Ann Arbor, Michigan. July 17, 2003

PREPARED TEXT OF SPEECH TO REGENTS

Transparency in Admissions Policies Change

We stand at a crossroads in Michigan history.  The national spotlight has been on the University of Michigan, and by default, the State of Michigan for the last seven years. Three Michigan President’s encouraged that spotlight, and then took the national publicity campaign of “corporate backers of diversity” and repetitive amici filings to an historic level.  One should not be surprised that the national spotlight remains on Michigan as the impending battle for the hearts and minds of its voters begins, nor would it be reasonable for U-M now to criticize the fact that some Michigan citizens will gladly welcome “outside backers” into this battle.  Having blatantly politicized the legal process, rather than relying on the simple jurisprudence of five Justices; it must now be prepared for political battles. The question of the appropriateness of racial preferences is a question everyone in the United States must struggle with; it is not a question best “swept under the rug.” It is also not a question best left to the secrecy of internal committees, or policies that give “winks and nods” to the notion of accountability.

In that vein, despite the declaration of “victory,” the Supreme Court set this University upon a task of reforming the undergraduate admissions process. The University subverts its own political chances of success in 2004 if it does not reach out to the middle and build a political consensus on the issue.  There is a middle ground in this debate – but both sides and both parties have attacked it.  In the parlance of “diversity,” one must either be adamantly for race preferences or against them.  True diversity means far more than race preferences. The underlying problems that give rise to the racial inequity in admissions in the first place are more complicated than simple racial solutions (they include social, economic, and family issues).

I propose some moderate ideas here that I feel should be considered, quickly.  It is obvious that it is necessary for a half-year transitional admissions system to be implemented given the unconstitutionality of the previous system. To implement that by September for the Winter 2003 admissions cycle could not reasonably involve a substantial public process (nor will an internal process come to a reasonably complete, well-thought out process in such a short-time).  I propose that the Regents appoint a committee now that seeks to come to a semi-permanent set of standards and policies for Fall 2004’s admissions.  The workings of this committee should be transparent, with public meetings, and should have respected members of the community from both parties and all perspectives represented. It should draw upon persons from within and outside the University, and include politically diverse students.

After communication with Julie Peterson, it is apparent that there is no intent within the current administration to have a truly open process.  According to Ms. Peterson, “The development of a new admissions system is not a public process, but we will certainly be sharing the outcome with the public.”  What exactly will be shared remains to be seen, but  without input this is little comfort.

Following the “immediate changes,” she continued, “I expect we will engage in an ongoing process of review and revision over the long term, and that process will include faculty input.”  It is apparent that only modest changes are planned after the conclusion of the first secret process; and only on those modest changes will even the faculty be given some “input.”  There is no planned process for input from any of the other constituents of this process.  Alumni, students, and Michigan taxpayers are excluded from a process that has previously cost them tens of millions in litigation expenses.

This saga began with the secrecy that Carl Cohen exposed.  With more secrecy one can expect more litigation. The Regents have an opportunity here to create an inclusive process, regardless of the administration’s current plans. Should the Regents fail to make such an inclusive effort, the body does so at the peril of the message that would send to the people of Michigan.

On that note, I propose a few concrete alternatives that I believe address concerns from both sides of the political spectrum. The prevailing wisdom is that U-M will simply “carbon-copy” the Law School program.  Since the Law School receives a comparatively tiny pool of applications; such a copy to a system with tens of thousands of applications would be tremendously expensive and fraught with inconsistencies among different individual reviewers.  I propose a two-tiered system.  The “objective” tier would be strictly “merit” and other quantifiable factors, such as socio-economic status, race-neutral criteria (school difficulty, regional diversity, or even perhaps “domicile in a recognized empowerment zone”), or any other race-neutral measurable “diversity” measure.  The other “subjective” tier would be a copy of the Law School system.   The division would be roughly 50/50, but could be subject to fluctuation based on upon future success of race-neutral programs.  50 percent of the undergraduate pool is still a large enough pool so as to avoid the claim that the subjective tier is nothing more than a quota; but it still cuts U-M costs for a “pure Law School copy” in half.  The most important feature of this program is that retains an island of merit and objectivity that can be used to measure the progress of the subjective pool, and of other race-neutral inventions as they are creatively identified.  It also maintains the flexibility to decrease or eliminate the subjective pool if the measurement of the objective pool indicates that a nearly representative population would be attained with the need for the subjective pool.  In essence, it gives us the yardstick by which we can measure progress against Justice O’Connor’s 25-year time-lime.

