Sincerely yours,

John D. Dingell
Member of Congress

Also, as a freelance investigative writer who has uncovered material indicating that University of Michigan manipulated or misrepresented (see Wall St. Journal, May 16, 2003 "The Evidence of Things Not Seen") scientific research it submitted to the United States Supreme Court, I feel my perspective warrants deep consideration by you and your office.  The issues of scientific integrity and openness of public records are universal and non-partisan issues that any politician would normally support.  The issue of race however, has become so politicized (in part, your letter contributes to this) that it has distorted even these otherwise non-partisan issues.

Let me elaborate.  4 days before oral arguments, in March, I received access under Michigan FOIA to a variety of documents from U-M's historical archives from James Duderstadt's official collections (which are  otherwise restricted from public view for 20 years).  One of these documents was addressed to Duderstadt from a Committee on Multicultural Affairs in 1994, and reported in executive summary format the results of a scientific study on the impact of race preferences and diversity. Unlike later firm and consistent scientific testimony to the courts, the study's conclusions came to a mixture of positive and negative outcomes related to diversity (e.g. increased racial polarization, self-segregation, a perception of victimization among blacks, and most importantly in my own mind, that the key differences causing disparity among the races were real, financial resource disparities; not differences in thought or cultural values).

After hearing U-M Professor Patricia Gurin's name cited as an expert in oral arguments, and three weeks of linking everything up; I learned that one author of the 1994 "mixed" report was Gerald Gurin.  Gerald Gurin and Patricia Gurin are married, and Patricia's written expert testimony cites her husband's efforts as instrumental. Patricia Gurin's testimony cites a remarkable "consistency" of results, "unusual" to science. Therefore, either Gerald or Patricia, or both; mislead though omission(perhaps even subconsciously,in their zeal to win) the people and the courts in her representation.  Although I had a seemingly contradictory "executive summary," I knew that the only real final answer about the reliability of data comes from the data itself (having done basic social science for U-M as an honors student in 1993), so I requested under state FOIA again the entire dataset underlying Gurin's conclusions (expecting to send it to any scientist interested in it).  This time U-M refused, citing the data's "commercial value" (a reading of state FOIA law and the facts indicates this argument to be nothing more than a cover). 

That FOIA denial however became more the focus of the story I was writing than the rather complicated and confusing "executive summary" itself.  Indeed, I doubt that the Wall St. Journal would have picked up the story otherwise, and the Detroit News certainly wouldn't have editorialized against the FOIA denial (WHILE MAINTAINING A PRO-DIVERSITY STAND).  The implication here for public policy is that those who voluntarily submit scientific conclusions to the courts (or to lobby federal regulators or Congress) should always be required disclose their underlying data for peer review (Gurin's science has never been fully "peer reviewed," despite the S.C.'s reliance upon it).  Regardless of our views on diversity, I call upon you to sponsor or support legislation that would require data disclosure in such cases (it is a potentially bi-partisan issue).  You could also reach out to the "middle" on the race issue by tightening up standards on U-Michigan's and other public agencies conduct and transparency, even while continuing to permit racial preferences.  Increased oversight almost always deflects criticism from either extreme; and more open policies and data publication requirements might weigh in the favor of preferences at the ballot box. Transparency reduces suspicion.

This moves me to articulate my views on diversity.  I am, based upon other U-M archival evidence, a firm believer that U-M has ignored and undervalued how much socio-economic preferences could work as a replacement or at least partial replacement to race preferences.  Born by chance to a two union parent household in Muskegon, Michigan; and having economically struggled after my parent's divorce in one of Michigan's smallest and only modestly funded rural school districts (Holton, north of Muskegon), I understand the importance of socio-economic educational policy.  I respect the work you have done with regard to finacial aid programs (which should be enhanced), and understand the need to lift (all) truly disadvantaged people up through education.  I don't even object to the intellectual constructs of "diversity" or "affirmative action," as long as properly understood and "narrowly tailored."  But my repeated advocacy (Michigan Bar Journal, Ann Arbor News, and Kalamazoo Gazette op-eds) of "socio-economic" alternatives for racial AND economic justice for ALL, falls upon deaf ears and draws with it the criticism that I am racist. 

