchers I knew, could replicate it, and address "other explanations" as well, another of John Lee's 5 tests of good science). I figured if her conclusions were as solid as she stated, and going to change U.S. policy and Constitutional law, there'd be no problem. But there was. U-M denied the dataset FOIA, claiming Gurin privately owned the commercial value of the data, citing (and grossly misapplying) a Michigan law that protects commercially valuable research data from FOIA requests. And with only a month before the Supreme Court ruling, even a FOIA lawsuit wouldn't do the trick in the time. They succeeded in concealing scientific data through outright cynical legal evasion, but in the process, damaged the integrity of their research in the minds of anyone honest enough to wonder why the data had to remain secreted. Two years later, under the pressure of actual FOIA litigation, U-M settled and produced the data, but its meaning was now moot and although I've shared it appropriately, it is likely that no one has the resources to expend replicating something that few care about now.

It turns out Lee gives a detailed account of what replication involves, and Gurin's failure to provide data is clearly within it, her inability to provide "clear definitions", and other factors, including an interesting 2001 law on scientific standards, all make this piece very interesting.