University of Michigan President: Law, Schmaw
Michigan has just passed a law preventing public institutions from using racial preferences. University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman has all but promised to ignore the law. She brands the law “an experiment that we cannot, and will not, allow to take seed here at Michigan” and adds: “I will not stand by while the very heart and soul of this great university is threatened. We are Michigan and we are diversity.” She pledges to bring frivolous litigation arguing that the Constitution requires her school to discriminate on the basis of race.
Yes, she mouths the words “Of course the University of Michigan will comply with the laws of the state.” But she follows it immediately with: “At the same time, I guarantee my complete and unyielding commitment to increasing diversity at our institution.” Translation: “Of course we’ll comply with the law preventing us from using racial preferences. But at the same time, I guarantee my complete and unyielding commitment to using racial preferences.”
It reminds me of when Lionel Hutz said:
Mr. Simpson, the state bar forbids me from promising you a big cash settlement. But just between you and me, I promise you . . . a big . . . cash . . . settlement.
After all, what is truth? If you follow me.
Xrlq fisks her, delivering the Internet equivalent of a two-by-four across the head.
This nonesense all started when women got the right to vote. It was then that the rot set in. Sure, the 19th amendment gives them the right to vote, but it doesn’t say anything about the right to run for office. The one thing doesn’t imply the other. You may be old enough to vote, but not old enough to run for president. It appears to me that women can vote, but only for men.
dchamil (452333) — 11/11/2006 @ 11:21 amLet’s see, we’ve got an initiative which is a REPUBLICAN issue, it wins 58-42 despite everything the media can do against it. And how many Repuplicans used this issue in their campaigns ?????
fred (4d468e) — 11/11/2006 @ 11:49 amdchamil,
Actually, reading the Constitution fairly, no one has the right to vote except the electors for President and Vice-President and members of the House of Representatives when voting for President or Vice-President. In other respects, there are only limitations on to whom the privilege to vote can be denied. (Purposefully anti-grammatical. I love Churchillisms.)
nk (d7a872) — 11/11/2006 @ 12:04 pmOn a serious note, I wish some responsible Michigan official would just appropriate Xrlq’s fisking and carve this lady a new job opportunity. Felony violations of the law are a reason for loss of tenure.
nk (d7a872) — 11/11/2006 @ 12:10 pmStill hogging the thread … the importance of MCRI is not whether a handful of mediocre white students will be pushed out by a handful of mediocre black students but whether Michigan will have to stop racial and ethnic gerrymandering.
nk (d7a872) — 11/11/2006 @ 12:16 pmLet me get this straight–the “heart and soul” of Michigan U. is based on appearance and/or breeding, as opposed to intellectual fitness?
A better combination of high school/country club could not be found anywhere else.
Chris (926a19) — 11/11/2006 @ 6:36 pmLooks like another one of these liberal university loonies trying to say that the law dont effect them what a idiot i hope some judge socks it to him POW
krazy kagu (444070) — 11/11/2006 @ 8:22 pmOne wonders why Republicans are supposed to accept the judgement of the voters on November 7th, but liberals are not.
Dana (71415b) — 11/12/2006 @ 6:54 amAmazing how our liberal friends are so quick to use the law to support their causes, when it supports their causes, but are ready to disobey the law when it does not.
Dana (71415b) — 11/12/2006 @ 6:56 amrights inhere in individuals only, they don’t inhere in groups. there is no group right to x number of places in a school. the white enablers of this conduct need to free themselves from their irrational guilt. i wish i could make a product “guilt-free white guy” and put it in spraybottles and sell it over the internet.
assistant devil's advocate (e58d1a) — 11/12/2006 @ 7:19 amMs. Coleman has obviously studied the way her predecessor handled this issue and learned that being militant on the issue of diversity is the way to become president of an Ivy League school. Doesn’t Harvard have an opening?
Governor Granholm would win a huge measure of respect from me and probably from a lot of other righties if she announced that if President Coleman is reluctant to enforce the new law, the Governor will expect her immediate resignation. Of course Granholm is a Dem, and therefore has to kowtow to the civil rights industry and tread very lightly on this matter. If Granholm were interested in being President someday this could be her Sista Soulja moment, but since she was born in Canada and thus ineligible I don’t expect her to rise to the occasion.
JVW (12f22e) — 11/12/2006 @ 12:52 pmTo JVW, regarding Ms. Coleman’s predecessor — I believe that your are correct only in part. Her predecessor, Jeffrey Lehman, was indeed “made” the President of an Ivy League school (Cornell Unversity).
Only one little problem with that “feel good” ending — even at ultra-liberal Cornell, Mr. Lehman’s approach to virtually everything was deemed (by the Trustees) to be a problem, and he was run out of town on a rail within 3 years.
His presidency at Cornell was possibly the stupidest thing that the Trustees of Cornell have done in the past few decades. That’s setting a rather high bar, since most of what the Trustees have done has been incredibly stupid. Nonetheless, Mr. Lehman’s appointment still achieved the dubious honor of being the worst.
Ms. Coleman should consider her own future prospects — she has already made herself a hero to a fringe element of academicians around the county; which is hardly the crew you might want in your corner once the going gets tough. And, believe me, it will get tough if she elects to continue with her somewhat unilateral interpretations of the law. Whether or not she agrees (and it’s clear she doesn’t), it is still the law of the state, and she better figure out some cover PDQ.
Drewski (4603b6) — 11/12/2006 @ 1:42 pmI would expect that if the University continues with however it has structured it’s
racially discriminatoryAffirmative Action policies following the two Bollinger cases, there will be a student denied entry in short order who will sue, and the Affirmative Action cases will proceed again in Michigan state courts, where the state constitution will be the determining factor.Or so I would hope.
Dana (71415b) — 11/12/2006 @ 7:13 pm