U-M Dean Responds, Invents Constitutional Basis For The School's Racial Bigotry

On Friday May 17, I wrote a Weekender column for Toogood Reports titled: "The Stench Of Racial Bigotry at University Of Michigan Law School," containing my opinion about U-M´s cowardly acquiescence in subordinating their elite academic admission standards to race-based factors designed to achieve their rendition of social justice.

U-M Law School Dean Jeff Lehman, when describing his satisfaction with the court´s 5-4 decision defending the school´s admission policies stated:

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

This statement prompted me to write the article. Since there was no mention of a "U-M" constitution, it was astonishing that a law school dean from a highly respected university would invent his own absurd and distorted interpretation of the U.S. Constitution to rationalize his position. That is wrong, and borderline fraudulent!

I sent the following e-mail titled "U-M Law School, Price Just got Steeper," with a link to the column, directly to Dean Lehman that same day, containing the following message:

The decision at U-M Law stinks, and all of us will pay the price over the long haul. From a former Detroiter, born and raised [link to article].

Later that evening, I received a response from Dean Lehman, containing the following message:

Thank you for sharing your disagreement with me. I'm sorry you feel the need to call me names, but I understand your argument and why you disapprove of affirmative action. Just so you have a clearer sense of my own views (feel free to quote them as you wish), here is an op-ed I published in yesterday's New York Times.

Space does permit me to include Mr. Lehman´s 545 word op-ed, but if you have a NY Times password, you can read it: "Learning From Diversity" (May 16). In all fairness to Mr. Lehman, I will respond to the most salient points raised in his op-ed, as they address issues I raised in my original piece.

But first, let´s provide some context. The same people who have found it their livelihood to lecture America about how wrong racial discrimination is, have now spun the table around, demanding special dispensation to engage in racial discrimination themselves. The social goals they seek to accomplish, or, in my opinion, their lack of character in permitting racial criteria to supersede academic excellence, insults the integrity of all students, of all racial backgrounds, who strive to attain their scholastic and career goals by their ability to reason, apply the law, and argue effectively and persuasively.

And one aspect of this, never discussed as it would disrupt the apple cart, is a comment from an Asian-American law student, wherein he stated:

"Asian-American students, on average, routinely outscore black, Hispanic, and white students in grades and standardized test scores. Minority enrollment statistics tend to exclude Asian-American students because of their status as a so-called overrepresented minority."

So, to respond to Dean Lehman, I first want to say: Mr. Lehman, no disrespect is intended, and I apologize if my column was interpreted this way. The primary question I asked you at the close of the piece is this: "Afraid of the truth?"

"When 361 students enrolled at our law school this past fall, only 26 were African-American. That is 7 percent of the class in a nation where 13 percent of the citizens are black."

You are talking quota´s here Mr. Lehman. Correct? 90% of NBA players are African-American. Care to make the same argument on behalf of underrepresented white basketball players? As well, a substantial number of doctors are Jewish. What percent of the American population are Jewish? And does it matter?

"But our policy was not designed to compensate for segregation and discrimination in American society, past or present. It was designed to enroll a group of highly talented students who will, after three years of study, be as well prepared as possible for the modern legal profession."

Question: When the "enrollment" (and I take that to mean social promotion) of a group of "highly talented students" (disregarding superior LSATs and GPAs) who "will" (that´s speculative), "be as well prepared as possible" (comparatively speaking), eliminates first year slots for others more academically qualified, who is it specifically that is being discriminated against?

I raised the point about Asian-American students, some of the most capable and gifted bookworms known to mankind. They are a minority, no? Why do we not see Asian-American students employing the same scare tactics used effectively by more "activist" elements of the affirmative-action industry? Is it perhaps because they know they can gain entry based on their analytical and rhetorical skills, and find race-based justifications undignified? What do you say to them when they are denied a seat because another ethnic group has screamed the loudest, and caused you and your administration the uncomfortable experience of collective guilt. Do you not see yourself exploited by this tactic, with further demands on the horizon?

"Since legal education depends on intense interactions among students and teachers, we also consider what difference an applicant's presence would make to the mix."