Ann Arbor, MI. 19 June 2003.

Regents Should Open Up Research Results for All Data Used in Lobbying, Court, or Public Policy Decisions

As the members of this board know, I recently wrote an opinion analysis in the Wall Street Journal of Patricia Gurin’s expert testimony. I relied on an executive summary partially written by her husband five years earlier and three years before the affirmative action lawsuits were filed.  Patricia Gurin’s 1999 testimony avers that there was a “pattern of consistency” to the data supporting her conclusions and that this pattern was “unusual in social science.” At best, the 1994 executive summary reveals a “mixed bag” of data and conclusions, making Patricia Gurin’s bold claim to the Court that the data was “highly consistent” a truly inconsistent view.

This testimony formed the backbone of Judge Duggan’s district court decision, but has been mostly a footnote since (with the higher courts and the plaintiffs focusing more on the political and philosophical issues).  Nonetheless, the scientific “backdrop” is historically important, potentially persuasive to any given Justice, and extremely important to all universities’ policymaking in the wake of whatever decision that is handed down. As such, the quality of the science and the ability of the public to review it and make informed comment upon it is very important.

In this speech I could choose to outline the many specific scientific “defenses” the Gurins’ and U-M have issued since my publication, and then why each individually or the whole collectively still leave many reasonable questions open to concern.  You’d have to give me several hours though, and I probably wouldn’t persuade anyone here to change her viewpoint anyway. The gist of the argument would be simple.  Patricia Gurin admits to selectively focusing only on the variables she wanted to focus on, and failed to report the contrary or mixed result variables to the public or court.  She justifies this on the grounds that the ones she focused on were the only ones relevant to the questions she was asking. She may or may not be “right,” but the scientific process isn’t about blindly accepting such claims without appropriate “peer review.” Neither Gurin or U-Michigan has never permitted such “peer review”.

Other criticisms, written long before mine, by several scientists also suggest that she was asking the wrong questions (like whether the purely political measure of “support for environmental policies” is equivalent to a “democracy or learning outcome”). We simply may never know for sure whether the variables and questions she used were the right ones or not.  The public was and continues to be denied access to appropriately analyze and respond to her data. 

The administration responds that the plaintiffs were given the document at the core of my expose.  While partially true, the plaintiffs only represented two individuals, not the public. More significantly, it is also true however that U-M explicitly denied plaintiffs the “raw data,” as it continues to deny FOIA requestors the same.  Furthermore, U-Michigan didn’t release to plaintiffs significant documents in the same file as the executive summary, which are more incriminating than the summary itself. Given the nature of the adversarial system, my sympathy for the plaintiffs’ inability to refute the unknown subcomponents of the Gurins’ work only goes so far. The real truth is that the public was harmed, because it couldn’t use the press, lobbying, or amicus briefing process as effectively as U-Michigan was able to do so (because U-M denied the public access to important data and records that defined this aspect of the debate).

As long as U-M continues to withhold the scientific data in this case specifically, or allows such withholding in other cases generally; its reputation will be in question.  In this specific case, the U-M’s explicit refusal to comply with FOIA has created a perception that it is hiding something – whether or not it is. The discovery of a specific document in the same file as the executive summary, from the Vice-Provost (Monts) to his assistant (Matlock) ordering that the dataset not be released to anyone whose research might “clash” with U-M’s goals, merely trumps the point. As such, this board should add as new business the question of reversing the FOIA and FOIA appeals officers’ decisions on releasing the MSS dataset.  More importantly however, the board should investigate wording for a resolution that defines the role of “advocacy research” at U-M and generally requires that any “advocacy research” data be released to the public upon request.  Should the Regents choose not to act, I will place it among my many lifelong missions to lobby the state or federal government to require such of universities. This is a non-partisan scientific issue that transcends the politics of this particular case.