Whereas I believe, for moral and practical reasons, that racial preferences by themselves are detrimental to minorities; and that socio-economic or geographic preferences could replace them - better suited to achieve the same intended effect as is currently intended; my "opponents" believe that anyone who disagrees with preferences is racist.  As Justice O'Connor wrote in her opinion, all I ask for is a "good faith" effort towards more race-neutral options.  The fine University of Michigan has however eschewed such good faith (the "socio-economic preference" program U-M implemented in 1997 when the lawsuits were filed, according to Maryanne George at the Detroit Free Press, was never put as a question on the application [unlike race], so that the only way to get the extra points was if a high-school school counselor knew the situation and complained after a rejection letter was sent).

In this vein then, there is a middle ground on this issue that believes in the goals, but not the means, of diversity policy.  Since these particular means drive out of the political debate or the possibility of all other potential alternatives; I therefore must support Ward Connerly in his effort to repeal race preferences in Michigan.  Your vitriol in attacking him for merely expressing a particular viewpoint and in linking that particular expression with "hate" and implied 'racism' drives away from the Democratic Party independents who may hold his same views. You drive away this middle ground at your own peril.

Although I respect and would defend your right to disagree with Mr. Connerly, I must also denounce your use of inflammatory, and itself divisive, language attacking Mr. Connerly.  I also think it presumptuous for you to speak for the entirety of the people of Michigan (or even this district), and in these post-September 11 times equally inappropriate for you draw divisions among American citizens based on their state of residence.  One great thing about Michigan is that it constitutionally recognizes free speech; and respects that speech for other citizens of the UNITED states.  We live in a nation that encourages national and local debate; that encourages the free flow of its citizenry or commerce across the states; and no longer finds an intellectually sound reason for segregating the political views of a Californian from that of a Michigander.  Let the views themselves stand or fall on their own merit. An example of this principle in action would be in Hillary Clinton's Senate candidacy in New York.

You have in the past been a strong advocate of scientific integrity and done good work in scrutinizing the proper funding of university research overhead (of which I have other interesting U-M archival research your office may be interested in).  Do not now look the other way only because the scientific malfeasance was used in support of your political cause.

You have also defended other speech rights vigorously, so I can only imagine that your remarks assailing Mr. Connerly were driven by temporary emotions deriving from your passion for this important issue.  I would sincerely hope that you would post a public message to your website clarifying your letter such that it does not continue to imply that other residents of this state who support a democratic vote on race preferences are necessarily supporting "divisive racial politics" or are practicing "hate, fear, division, or destruction." It would also be appropriate that you clarify your meaning with regard to unity among the several states.  As the University of Michigan seeks out applicants from across the United States (30% admissions), this is clearly not simply an internal Michigan matter upon which non-residents have no interest.

I appreciate your time, and look forward to your investigation of these matters and response.

Very truly yours,
Chetly Zarko

August 18, 2003 message to Dingell.

On July 20, 2003, I wrote a letter to you using this system.

Your website says, "You have my assurance that I will respond to every constituent request as expeditiously as possible."

I continue to expect your response, particularly on the issue of whether you will seek legislation that requires litigants who voluntarily use their own research in public policy litigation to produce the entire datasets upon which their conclusions are drawn.  Science has been misused by both political parties and across all issues - curtailing the misuse of such science is a truly non-partisan public issue with broad support.

Truly,
Chetly Zarko
Freelance investigative writer

July 21, 2003 response letter from Connerly to Dingell

July 21, 2003

The Honorable John D. Dingell
Member of Congress
House of Representatives
Washington D.C. 20515-2215

Congressman Dingell,

“Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Over the years, the courts have consistently held that these Amendments, taken together, grant to all American citizens the right to travel freely, to express their views, and to participate in the affairs—short of exercising a vote—of any village and hamlet in the nation. For most, this is so well established as to be beyond question.

