This one's a real doosy. Perhaps inspired by the language of the automobile industry, an Oakland University Professor has produced a real clunker, as reported in the Oakland Press:

"As you look at how systems live and die, we're entering the death rattle," Dessert said. "We're entering a phase where there will be no escaping."

That's pretty apocalyptic. I think I'll either have to bone up on my physics and black hole spatial mechanics, or re-read Revelations. What exactly is this guy talking about:

An Oakland University engineering professor well known for developing workplace efficiency strategies argues that Michigan is losing its manufacturing sector to other states and nations because its K-12, higher education and private sector systems have failed to develop a creative, inspired and highly skilled work force.

Oh, wait, this is the same higher education system that is growing every year. Forget about the fact that the University of Michigan and Michigan State hired 3% more people on average every year, that one of their Presidents took an $80,000 dollar twenty-five percent pay raise, and the top 1000 U-M employees average almost 6% pay raises annualized over the last six years while other employees only averaged inflation or less.

That's a death rattle at 80 mph and accelerating.

This is not to say that the professor isn't a serious guy or doesn't have some good ideas. He apparently is and does, we're just short on the specifics.

The assessment has spurred some controversy but is not one that Professor Pat Dessert came up with overnight.

The seasoned professor employs advanced mathematics to model how various components of large and multifaceted systems interact. He can also use his theory to pinpoint potential efficiencies within those systems.

Three years ago, Dessert applied the Unified Systems Theory that he developed to glean insight into state economic challenges and what the future holds for Michigan workers.

The author and editor of the rather long-article just waste the space and don't get to anything other than the jingo. Some obvious truisms, requiring no deep plumbing of the universe for insights, are stated:

Many of Michigan's high school graduates are not adequately prepared by the K-12 system to succeed in college, Dessert said.
...
"When systems are aligned, they work well. The real problem is that we're not aligned," Dessert said.

But the only real solution offered is one program where hands on auto-racing demonstrations by NASCAR-types motivated students in some demonstration project. Unfortunately, its just not the type of program that is "scalable," that is, can be exported to large numbers of schools. It's hard to know here whether it's the mathematician who doesn't have other ideas, or the journalists who failed to find them.

Finally, while no explicit appeal for "more money" is made for higher education, the reporter finds the Oakland ISD both disagreeing with the mathematician and then contradictorily blaming any failure on a lack of money for her pre-kindergarten programs.

Oakland Schools Superintendent Vickie Markavitch objected to the notion that K-12 schools have failed students. She says the majority of graduates who go on to college find success there.

"I don't think it's a misalignment issue," Markavitch argued, noting that comprehensive curriculum enhancement in both career-focused and general education programs has targeted both postsecondary study and emerging career opportunities.

Students who do struggle in college, Markavitch said, likely faced academic challenges early in their careers because of a lack of adequate prekindergarten programs in Michigan.

"Until we begin to address the gap that exists when children enter kindergarten, we will not adequately address the gap that exists when children leave the 12th grade."

That's about as crass as it gets. If our only problem was pre-kindergarten programs, you'd think the problem would have been solved by now. But its radically untrue, as well. I live in the small town of Clawson, a medium sized school district by all accounts, and have studied its problems closely. Aside from the town not having the social or financial problems of an inner-city or rural school district, the Clawson schools are considered a fairly successful performer (slightly above average when the whole student life cycle is averaged) when it comes to testing measures. But there is a fall off in students passing the measures that starts in about 7th grade and is very noticeable upon graduation. Students seem to lose touch emotionally with the idea of and methods of school as they become teenagers. This isn't rocket-science, folks. We all experienced those years of our lives. It takes a different teaching paradigm to reach those students. Yet Clawson just hired a superintendent whose primary experience was K-6, despite the numbers, an alternative choice with high school experience, and citizens who pointed out where the improvement needs to come. And the Oakland ISD (which provides intermediate services to Clawson, ironically) superintendent has the same myopia. And even with high schools, its not money that will solve the problem. It's creativity, focus, attention to hiring (and the ability to fire) the right people for the right spots, and proper segmentation of specialties to cater to the individual needs of different students as they grow on their own tracks. How can ZR say this confidently - because there are high schools, even in inner-cities, rural districts, and the average Clawson's, that aren't showing the traditional dip in performance. It's simple policy modeling from that point - its finding and copying rather than reinventing already invented wheels. I'm also lead to ask the question of whether K-12 administrations are dominated by elementary teachers. I have no data on this issue - its just a thought.