What difference an applicant´s presence would make to the mix? You mean they just have to show up? Consider the classroom of 2002: more tolerant and sensitive, less conducive to engage students in legal argumentation because of racial hypersensitivity. Have you ever wanted to be bluntly honest with another, but stayed silent because what you had to say, albeit reasonable, might be falsely interpreted as racist? What do we gain when social promotion becomes the permanent priority, an agenda, an industry? Certainly not more qualified lawyers.

"Some critics have argued that our admissions policy should not consider race at all," and "This suggestion is wishfully utopian, as attractive as the ideal of colorblindness may be."

Consider for a moment that "some critics" may constitute a substantial national majority. Your statement about "wishfully utopian" sounds like it´s coming from an above-it-all social engineer. Are you colorblind? If you said yes, then you refuted your premise. If you said no, then you make value judgments about people of color. Correct?

"That is why Secretary of State Colin Powell and former President Gerald Ford have spoken out in support of our admissions policy."

Care to list some of the influential leaders who are adamantly opposed to the admission policy? Ford pardoned Nixon, and Colin Powell showed up on MTV to argue against sexual abstinence. So what!

Mr. Lehman, what you have excluded in your pitch is STATISTICAL PROGRESS DATA about students within the class of beneficiaries of these race-based policies. It would be fair and reasonable to expect this information over, let´s say, the past 10 years. To believe your approach is valid, and we´re willing to give you the benefit of doubt, you need to satisfy a BURDEN of PROOF. We need EVIDENCE, and we´ll settle for the standard of preponderance.

What is lacking is substantive and compelling statistical evidence that students within the protected class have:

Are you willing to "open the books" and persuade us with statistical proof, that these policies effectuate, not just in theory, but in proven and rising numbers, their existence? Or is this information EXCLUDED from the argument to hide the fact that, hard as one may try, outcome-based education doesn´t produce much of an outcome?

This is not an elitist argument. When you or I go for major surgery, don´t tell me either of us will want our lives placed in the hands of anyone but the best surgeons, period! Why should the quality of legal representation one might demand, with perhaps millions to spend, be any different? What your policies do, no matter how hard you try to rationalize it, is interfere with true competition. Or are we willing to sacrifice superior qualities, for mediocrity, all in the name of "pursuing other important values?"

Another very important point that never seems to reach the table. The May 2002 issue of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) Carolina Journal, "Political Diversity Lacking in Many UNC-CH Departments" said the following:

"A survey of faculty members in nine departments at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has found that more than four-fifths are registered Democrats."

"If all your professors are Democrats, is Carolina diverse?" asked the cover of Carolina Journal, which features a grinning donkey clopping across the word "DIVERSITY."

Care to describe the political philosophies and sympathies of the U-M law school faculty, just so we can feel comfortable that both diversity in the student population, as well as diversity of opinion exists at U-M? Or are they all registered "independent" to mask their political inclinations?

I suppose the better question for you is, what values are more important than others? I accused you and the school of caving in to the intimidation tactics of provocateurs like Jesse Jackson. It is incumbent on a learned and highly influential man like yourself, one who states that "colorblindness is an ideal not an idol," to provide more than theoretic support to your argument. Students of superior ability are being denied seats at U-M Law. That´s "racial profiling" of the highest order.

Years after Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr. delivered his Bakke opinion, Powell´s biographer, John C. Jeffries, Jr., now Law School Dean at Virginia, said this:

"Justice Powell´s distinction between an unconstitutional quota and giving extra weight to race was nothing more than 'pure sophistry,' that he was simply looking for an acceptable way to employ racial preferences, which he saw not as morally right, but socially necessary."

Does that define you Mr. Lehman? It´s not so important that I may feel that way. What´s more important is how qualified law school candidates denied the opportunity to attend U-M Law feel. Are you a sophist Dean Lehman, or just a man too intimidated by your surroundings? This may be your legacy, unless you can muster the character to overcome your moral compromise!

I sent the following letter sent to Dean Lehman this morning:

Dear Dean Lehman:

Thank you for your prompt reply on Friday. The link provided below is to my response, published today on Toogood Reports.

I am astonished that a law school dean would have the arrogance to indifferently ignore the qualitative and quantitative skill level of law school applicants DENIED a seat at U-M, just because you feel compelled to invent the law. If you would like to continue this debate on a larger scale, I am more than willing to engage. This is a common sense argument, coming from a regular guy, not a lawyer, with no personal bones to pick with you. I am sure you are a fine gentleman, outside of this catastrophic and insulting decision.