As far as politics go, it should be noted that I specifically support the notion of “diversity” as a goal, but believe that a socio-economic preferences program would be a better way of accomplishing both racial and economic diversity as well as promoting social justice. Good scientific research from reputed independent sources indicates that the circumstance and “culture of poverty” is what causes disparate academic failure, more so than the almost offensive idea that “racial culture” is tied to poor achievement. Blacks, and minorities, are more likely to be poor; and therefore more likely to benefit from economic desegregation. In cases where K-12 racial desegregation worked, economic desegregation (building a “critical mass” of middle-class and its associated culture) was the explanatory factor.  In cases where it didn’t work, economic desegregation didn’t occur simultaneously.

U-M policymakers complain about the segregated geography of Michigan, and have bent the ear of those in favor of “social justice.” The dark truth is that U-M would still prefer a wealthier, paying student than one in need of financial aid. Currently, U-M racial preferences primarily benefit wealthier blacks; those least in need of a helping hand; and it does little to economically desegregate the inner-city communities it claims as its constituency. One interesting fact is that the Michigan Student Study (as the executive summary revealed) could have been used to determine the relevance and proper role of socio-economic preferences; but Patricia Gurin chose to never look at any of the variables that would have answered the question.  In the wake of a negative decision for Michigan, one might reconsider these alternatives; which have been ignored or suppressed in the past for political expedience.  Thank you for your time.

Prepared Text of a February 1997 Speech to Regents of the University of Michigan

Speech was given in the Regents Room of the Fleming Building at approximately 4:00 pm 20 February, 1997. The speech was not completed due to the five minute time limit as enforced. Actual presentation may have varied from the prepared text slightly.

I would like to first start by WELCOMING our new President, Lee Bollinger. I look upon your selection as President as a positive turn of events for a university that had started traveling down a dangerous path. I am a freelance writer living here in Ann Arbor. I have written several stories about the university research process generally, and specifically here at U-M. I have also sadly been required to use the court system to require the U-M to comply with the Freedom of Information Act. I have been criticized for doing the right thing in bringing to light important issues, on the grounds that the mere act of questioning the process is a form of "harassment." I graduated with honors in political science in 1993 after four years of an enjoyable education. After watching so many of my classmates just move through system, I felt as though I was one of the few who really tried to get an education here. The point is simply that an undergraduate at U-M really has to take the bull by the horns to get the world-class instruction she pays for. The quality and talent and resources are all here; but for many students that is all lost in the quantity and size of the system. Education not automatic.

What I am here today to do is to give you my vision for where you, as a new President, should take this potentially great university With respect to greatness, the first observation I need to make is that the U-M is not great because of the administration, or the research we do, or the curriculum itself. We are great because of the people of the State of Michigan, the individual students who attend, and each professor who teaches those students or who expands the world's base of knowledge through research. Bad administration, or bad decisions on research and academic   priorities, or bad curriculum can not in and of themselves deny the individuals here greatness. Every individual therefore is partially responsible for a portion of the University's greatness. A continuing number of those bad decisions can however deny the institution its respect and reputation and force great individuals away from Ann Arbor. That said, I think your very presence today is a potentially good decision that can move back from the road we have started down. I would like to briefly outline   some of the key issues in the University's future. I have covered most of these issues in two previous speeches, and therefore I have attached to your copy of this speech a copy of the November 1996 speech to the Regents I made immediately following your selection. 

As a result of these trends, the very nature of education must change. We, and every other major research university in the country, need a new paradigm. We need to figure out a way to make a large lecture class as personal smaller seminars, whet her that be through technology or through some as yet thought of human innovation. We need to find a way of involving industry in university-government sponsored research without moving down the dangerous road of industrial policy. The path of too much cooperation between government, industry, and universities is not dangerous only because it threatens to artificially create "winners" and "losers" in the marketplace. It is dangerous to universities who lose their academic independence to the forces that drive competition. When researchers think and discover based on the market's needs and not necessarily for the purposes of humanity or basic discovery. When knowledge is restricted to the corporate lords supplying the money and not disseminated to the public. When basic understanding is put on the back-burner so researchers can try to fine-tune the widget. The one thing, Mr. Bollinger, I ask you to remember in considering the whole research question is that U-M is a public university. As such, the fruits of our knowledge should belong and be shared with everyone.