State Senator Mark Schauer (D, Battle Creek) has attacked State Senator Bruce Patterson's (R, Canton) claim that university cost control failure is the main reason for tuition increases. The liberal blogging machine, supported by self-proclaimed journalist and occasional mainstream media freelancer Eric Baerren, is rushing to attack Patterson by flipping truth on its head. Baerren's sources are "reverse engineering" Patterson's numbers and an anonymous "friend" researcher at Central Michigan University.

Central Michigan is now the third university Zarko Research turns its data analysis talents toward CMU by necessity since that is the subject of Baerren's defense. At the bottom is an image (click for fuller readable size) that shows the Excel spreadsheet of the first and last of nine years of CMU spending, using CMU's own budget summaries.

To be fair, we compared CMU to inflation and the legislator and created a final line that assumes the legislative appropriation grew with inflation and compared it to the expenditures. Even if the legislative appropriation outpaced inflation and 100% went to reducing tuition (or any category), tuition would have skyrocketed. And guess what - two conclusions of Zarko Research's U-Michigan and Michigan State analyses are enhanced. Administrative growth accounts for the majority of increases AND AGAIN liberal elite administrators are paying themselves double inflation adjustments while put the rings to their lowly staff (inflation or less depending on adjustments). In fairness, the Michigan legislature (and Governor) have not kept pace with inflation over the last 5 years, and deserve a small amount of the "blame" --- but when you look at these numbers, which factor in a "model" assuming the legislature met the Proposal 5 standard (increase by inflation or 5%, whichever is less -- represented on the bottom line of the sheet), the average tuition increase is barely dented. The numbers say it all - administrative growth, health care, and raw supply overhead are the killers in relative terms.

Wizardkitten fills us in on a Wednesday tirade by Canton's own Bruce Patterson. Patterson's response to Mark Schauer's statement that Republicans in the state Senate are responsible for prompting big tuition hikes at the state's public universities?

It's the fault of universities. She quotes part of his speech:

I venture to say that the problem isn't in the amount of appropriations; it's in the failure of the governing boards of these universities to contain costs. That's why students are suffering tuition hikes of inordinate amounts--a failure to contain costs.

I venture to say that Bruce Patterson is wrong ... very wrong.

Baerren ventures a long ... long way. Let's follow.

The first university on Patterson's list was my own alma mater of CMU, which Patterson cited as having increased faculty compensation by $15,000 per Full Time Equivalent over the last five years. Is this true? I have no idea, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he didn't pull the number out of thin air.

But, the question is what this costs the university. Here, Patterson's facts were surprisingly in short supply. But, thanks to e-mail, we can fill them in by simply contacting the university. The university, as of November of last year, employed 1,105 FTE as faculty (the university employs another 1,513 FTE as staff). By sticking my pointer finger straight forward and pushing some little black buttons on my calculator, I deduced that 728 FTE multiplied by the $15,000 in extra compensation over the last five years equals $16.5 million. Mind you, this isn't something that comes in one big chunk, but was spread over the last five years (and through a couple of faculty contracts). On the other hand, state support for CMU has decreased by roughly $10 million over the last decade, and today -- according to an official I spoke to there -- funding levels are approximately what they were in the late 90s.

In 2003-2004 (which I don't fill in in the chart because of time considerations), there was a one-time $9 million cut from $89 million to $80 million, but that is still higher than the 1999-2000 appropriation ($79M), and it was during the fiscal year following 9/11 and national recession (which never ended in Michigan), and it was actually the decision of Granholm. One should expect that during times of recession everyone has to make concessions. Since 2003, legislative appropriation has stagnated and slightly increased, but at less than inflation. Again, to be expected during a stagnant economy. But it didn't fall 10 million "over the last decade" - if rose $10 million from 2000-2002 (13% in two years) and the legislature took that back during the recession at Granholm's suggestion (there's a nice 2003 CMU press release blaming Granholm, but I don't have the link handy). ZR doesn't blame her for that action - it was necessary and appropriate. But it was a cut of an increase - not a full cut. But even if we adjusted for inflation and gave CMU an inflation-locked increase (exactly as if Proposal 5 of last year existed), it would make a tiny dent in the gross tuition increases - which in raw terms doubled during the 9 years and in average percentage terms adjusted for inflation and a compensating legislative increase, rose at more than 5% annually, and more than 6% annually gross.

