The Stench of Racial Bigotry at University of Michigan Law

On Wednesday May 15, University of Michigan (U-M) law school dean Jeff Lehman, spoke about the U.S. court of appeals decision in favor of the university´s law school affirmative action policies:

"Our constitution recognizes that students learn better in a racially integrated environment."

Is that right? I had no idea that the constitution said that. You learn something new every day I suppose. Not that it´s of any useful significance to Mr. Lehman, but one certain aspect of the Constitution, lodged in the 14th Amendment, Section 1 states: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

Affirmative action policies denigrate the personal dignity and character of the "beneficiary," serving to belittle and deprecate the true abilities of the candidate who secures an unearned advantage over another candidate. Ever had anything just given to you, on a repeated basis? Did you come to respect it? Did you come to expect more of it? Did it pervert your value system? Do you have a value system?

In the Michigan law school case, Barbara Grutter, a white mother of two in her mid-forties whose application was rejected, filed suit in 1997 challenging the school's admissions policy. She has said that she would have been admitted had she been black or Hispanic or if the school had employed a broader definition of diversity.

University officials said that while that may be true, as a minority she also would have been "a different person," able to contribute more to the school's diversity. A different person? How different? Contribute more? More of what?

This so-called "different person" in reality falls prey to the ultimately meritless argument that they have been denied equal opportunity. The criteria clashes directly with traditionally recognized yardsticks of merit and excellence. When one is given an advantage over another in order to achieve what now the left pushes as "diversity" and "tolerance," is it entirely reasonable to ask then: who is the victim? Is the perpetuation of a permanently embittered constituency the ultimate objective of the victim industry? It would appear so.

And is it too cynical to associate diminished standards in the public education system (the so-called "dumbing down"), with the creation of an entire generation of academically unprepared, largely illiterate, underachieving children? When one contemplates the hostile unwillingness of national teachers unions, with strong Democratic party backing, from considering educational competition in the form of school vouchers, or tax credits for religious schools, the picture becomes even more contradictory.

When U-M Law´s decision to use race in admissions policy was upheld by a federal appeals court, the court said: "we find that the law school has a compelling state interest in achieving a diverse student body." The university argued that diversity improves the education of all students. Really. What's so compelling about rewarding inferior academic achievement? In their closing statement: "The law school relies on grades and exam scores, but considers applicants who, despite low scores, "may help achieve that diversity which has the potential to enrich everyone's education." Since when did one's "potential" constitute a basis for qualification? I have the potential to be an all-star hockey player, I just don't have the skill. When can I suit up?

In a stinging dissent, Circuit Judge Danny Boggs called Michigan's policy "a straightforward instance of racial discrimination by a state institution." This discrimination against academically qualified applicants is not only prima facie ridiculous, but insulting to all other students judged for admittance strictly on substantive, color-blind qualifying criteria.

There is nothing more to say here other than to those non-minority applicants who work their behinds off for years to achieve superior GPA´s and LSAT´s that all your sweat and effort may be for naught. You too "may" have the "potential" to succeed, but will be denied not because you didn´t earn it, but because your skin color does not match those within this protected class.

The school´s decision is an embarrassment, a cause for further division and heartbreak, and does not unite people. It divides them. It divides them bitterly. Walk yourself through the following questions, perhaps with an individual who defends race as a factor in law school admissions:

1.Sir, please define discrimination. Here´s the legal definition: "Treatment that favors one person or group over another." See any treatment at U-M that favors one person over another? Where do we differ?

2.Sir, please define racism. Here´s the legal definition: "Unfair behavior whereby one race has and uses power over another." Where do we differ?

3.Sir, please define prejudice. Here´s the legal definition: "An opinion formed without enough knowledge or thought." Where do we differ?

4.Finally, if they have not reached the level of boiling point frustration, ask them to define stereotype. Here´s the legal definition: "A generalization or oversimplification about a whole group of people." Where do we differ?

How did they do? How did you do? Did you get called any bad names? If so, you´ve won the argument, and they have likely left the room.

If they answered that they are entitled to government benefits, and millions are legitimately (nothing wrong with that, see social security), it must be based on some qualifying criteria, correct? In this case, you paid in, you get a pay-out. However, if they deem themselves entitled to something from the government based on race, what does that say about their "race?" Is that a "racist" statement?

Are they admitting then that they are not capable of competing with others in the marketplace? Unless one is in possession of some disability, and thus reasonably requires certain fairly granted preferences, what exactly entitles them to an advantage over another?

To demonstrate how the dialogue has been permitted to degenerate, consider the following two quotes:

"You cannot have a first-class law school in this country without racial and ethnic diversity."

In other words, a first-class law school is one that has diversity. Where academic excellence fits in is anyone´s guess.

Professor Kingsfield, fictitious Harvard Law Professor of Paper Chase fame: "Mr. Hart. Here´s a dime, go down the hallway and call your parents. Tell them that you are coming home, and that there is no way you will ever survive law school." Fictitious actor, yes. Valuable message? You decide.