Perhaps, you are unaware that I am an American citizen—a distinction from which I derive the rights and privileges enumerated in the Constitutional Amendments noted above.   It is quite clear from your reaction to the recent decisions handed down by the United States Supreme Court to sanction the use of racial preferences, notwithstanding Amendment XIV, that you have little regard for that Amendment; so I should not be surprised that you would also want to deny me the rights that I enjoy pursuant to the Constitution.

I am obliged to tell you, Congressman, that I, on the other hand, do believe in and honor the Constitution of this nation. And, it confirms that my right to visit Michigan, as a full-fledged American citizen and not simply as a tourist, is not contingent on your invitation.  As a taxpaying U.S. citizen, anywhere I set foot on American soil is my “home,” just as much as it is yours.

If you would grant me a waiver so that my tax dollars would not be used to support racial discrimination in the State of Michigan, I would more respectfully entertain your impudent advice.  Absent that, the term arrogance does not begin to capture the essence of a United States Congressman advising an American citizen to refrain from participating in the affairs of his government.  Ironically, your advice is the echo of southern segregationists who sought the comfort of states' rights to practice their discrimination against black Americans. Have you learned nothing about "civil rights" from that horrible chapter in our nation's history?

There is such an eerie similarity between them and you that it bears comment.

• George Wallace, Lester Maddox and others who shared their rabid and abhorrent views believed in treating people differently on the basis of skin color…and so do you.

• They wanted to practice their brand of racism free from the interference of “meddling, outside agitators”…and so do you.

• They called those who disagreed with them and merely wanted to exercise their right to assemble “carpetbaggers” and “non-resident troublemakers” who were “stirring up trouble where none exists”…and so do you.

• They were arrogant and intolerant bullies…and so are you.

Your letter is a prime example of why the texture of civil discourse in our nation is so coarse.  It is an indication of why Members of Congress need the police to intervene to separate them from fighting.  What a terrible example for our children and our grandchildren.

As a member of the Congress, I suppose you have the right to send narrow-minded and venomous letters, at taxpayers' expense, to anyone of your choosing.  But, you ought to be ashamed of telling any American citizen to “go home and stay there.”  How dare you!

By promoting the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, those of us who believe in this cause—I among them—are doing what the Constitution of Michigan allows; and you should not be seeking to abridge the right of American citizens to use processes allowed by law to implement their civic beliefs and values.  Candidly, if you were true to the oath of office that you have sworn to defend and uphold, you would not be so content to look the other way while Jennifer Gratz, Barbara Grutter and Pat Hamacher were being discriminated against.  You would object to the Supreme Court's defiance of the simple command of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that all Americans be treated equally "without regard to race, color or national origin."

The thought does not escape me, Congressman—and it should not you either—that some of my tax dollars contribute to your salary.  That makes me an involuntary constituent of yours. Therefore, I must ask, do you treat all of your constituents with such contempt, arrogance and high-handedness, or do you reserve such treatment for the "uppity" ones who insist on using their civil rights to participate in public policymaking?

You say that I am not welcome in Michigan and that the “people of Michigan” don’t want me there.  I believe you represent the 15^th Congressional District of Michigan and nothing else.  Longevity has its way of creating delusions of grandeur, and I believe that has happened to you.  In addition, I must ask whether you have run your “get out of town” sermon by the hundreds of other Michiganders who have called, written and emailed me to come to Michigan and assist in the restoration of the principle of “equal protection under the law?”

You have said I am "stirring up trouble where none exists.”  That certainly isn’t what I hear from other prominent people in Michigan or what I have read in the dailies of your state.  And, it is certainly inconsistent with my observations about Benton Harbor and other racial circumstances in Michigan?  It defies credulity that you could be so out of touch with your state as to not recognize the racial tension that lies within, much of which has been engendered by racial preferences at the University of Michigan.

I note with great interest that Reverend Jesse Jackson has announced his intention to open an office of his Rainbow Coalition in Benton Harbor.  Would you please be kind enough to send me a copy of your letter to him demanding that he "go home and stay there."   I understand that he is also a non-resident of Michigan.

Since you so proudly posted your letter to me on your website, I trust that you will do the same with my response.

With equally good wishes.

Sincerely,