 |
|
|
|
|
Documentary Expose of Racial Preferences Policy at the University of Michigan!
In 1997, the Center for Individual Rights sued the University of Michigan. They alleged in federal court that U-M violated the Fourteenth Amendment of U.S. Constitution by allegedly using unequal and racially-biased admissions standards favoring minorities.
Prior to 1997, it was not a foregone conclusion that U-M's strategy would admit to preferential treatment, but the seeds of the "diversity as a compelling interest" were growing. Although the Bakke decision in 1978 brought the "diversity" argument into the limelight, the details were still being worked out. Indeed, as early as 1988 some documents suggest that U-Michigan administrators were refining the "diversity" argument and that they sensed that they would be on the short-list of legal targets for a future litigation showdown.
The outcome of these lawsuits is a central part of the legacy of the Duderstadt and Bollinger presidencies at U-M. This page is unique in that it presents original source material from the U-M's administrative archives (The Bentley Historical Library).
The author believes, as is evidenced primarily by the Berkeley white-paper, that socio-economic preferences for the financially disadvantaged could fully or almost fully replace racial preferences. Indeed, Duderstadt's possession of this white-paper suggests it was a valid alternative, that he was aware of it, and chose not to go down this path (raising a serious question about "narrow tailoring").
Economic preferences would offer a substitute that would still seem to lift the truly-disadvantaged minority (as well as the disadvantaged non-minority) as long as it is needed by society. In this way, as society's "racial divide" was slowly corrected, the program would also be self-correcting.
By publishing hitherto unknown documents this page hopes to influence the affirmative action debate by providing some new raw facts - something that most commentators seriously lack.
Many records are still sealed from public view however by an arbitrary regulation giving the U-M president and vice-provost for academic affairs a special 10-year secrecy period from the date of their creation.
[9-24-2003 Postscript: The Czar's Court has strong reason to believe from inside sources that the Jan 2001 change to a 20-year seal for ALL EXECUTIVE OFFICERS was precipitated largely because of the spring 2000 publication of this page and other actions by the author.]
In certain cases where innocent individuals' names or certain non-public officials are included in records, the Czar's Court has chosen to black-out those names at the author of this page's own discretion. This decision to redact information is an editorial choice and not an admission of anything; the records are publicly available public records that could have been published in full. |
ANALYSIS OF INTERNAL U-M DOCUMENTS
WARNING: LINKS ARE TO IMAGE FILES OF BETWEEN 100-300K.
U-M Law School Admissions Fraud: Rejection letters delayed by weeks to deceive recipients into believing they were considered personally.
Young-lady complains about "reverse-discrimination." Provokes"forceful but sensitive" response from U-M. Somewhat humorous and reveals the way constituents are treated.
Duderstadt admits racial-criteria are a key to admissions. Page 1 and Page 2. (At one time in the mid-90s this was not "admitted widely", and this letter shows the personal impact of the policy on individuals)
"A new light" (page 1) on the admissions decision! "Being philipino changes the whole equation (page 2)!" A high school admissions counselor details her conversations with a U-M admissions counselor.
"Freshman Admissions at Berkeley: A Policy for the 1990's and Beyond"; a Berkeley "white-paper" circulated amongst U-M policy makers during the late eighties. This report contains many interesting facts and some interesting possible alternatives; such as using socio-economic criteria as an admissions criteria to "lift-up" the "disadvantaged." Using this as an alternative race-based criteria would probably be a Constitutional way of achieving the same goal; although this argument wasn't even discussed at the time of this document. The report can be read either way politically for or against Berkeley, however, using the reasoning that the CIR has used recently, it would subject Berkeley to possible litigation by those rejected by the admissions program.
Cover page.
Authors and index.
Page 36. Admission and details of how racial-criteria are explicitly used in Berkeley admissions.
Page 37. RECOMMENDATION: Increase number of admitted based on academic criteria from 40% to 50%.
Page 42. A move "from categories receiving total protection" to a "flexible admissions target for each group."
Page 43. Creation of category of favor for students who were socio-economically disadvantaged.
Page 44. More on socio-economic disadvantage.
Page 45. Raw data from Berkeley on income/race discrepancies.
Page 51. "Special Action" admits shouldn't exceed 5%, and it is "crucial to academic integrity" that Special Action admits "at least have a chance" to graduate from the university.
Page 52. "Special Action" students had half the normal retention rates.Serious, more serious, most serious" complaints about discrimination. As a salesman myself, I find this amusing.
Black, White, or Green? Money and connections still buy you a way into the University of Michigan.
But hey, we already knew that. Former President Gerald Ford (and U-M alum) (letter from Ford) and Alan E. Schwartz (letter from Schwartz) write a letter on behalf of the "disadvantaged" daughter of a major investment banking house's CEO. The fact that these famous personalities would write on behalf of their connections is no surprsie and is quite common (although a former U.S. President might choose to refrain from this kind of use of power). U-M's response generates insight into the admissions process though. U-M has a whole system in place of labeling "VIP status" (e-mail describing response) for admissions candidates. U-M President Duderstadt acknowledged the sensitivity of the situation specifically by stating that ". . . this is one of those VIP cases which should be handled VERY CAREFULLY."
"Law Schools where the grades can be trusted," and flexibility if your a minority.
In a priceless note from Robin Jacoby (Duderstadt's assistant) to Duderstadt himself, Jacoby highlights a few interesting themes in admissions in discussing a specific complaint from a University of Washington Law School tranferee applicant. It seems that Law School transfer students are admitted if only in the top 5% of students from schools "...where the grades can be trusted." Apparently the University of Washington doesn't qualify, but one wonders what other schools are on U-M's short list (or if U-M's grades can be trusted under there own criteria). More to the point, even though this candidate clearly didn't qualify, "for minority students they are often inclined to be more flexible" in their admissions standards.
|
|
|