At U-M Law, there were 5,260 applications this year for 361 seats. That´s serious competition folks. The best and the brightest, be they Black, White, Hispanic, whatever. Ask yourself this: have we in the last 30 years improved the level of candidate, "raised the bar" so to speak by conferring opportunity equally to the most qualified? Or have we declined, reducing ourselves, and the profession as a whole, by lowering expectations, and perhaps guaranteeing "beneficiary" failure all in the name of "diversity."

The destructive irony of racial preferences is that many truly qualified minorities are utterly embarrassed with having their personal integrity compromised by this agenda. They indeed yearn to "make the grade" by meeting demanding standards, and yet, never really get to take full credit for their accomplishments. Lifelong uncertainty among peers over whether one competitively earned their stripes in a profession is a stigmatizing burden no one should be forced to carry.

How might you feel if you qualified for the bar by satisfying the most grueling standards, only to have some unknowing idiot stare you down, thinking you are just another affirmative action lawyer? And yes, there are many idiots, even smart ones, who think this way.

So to the profoundly wise regents at U-M law, we ask you: Show us the evidence of white law school applicant´s ancestors who enslaved any black law school applicant´s ancestors. Is anyone ready to inject that logical extension into this sorry predicament? Or is the conclusion just as divisive and shameful as the premise?

Yes, blacks and other minorities have been wrongly discriminated against. Nobody is saying this didn´t occur. And on some fronts quiet discrimination still does exist. However today, average Americans, and educational institutions, go out of their way to ensure that all people are treated EQUALLY, to the point of social hypersensitivity. Even the most ardent affirmative action advocate must fairly admit that federal and state equal opportunity, diversity, minority contracting, and anti-discrimination laws are being passed on a continuing basis. But ultimately, it is up to the individual to work hard, dedicate themselves to their goals, and to achieve success as a result of character and determination.

The continued existence of this great civilization is contingent on preventing the triumph of racial bigotry, in all its forms. Qualified students denied opportunity, are dishonored by fallacious equal opportunity laws. An outcome based on race dignifies no one. Less than qualified students, granted an opportunity they did not earn, are as diminished as the bigots who marched on the U-M campus with signs proclaiming "Jim Crow Must Go" are exploitative.

There is indeed a "compelling states interest" as legal eagles have concluded. But their definition of "compelling," and the reality of the racial coercion could not be separated by a wider gulf. What compels and coerces U-M is the extraction of a bounty from the "white" establishment, as well as the threat of civil rights lawsuits. It is racial appeasement. Plain and simple. Instead of doing what is honorable and ethical, the cowards at U-M would rather pay off the race-merchants and give them what they want. And the merchants know this. One might go so far as to describe this formulaic story as a shakedown. True to form, it was none other than Reverend Jesse Jackson who showed up at the campus the day of the decision to celebrate. Afraid of the truth? Don´t ask me. Ask Mr. Lehman.

In a stinging dissent, Circuit Judge Danny Boggs called Michigan's policy "a straightforward instance of racial discrimination by a state institution."

The biggest racists are those who scream 'racism' loudest.

Yeah, my husband just recalled that he is part Cherokee, albeit only 1/16th. On further research we discovered that the Cherokee indians believe that if you have one drop of Cherokee blood, you ARE Cherokee, so theoretically he and the kids could check a different box now!

From Websters dictionary
Native = "Being such by birth or origin"
American = "A native or inhabitant of America"

So anyone born here can legally claim to be native-american. I know I do.

God Save America (Please)

"University officials said that while that may be true, as a minority she also would have been "a different person"

yeah, like the black slave who in 1847 would have been free if only they had been "a different person"

"I know how this feels. I waited until June to hear (negatively) from Michigan Law's admissions department last year, as my app was in the group that hadn't been decided yet when the stay was issued."

it happened to me too. i had high lsat scores, and great grades, better than the average admitted to the university of washington law program in the year that i applied, but i was rejected, i believe because i'm a white male. i looked on the law school picture board the next year and maybe 10% of the class were white males.

I saw the same quote in the Detroit Free Press article on Wednesday, but I assumed that Lehman was referring to the constitution of the university or of the law school.

For the full article in the Free Press, here's a link:

U-M law school can use race -- for now

I was most interested in a comment printed in the sidebar of the Free Press article, though: "LAW SCHOOL: Admissions counselors evaluate each applicant on various criteria, including transcripts, resume, test scores, personal statements,race and recommendations. The goal is to admit the best applicants and achieve a sufficient number of minority students so that they are not isolated or viewed as tokens."

In other words, they've got a quota system. They're not interested in the quality of the applicant. They're only interested in admitting a certain number of minority, so that the normally qualified minority don't feel excluded. That's a quota system, pure and simple.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.