I don't have all the answers. I don't yet have a new paradigm in running a public university in an era of mass numbers of students and greater interplay between industry and universities. I haven't yet figured out how to preserve the basic principles and mission of the university as traditionally conceived, while overcoming the resource issues of the nineties. All I know is that I need to tell you that we must find it.

A second issue is that of the mandated "diversity" requirement. Fortunately, it was only implemented in the yea r I left, but it is still unnecessary. If the sum of all of an undergraduate's 30-plus classes does not teach diversity, then the curriculum was screwed up in the first place. If every class taught diversity in its own way, there would be no need for such a single-class requirement. Having a "diversity requirement is an admission of overall failure.

Finally, I do not believe hateful or distasteful speech can be successfully banned, or that it is desirable or constitutional to try. In that same vein, a university shouldn't take on quasi-legal powers similar to those U-M has tried to create with the latest code. By doing so, the U-M has taking one more step down the road towards combining and confusing the traditional separation of government an d university. In the case of U-M, as a constitutionally chartered "fourth branch" of the state government, there is a serious question of whether it can be done.

True diversity emerges from a tolerant environment, it can not be forced. If we wan t tolerance, and thereby tolerance of other cultures, we must respect what it truly means to be "tolerant." To encourage tolerance, this institution must tolerate even the intolerant. The socially ungraceful or even perhaps openly racist student will no t only be exposed for what they are in an open environment; but they will also be subject to the moral suasion that an aware community exerts. If the University punishes such behavior, the racist retreats into the underground and the community loses its awareness and ability to persuade. Even worse, if students can not speak freely and experiment with ideas and behavior, what kind of diversity do we really have. I therefore hope that you would move to halt or even reverse the trend toward tighter and tighter student conduct and speech codes.

Statement of Chetly Zarko for January 19, 1996
Regents' Open Forum on the Presidential Selection
Ford Library, Ann Arbor, Michigan 10am-12pm

Since President Duderstadt assumed office, the University of Michigan has risen to become the number one public research institution in the nation. We now spend just under a half billion dollars a year pursuing various research tasks. We are leader in every type of research field ranging from aerospace, medical, environmental, industrial, and information technology.

Rising to the very top in research funding is no coincidence, given that President Duderstadt ascended through the College of Engineering and that he was a researcher in the past. It should be no surprise that Dr. Duderstadt, as a member of several boar ds, including the oversight board for the National Science Foundation, has taken us to a new level in research funding.

But a quality university has more than just research. It also has quality education. Despite U-M's rise to the top as a research institution, it continues to plummet in various rankings as an educational institution. Everyone interested in higher education in this state is acutely aware of Michigan's plunge in the US News and World Report rankings since 1987. What has happened is that we have sacrificed quality teaching for quality research. In the process of "leveraging" this research fundi ng with U-M matching funds, we have taken away money, space, and mental resources from education and teaching. We are bigger, but are we better?

We fall in the educational rankings every year because the value to an undergraduate of his education continues to decline. Even the above average and exceptional undergraduate must struggle through lecture classes of over 500 students, the growing numbe r of under-experienced teaching assistants, and the layers of administrative bureaucracy. Graduate education simultaneously suffers as students are expected to teach undergraduate students while at the same time pursuing Ph. D level research, writing the ses, and maintaining academic standards in their own classes. One wonders how this affects the quality of research, and whether we have lost quality at the expense of quantity of research. Further, Michigan's reputation among employers has been eroded b y the increasingly occasional graduate who does not live up to the high expectations that a Michigan degree has historically conferred.