But let's follow Baerren and Schauer on their venture of reasoning.

How does this break down, in terms of pay and benefits? If it's just salary increases, CMU's faculty received salary hikes of about $3,000 a year ... which, if this is what has Patterson so exorcised, means he's angry about pay raises that are just a little bit more than COLA increases (this, for a university primarily regarded as a regional teachers college and trying to cultivate a national reputation in advanced nanotechnology research). There are raw numbers, and there is context. Patterson had one, lacked the other.

We'll address this competition thing in a moment, but Baerren is the one devoid of context. It's not the faculty hikes that are the killers - although ZR thinks they are bit high. Look at the image provided - the big increases are the "other/administrators" and the supply costs and, as everyone admits, the killer in benefits. Administrators are fleecing us for more than double the inflation rate consistently - year in and year out. They're also shorting staff and faculty -- this is not about competition in attracting quality nanotech - its about padding the President's pockets and his staff. Proposal 5 doesn't sound so bad in this environment (evil, but lesser of two) - and if we could put a spending growth cap on with it?

If Patterson were including total compensation, to include benefits, then he is also alluding to increases in health insurance. In this regard, the university has taken steps to keep costs down, because during the 90s -- seeing rising health care costs coming down the pike, they started a self insurance program, which has been successful.

Baerren's venture has found the cliff. He has bought into some sales pitch by the university. Benefit growth is the highest of all categories - not successful. Is there probably a grain of truth being exploded into a mountainous lie somewhere in that claim - sure: CMU pobably did do some self-insurance in some program, or it tweaked something else, and their claim a "potential savings" that no one really can measure. But it's clearly facing the same problems everyone else is (and look, health care is soaring, but the market has spawned the greatest innovations in life-saving technology humanity has ever witness and its expensive sci-fi kind of stuff).

Baerren ventures into the land of the hook, line, and sinker. He believes what he's told, like any good reporter would:

The interim vice president of finance told me during an interview last month that the university has been more successful doing this than educational institutions and governments that haven't. In short, they anticipated rising costs, and took steps to mitigate their impact on costs ... the kind of thing meant to bring under control costs Sen. Patterson intoned darkly were out of control.

Judge for yourself. The key question:

There are two questions here ... is this outrageous, and has CMU passed along to its students an unfair share of that burden?

The answer to the first is no. As Wizardkitten notes from a Gongwer article, Michigan university compensation is in line with other Great Lakes universities.

First, all universities suffer from the academic elitist view that they are worth ever escalating amounts with no checks in place from the market (let's bring back those anti-trust lawsuits filed against the Ivies in the 80s and 90s -- and Democrats usually like anti-trust laws but not when it impinges on their constituencies) and with government subsidies providing a "free shock absorber" to prevent market forces from stopping administrative growth. Second, the "in-line" analysis is obsfucated by the fact that universities literally collude in trading their data (through a process called the "Data Exchange")(anti-trust!) and that the "comparative data" from universities is all "in-line" because they try to be "close" to each other. The argument justifying salary explosions is that is "normal" and everyone else is doing it so we must. Classic collusion - although not always "conscious" - the system has built the collusion in, from the top cascading down.

In short, if you want to compete -- and I think we do -- then you need to spend money like you're serious about doing it. And, unless Gongwer is lying to the people of Michigan, the state's universities are doing what they need to do to compete against universities in neighboring states -- quality professors aren't going to work for free, you know (in fact, I know a local chemistry professor involved in nanotechnology research who tells me that he got offers from bigger, more research intensive universities but that he decided to stay at CMU because they offered him better research facilities ... he's also just released the first textbook in an emerging part of chemistry).