To edify the American people as to what is transpiring at U-M, this should be a national story. Perhaps when the case hits the Supreme Court, more people will have an informed perspective.

http://www.toogoodreports.com/column/general/mallon/20020520.htm

Regards,

Patrick Mallon

Kudos for a well written and argued piece!

I am still trying to find out where you "called him names" in your original email.

Here is another gem from a State of Connecticut job application form. This is from the "voluntary" racial data section. FYI: At the beginning of the form, you are admonished to fill out ALL of the blanks.

RACE/ETHNIC DATA

1. BLACK (not of Hispanic Origin): Persons having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.

2. HISPANIC: Persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Central or South American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race.

3.WHITE (not of Hispanic Origin): Persons having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle East.

4. AMERICAN INDIAN OR ALASKAN NATIVE: Persons having origins in any of the original peoples of North America, and who maintain cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.

5. ASIAN OR PACIFIC ISLANDER: Persons having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia the Indian Subcontinent or the Pacific Islands. This area includes, for example, China, Japan, Korea, the Philippine Islands, and Samoa.

Point by point questions: Black: what if you are indigenous to the aborigines of Australia. Are you black, Pacific islander or both? This is purely a skin color category. I would love to see Bill Cosby or Shaq claim to be disadvantaged! A rich black kid should not have preferential treatment over a poor white kid, yet there is no provision for that on this form.

Hispanic: is this purely a matter of speaking spanish or being from spain? If you are a black born in Venezuela and speak only Spanish, what are you? Why is this a category? Is not being French or Polish as culturally different as being Hispanic?

White: you are white if you come from anywhere in Europe or the Mediterranean, except if you are from Spain or Portugal, both of which have apparently departed the European continent. If you are black and from Egypt or some other north African country, what are you, white or black? What about Arabs? There is no requirement to actually be "white," or Caucasian if you will, in the definition of "white."

American Indian or Alaskan Native: Sorry, but I count myself as one of the "original people" of North America, having been born here and raised here. I try to maintain cultural identity as a U.S. citizen through community recognition by voting and participation in local government. Most of the Indians here are as rich as Midas, with the exception of the tribes that don't have casinos, and which do not seem to be helped by the rich tribes. Technically speaking, should they not be classified as Asian or Pacific Islander, based on their origins?

Asian or Pacific Islander: like white, seeks to create the biggest possible category of achievers that are as disparate as the "white" category. What possible racial relationship could a Chinese have with an Punjab Indian or an Australian aborigine? Clearly, this category was created to keep people out of the "disadvantaged" categories of "black" and "Hispanic"

The more you look at these categorizations, the more that you will see the depths of the depravity and real racism that exists in the minds of the social engineers like Mr. Lehman. The so-called disadvantaged classes are two big lumps of skin color or language/culture. There is no reason, and too much overlap, to categorize people in this way. This is a blatant attempt to 'advantage" the disadvantage group of the day. The net result will be as you say: the lowering of standards. It is an old joke in med school: First in your class, last in your class, you are still called doctor! And once you get in to med school, they will do everything possible to graduate you, regardless if you are not qualified to repair plumbing, nevermind human beings. Care to wager that the same isn't happening to preserve the sacred racial ratios? I will take that bet.

Using quotas to make your admissions more equitable with the racial makeup of the nation is ludicrous and intellectually dishonest. The real distinctions ought to be made on need, financial or otherwise. As you said, the same system ought to be applied to sports, and definitely should be applied to the faculty of colleges, which are virtual rat's nests of liberal "thought" akin to brainwashing.

Apparently, Mr. Lehman is a prime example of this self-deluding group.

Patrick:

Great posts. I, too, have yet to find the place where you called him names.

You're point about surgeons was a classic comparison. It reminded me of the old joke..."What do they call the guy that finished last in his class at med school?...Doctor!" I certainly don't want that doctor operating on me.

The medical profession doesn't want anything but the best (heck, with the trial lawyers breathing down their throat, they can't afford anything but the best). Why should the legal profession want to lower their standards?!

"Equal protection" means equal protection, whether you're black, white, red, yellow, or purple. The constitution isn't some living, breathing document, that can only be properly understood if you're in the company of a homogenous mix of races or ideologies. Like you say, Patrick, if they want diversity, maybe they ought to first open their doors to some conservative ideology.

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.