U-M's rise to the top in research has not only affected education, but has and continues to erode at the integrity of the institution and the officials who run it. Cooperative agreements, "unique and unusual partnerships", and the pressure to produce a p roduct for industrial gain have all affected the traditional balance between education and industry. This skewing of research motivations may be signaling a decline in "basic research." There is strong evidence that officials, including the last two University presidents, have treaded in ethical gray areas to secure vast amounts of corporate and federal research dollars. In the opinion of some, University leaders have even violated laws, regulations, and standard practice in this pursuit. The Univers ity has on multiple occasions been audited by the federal government and been forced to repay millions in grants and overhead charges. We have one of the highest research overhead rates in the nation. In the name of research overhead, the University has purchased Christmas trees for administrators and Rose Bowl tickets for leading corporate executives. The administration has even concealed important details of research agreements from this Board of Regents, not to mention being kept secret from the pub lic. Finally, deserved or not, Michigan and other large research institutions have a reputation for corruption and largesse, both in this state and nationally.

None of this is to say that being the leading research university in the nation hasn't dramatically improved U-M in many ways or boosted the southeastern Michigan economy. U-M should not sacrifice its position as a research leader or economic engine in t he region strictly to pursue teaching and education. What our next president should strive for however, is to once again find a balance between education and research. Our next president should steer the ship back to the center.

Take a brief look at the records released to the public via the two lawsuits [Booth et al v. Regents of the University of Michigan and Zarko v. Regents of the University of Michigan] relating to the 1987-88 presidential selection process. Those records show that our last president was known as an abrasive leader with a keen scientific mind who could help develop U-M's research prowess. Our next president should be a leader who is known as a respected educator and as someone capable of compromise. In the spirit of change and in an effort to bring in new ideas, our next president should also not be from within U-M.

Although quality research leadership shouldn't be sacrificed for educational quality, our next president must restore Michigan's leadership as an educational institution. She should be committed to decreasing class size, decreasing the U's reliance on te aching assistants, and decreasing the size of the administration. Simultaneously, he should find new and better ways to organize education at a large institution. The number of educators and salary of educators should rise to become competitive with tho se of the leading educational institutions. Finally, our next president should strive to repair Michigan's seriously damaged reputation within the state, both among politicians and the public.

Immediately following Chetly Zarko's 19 January 1996 speech to the Regents at the Regents Open Forum on the Presidential Selection, the following statements transpired. [Mr. Zarko's speech recommended more focus on teaching and
less on research, cited the U-M's decline in educational ranking nationally, and cited several failures of the Duderstadt administration that should be avoided in the
future, including the University being required to repay millions dollars in research related costs to the federal government.

Deane Baker: "Mr. Zarko, if I could... excuse me, are you finished?"

Chetly Zarko: "Sure."

Deane Baker: "It appears to me as if you do a great disservice to the Univeristy of Michigan and to President Duderstadt. President Duderstadt has been an exceptional leader, he has done; if you carefully and thoroughly look at his record he has moved this University in just about every field from teaching to fundraising. You're entitled to your opinion, certainly. But to dig down into a history of matters that have
been thoroughly discussed in the past and have been found to be with, have very little merit I think does disservice to this University."

Walt Harrison: "Further comments?"

Regent Power: "I'd just like to ask this question of, .... since we are making a public record. Is it in actual fact the case that the rankings of the University of Michigan in the US News and World Report survey of reputation have declined annually since 1987?"

Walt Harrison: "NO."

Regent Power: "My second question is; is it actually the case that the University repaid millions of dollars in research overhead to the federal government?"

Walt Harrison: "...No."

Regent Power: "Thank you.

TEXT OF SPEECH

Prepared Text of November 14, 1996 Speech
to Regents of the University of Michigan

You may recall this past January when I spoke about the goals and values I thought this Board should have in mind in selecting our next president. You may recall that the main theme of my speech was to look at how this university has become a research giant with a dwindling educational mission, and to recommend that we refocus on education. I also strongly recommended that the process of selecting the president be as open as possible, given the lack of public trust created by past events. Despite Jim Duderstadt's further damaging of the public trust with his secret "golden parachutes," I'm happy to report a positive outcome on the selection process. Although the selection process wasn't perfect, and might have been far worse without the help of the courts, it was on the whole better than expected.