Reporter resorts to his friend the "local chemistry professor" in nano-tech. Hard for us to verify or cross-examine and analyze, but its a nice anecdote.

The answer to the second is also no, at least in the case of CMU.

As most of us know, CMU hiked its tuition by 21 percent this year, and the compensation costs for their faculty have risen by $15,000 per over the last five years. In fact, for all of the universities Patterson cited, only the University of Michigan -- Ann Arbor campus' faculty costs have increased more (and, why, I wonder, would a university competing for students with Ivy League students see its faculty salaries increase faster than everyone else?). Clearly, CMU's administration is screwing its students, and clearly the Board of Trustees -- appointed by the governor -- are guilty of lax oversight.

Not so fast there, Sparky. CMU's tuition hike of 21 percent is the only tuition hike its freshmen class will see. That is, unless some of them go on the Bluto plan and stay undergraduates for seven years, their tuition will remain what it is this year for their entire careers.

So, what is CMU's 21 percent tuition hike averaged out to four years? About six percent for a student who finishes his or her degree in four years; or five percent for five years. This puts the university, with its $15,000 over five years increase in compensation, close to the bottom rung about impact of their students.

He can't even get the basic division right here - but what guarantee is there of no additional hike? And the real measure is not what the hike is for the 2008 freshman amortized - its what the hike is for the 2009 freshman - which could be 30% if the school chose.

The flip side of this is that CMU plans to make another $1.39 million in cuts come October. Where is this money coming from? Well, the state took money away from the university it said it was going to give it, which has put CMU's budget out of whack.

Chump change, but Baerren even admits its not a "cut", its a reduction of an increase that the state "said it was going to give". So much for the reform-type of cuts.

They're waiting for school to start and professors to return to classes before making the cuts[non-increases], because for some silly reason university officials think that professors should have a say in whether or not proposed cuts[non-increases] will ultimately hurt[not pad] their ability to attract and retain quality students and faculty.

Finally, as a quality journalist, Eric has eliminated the ability of his critics like Zarko Research from commenting on his website, and endorses Michigan Liberal's similar censorship. If we could comment, we might be able to at least correct a few of his factual errors - there probably not intentional, but they're negligent.

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!

The Michigan State University tuition is rising 9.6%. It's president, Lou Anna K. Simon, is making excuses at this very moment on WJR 760 AM radio's Paul W. Smith show. The question is why?

For several months, Zarko Research has possessed the complete salary database of MSU (and the University of Michigan), for several years. Enough data that, unlike the Lansing State Journal's publication of one year's worth of state employee data, can be analyzed for trend and aggregate information.

The biggest reason for these tuition increases is that outrageously paid administrators can't help but continuing to both increase their own pay and their own number of employees. For example, U-Michigan has roughly 38,000 employees, up 5% from last year, with nearly all of the top 1000 employees in 6 figure incomes. President Mary Sue Coleman makes more than the President of the United States or Governor of Michigan, by over 50% in the former case, at an outlandish and ever increasing $600,000 annually. The argument is made that U-M needs to pay these rates to "remain competitive" - yet Ms. Coleman is the highest paid public university president in the nation. A slow reigning in of the salary - even if we weren't number one in the category - would hardly destroy the university. Indeed, we may be "competitive" in elite liberal circles of thought, and professors might love us mightily for what we do to their pocketbooks, but "competitiveness" is also measured by price and value. As a former U-M alum, I love the school, but the price-value delivered to students isn't "competitive" from an outsiders' perspective.

At 38,000 employees, U-M is both approaching a 1-to-1 ratio of employees to students and is nearly as bloated as the State of Michigan, which employs 55,000 persons (on a much larger budget with larger mission). And that's not saying there isn't room for efficiency in the state - its saying U-M is a bureaucratic beast - not a lean wolverine.

The story at MSU isn't quite as bad in raw appetite but the outline is similar.

ZR will be publishing these lists - at least their top 1000s, along with contextual analysis and statistics.

Smith Interviews Cox on Libby
In other radio interview news, Attorney General Mike Cox is criticizing the George Bush pardon of Scooter Libby. Smith's logical question to the AG is whether he was taking the position to buttress his potential 2010 run for Governor. I'd suggest it reinforces recent on-the-street speculation that Cox might run against Carl Levin for US Senate - a move that would be endorsed by ZR. The Libby question is more focused on foreign policy and judiciary questions that such a race would entail, and Cox's maneuver makes sense. With even left wing blogs reporting on Andrew "Rocky" Raczkowski's recent fundraising letter to challenge Levin a second time, the time is now to think about who will challenge Levin. And Rocky - although a nice guy - shouldn't be the person. There would be little downside in having Cox run in 08 for the seat - and while even a Cox win is remote, he's a serious contender - serious enough to require some thought and resource from Levin, whereas Rocky isn't.

Linked is the Flickr upload location for ZR's coverage Wednesday's anti-tax hike rally in Lansing (by the way, our Flickr location contains an interesting mix of ZR professional photography and event coverage, so stay tuned to it).

Linked here is ZR's YouTube location, including this particularly priceless clip of Lieutenant Governor John Cherry (Democrat), receiving a symbolic teabag from Republican Party Chair Saul Anuzis. While others have covered this particular action, ZR includes a longer-clip of the context, which is interesting because Cherry gives a "non-answer" to reporters on the issue of whether the protestors were right or wrong (he starts the non-answer by saying protest is an American right and good essentially no matter what the position protested (which indeed are fair observations, but non-responsive to the question), and finally refuses to say the protestors are wrong or crazy and only acknowledges differences of opinion with them. The clip concludes with Justin Zatkoff, ironically in body paint, introducing himself as the Michigan Federation of College Republicans Chair, and asking Cherry to help make sure there were jobs available for him as a soon-to-be college graduate. If you look through the entire YouTube archive, there will be other clips from the event.

Counterprotesters.
No Cherry for a Teabag.
Skubic Interviews Fulton Sheen on Frank Beckman controversy.
"No Shift or Shaft" - Sheen Finishes remarks, Justin Zatkoff coordinates chanting.

A new study copied here be published shortly. I obtained a copy of the paper after finding a Montana State University press release and requesting more information. Professors Wendy Stock, of Montana State University's Department of Agriculture, and David Neumark of Department of Economics at the University of California, Irvine, have looked at the effect of state civil rights laws before the rush of federal laws passed in the 1960s so that they could isolate the effects of pay equity laws from states that didn't have them. Here's a beginning synopsis:

This paper takes an alternative approach to the problem of inferring the effects of laws prohibiting sex and race discrimination to those taken in most previous research. In particular, prior to the enactment of the federal legislation, many states enacted similar laws or practices barring discrimination in wages (for women) and employment (for blacks, although those laws covered wage discrimination as well). Because these laws or practices were passed at different times in different states, a more natural control group is provided. Specifically, the quasi-experimental design afforded by the variation across time and over states allows us to assess the impact of state anti-discrimination statutes by constructing comparisons using data for the same time span from states that did not enact such statutes.

This approach makes sense, as the authors present the underlying reason to do the study:

A principal alternative view is that black economic progress simply reflects longer-term trends, perhaps obscured in some periods (and hence giving the impression of more rapid change in the 1960s and early 1970s) because of other changes. The latter view is put forth most forcefully by Smith and Welch (1989), who conclude that slowly evolving historical forces ... education and migration–were the primary determinants of long-term black economic improvement. At best affirmative action has marginally altered black wage gains around this long-term trend” (p. 519).viii A central reason for this view of the evidence is that relative black economic outcomes had been improving earlier, although this may have been partly masked by other changes. As an example, Margo (1995) and Goldin and Margo (1992) have documented the “Great Compression” of general wage inequality as well as black-white earnings differences from 1940 to 1950,ix and, as Margo asks, if anti-discrimination legislation played a strong role in racial wage convergence in the 1960s, “how did black workers manage such impressive relative wage gains in the 1940s, well before the modern civil rights movement bore its fruit?” (1995, p. 470).