Results aren't necessarily the best way to measure the adequacy of a process, but I must look positively to the future given the result that Lee Bollinger was selected. In each of the other three choices, this Board had the opportunity to select a candidate with a background and from an educational environment nearly identical to U-M as it currently stands. The California, Pennsylvania, and Illinois systems, although producing technically qualified candidates, are all massive research giants. Dartmouth, on the other hand, is a tiny school where education is prioritized. Although all of the things Dartmouth does to focus its energies on teaching can't be copied into a U-M environment, I believe the experience Lee Bollinger had there will be helpful in what should be his rebuilding of our academic reputation. The only danger in selecting Bollinger was his previous background here as Law School Dean, and the possibility that he will too seamlessly "fit into the current system." A new President should mean a new direction.

What I really want to do today is lay out an overall vision of how Lee Bollinger can move this university forward. Michigan is today one of the greatest research giants of all time, while the current Dartmouth is one of the best teaching schools of all time. U-M has recently ranked at the top of total research dollar acquisitions, while Dartmouth, with Bollinger's assistance, ranks number one in US News and World Report teaching rankings. Research at a school the size of Dartmouth's could never compare in volume to the research machine here, and likewise, educational attainment at a school the size of Michigan might never be fairly compared to any Dartmouth-like school.

But we can try! We can move to change some things and to make education better. Although Michigan may never reach the Dartmouth level in teaching, we should aspire to be BOTH the leader in research QUALITY (quantity is nothing more than a glass bead game) and in quality of teaching. I therefore propose this realistic goal by which the Bollinger administration can be measured. After sorting the rankings for the top 20 research schools by volume of research (a purely objective ranking by the way, which Walt Harrison brags about every year), take that list and look at which schools lead in teaching quality. Although I hate to suggest US News and World Report, it is one of the few gauges available. There are other ways to measure it though, if that source is not satisfactory. The goal is that we should be in the top five in both categories, or at a minimum make a consistent move upwards. This narrowed ranking system that I propose presents a fairer comparison to schools of similar size and mission to that of Michigan.

The best thing that can be done to reward teaching is simply to have a President who makes it part of the corporate culture. Currently, the student body gives an annual award to the best undergraduate educator. One winner of the award, I have heard, said upon being privately congratulated about it improving his tenure chances that the award was "the kiss of death." Another loved-among-the-student-body associate professor of psychology was denied tenure in the year immediately following his receipt of the award. Instead of the Golden Apple, we should call it the Poisoned Apple. A President, by pure leadership, can change that culture.

The power of teaching assistants, and their workload, should be decreased in favor of actual professors. This would both improve undergraduate education where students are being denied what they rightly paid for (an education from professors with Ph.D.' s), and it would improve graduate education for graduate students who are overburdened with a teaching load, research load, and their regular studies. I'm not suggesting that a school this size can abolish the need for the teaching assistant entirely, I'm just saying we need to rely on them less.

In addition to changing the structure of education, we should focus on that other basic conflict. Basic research seems to be declining in favor of more corporate-sponsored applied research. Although I have no solid numbers here, I could point to a numb er of high and low-profile projects which seem to have no relation whatsoever to our mission of expanding knowledge. Developing technology for the marketplace is not part of the classical mission of ANY university, even if it brings in millions of dollar s from the corporations in kickbacks (I'm prepared to back up that term if you want to publicly challenge it). Walt Harrison has defended many projects as successful "collaborations of government, university, and industry." Although government has a p roper role in supporting universities in developing and expanding our base of basic knowledge, neither government or universities have any proper role in paying for industry's applied research. In effect, we are subsidizing industry and engaging in a form of federal and U-M state-supported "industrial policy." The research U-M does for IBM or Johnson & Johnson isn't neutral in the marketplace; it hurts competitors which otherwise might have had better ideas or solutions. In its most basic sense, it is unfair competition.

Not only does it distort the market in unforeseen ways, but it distorts universities. It creates pressure on individual researchers to secure corporate partners and thereby modify the scientific design of their research, it turns different blocs of universities into completing conglomerate blocs of alliances, and it devalues the concept of science.

Aside from that, by taking away resources from basic research; we are slowing the growth of the long-term technological economy by decreasing our chances for genuine scientific breakthroughs. The market can effectively develop basic science into applied research in most areas (perhaps the market isn't effective in some areas like environmental or educational technology, at which point university-supported applied research might be justified). It is the job of a university to create the basic science.

In these basic areas I see great hope that Lee Bollinger is the right person for this job. Let's hope we are all right in believing that.