Indeed, how did blacks and other minorities make gains before the advent of so-called "affirmative action?" A powerful question, since it implies an answer for how blacks would make progress following an era of preferential-affirmative action. Neumark and Stock continue though:

As we show in the bottom panel of columns (2) and (4) of Table 1, in the Census data that we use in this paper we find the same evidence of earnings gains for blacks relative to whites between 1960 and 1970. But we also see the sharper relative earnings improvement for blacks from 1940 to 1950. The table also shows gains in the relative employment of both black and white women from 1950 to 1960 as well as 1960 to 1970.

Amazingly, black and female gains were sharpest before large-scale adoption of equity laws.

So Neumark and Stock figure that if they study the handful of states that had already passed equity laws well-prior to the 60s federal laws (including Michigan, one of the earliest leaders in this area), that they can isolate the effects and draw some new conclusions. Their strategy is sound, as they summarize here:

This paper exploits cross-state variation in anti-discrimination legislation at the state level.

So what's the surprising result. Women lose ground for the first six years after equity laws are passed. Why - probably market anticipation and shifting to avoid consequences.

There is an immediate negative employment effect of sex discrimination laws, and the duration effects are statistically insignificant in almost every case. The evidence pointing to negative and significant effects of sex discrimination laws is consistent with such laws effectively raising the price of female labor and–absent laws regarding employment discrimination against women–leading to substitution away from female labor.xxx
Table 8 presents the earnings estimates, using the same set of specifications as in Table 7. For specifications 1-3, which capture the effects of equal pay laws with dummy variables, there is generally no statistically significant evidence of earnings effects, with one exception for specification 3. The results for specifications 4-6 are somewhat more interesting, providing evidence of an immediate negative effect of sex discrimination laws on women’s relative pay, but with a growing positive effect over time that offsets this. To fix ideas, in column (3) for specification 5–for white females relative to white males–the immediate reduction due to a sex discrimination law is approximately 1.5%, but the positive effect of the duration variable indicates that women’s earnings grow by 0.26% per year (note that the years variable is divided by 10), implying that after about six years women’s relative earnings are boosted, on net. Although the initial dip in earnings indicated by these estimates is somewhat puzzling, one could imagine that an initial response to equal pay laws is to reduce the number of women in jobs in which their pay can be easily compared to men’s pay. Nonetheless, as long as these laws boost women’s relative earnings in the longer run, we would expect the negative employment effects that we found in Table 7, and these may well predate the price changes as long as the price changes are anticipated.

With such surprising results, we might expect some backtracking and counter-interpretation of the results. The researchers live up to the career-protecting expectation, in this passage:

This does not imply that laws prohibiting wage discrimination based on sex do not on net help women, but rather emphasizes that such laws may impose tradeoffs between higher wages and lower employment. Such considerations may become increasingly important if there is some retrenchment of affirmative action in the United States, which would likely weaken policies combating employment discrimination and leave equal pay legislation as the stronger arm of federal anti-discrimination efforts.

The researchers did not respond to my two questions, and I invite them to if they are reading this. What lead them to believe that a "retrenchment of affirmative action" would "weaken policies combating employment discrimination"? As I've blogged recently, diversityInc dot com has written that the use of race preferences can be an automatic defense against traditional discrimination lawsuits. Eliminating preferential types of "affirmative action" therefore might strengthen pay equity and traditional discrimination law enforcement types of "affirmative action." The researchers do however admit that it would make equal pay laws the "stronger arm", and they also talk about the "tradeoffs" of each type of law and policy, so I believe they understand at least the policy. The second question I have is if such laws decrease relative earnings and employment for six years, and then they rebound, how fast do they rebound COMPARED to the normal growth that was occurring BEFORE the passage of the laws. That is, catching up after 6 years is only half the story since there would have been other growth in the meantime. And is the rate of growth on the rebound the same, faster, or slower than the other growth rate. If its slower or the same than the unaltered market rate, then such laws hurt everyone including women more than they help anyone. This is strictly an empirical question, and I doubt the scope of this research.

Regardless of the answer to the latter question, I believe that the pay equity and anti-discrimination laws are a moral imperative since they are implementations of government-neutrality between races and sexes. If government is to give legal recongition to contracts and corporations, and the benefits thereof that legal process, then government is obligated to respect only those contracts that are made regardless or race or gender. But preferential-types of "affirmative action" are different, and its appropriate we separate the terms properly.

In the hearings last night held by the Michigan Civil Rights Commission (MCRC), member of By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) Monica Smith, a University of Michigan student and fairly active BAMN member, let something slip. She stated (from my notes of the meeting, this is very close to precise):

"People are actually writing their own affidavits now."

She offered this explanation for why one or two of the "affidavits" would be submitted later (presumably the several she submitted were written by BAMN!).

For those who have followed the case closely or involved with the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), or those who have read the hundreds of "affidavits" submitted by BAMN beginning in April 2005, this was already known. We have called these affidavits "cookie-cutter" affidavits, in that they were all leading, had precisely the same scripted story, and their remarkable identicalness across dozens of affiants reduces their credibility as evidence of anything but the story BAMN wants to deliver to the media. But the statement that people might "actually ... now" be writing "their own" affidavits is a priceless illustration from inside the BAMN mind.

There are now thousands of pages of "official record" on the subject of MCRI signature gathering, and MCRI made a point to submit hundreds of pages of documents to the Board of the Canvassers rebutting individual claims in the original challenge. Very few will ever read (or want to) the entire collection of material, but, of course, the majority of BAMN's claims being cut from the same cookie-cutter allows reasoning individuals to determine that there is no credibility to their attack and its all for show. There are several other "meta" or global arguments against BAMN's bald assertions, including that 90% of the affidavits say that "affirmative action" wasn't mentioned by the circulator (its not mentioned in the printed language either, and BAMN has already lost lawsuits on that question). Since "affirmative action" is a vague phrase, this alone can not be anything more than opinion and choice of the circulator, not "fraud." Even the 3-4 stories where it is alleged with unique specific assertions that the circulator said it was "pro" affirmative action, the affidavits often either don't make that clear or have contradictory statements within them. Finally, large numbers of the "new" statements that the Commission have heard continue explicit admissions by potential signers who refused to sign that the circulator was actually honest (or used statements that accurately reflected the nature of MCRI), in many cases even saying that the circulator said it was against affirmative action. Now if there was this massive conspiracy to "target" black voters and circulators were trained to lie, why would a number of individuals admit that they were approached with accurate presentations? This is despite the fact that their is no "random selection" in the hearing process - BAMN is "scripting" phone banks with leading introductions, and the Commission itself is only charged with investigating allegations of fraud. In fact, there are so many stories of accurate petitioning (where the potential signer refused to sign, but was still "offended" enough to come to the hearing) seeping into these hearings that it is impossible to believe that there was any "pattern" as BAMN alleges.

Oh, by the way, Smith also alleged that some unnamed BAMN member (who she later said is no longer one, for some apparently unrelated reason) actually signed the MCRI on the University of Michigan campus. Now I find that interesting.

In a blog I'm finding more fascinating by the day, the Becker-Posner blog has recently added to its list of provocative arguments a suggestion for legalizing the sale of organs and organ transplation (I'm not sure where I come down on this, since it touches a social issue of deep moral importance, but I've suggested a hypothetical analogy to life-insurance markets as possibility) and the abolition of academic tenure (I am sure where I come down on this one, and although abolition is politically impossible even if desirable, certainly within the realm of political possibility is greater performance pay gradations in K-12, and less tenure in cases where termination is essential).

On this note, a mention of John Stossel's ABC special Thursday evening, America the Stupid, is worth noting. Stossel takes the extreme libertarian position of complete voucherization or privatization of public schools - perhaps a worthy ideal but a political (NEA) and practical (transition costs) impossibility. Nonetheless, those principles can be applied to force some elements of competition within a system that remains public. Stossel's points about the absolute tenure in some public schools - showing the "rubber rooms" of New York City where tenured sex-offending or miserable quality teachers are paid to sit and do nothing, costing taxpayers $20 million - was effective. Indeed, Stossel's piece was an effective piece of rhetoric (a video op-ed), which I'm sure raised the hairs on a great many NEA loyalists.

I would like to bring this blog back to some of my more academic interests, including economics, decision-theory, game theory, international relations, and statistics, as I've noticed that race preferences has seemingly dominated. This is not to say that I will reduce the news from the race preferences front, or the Michigan politics angle, just that I'd like to bring some of those other interests back in.