Orwellian Doublespeak Backfires at MSU
Instead of silencing conservatives, diversity advocates at Michigan State must now deal with a new group formed to protect free speech.
Instead of silencing conservatives, diversity advocates at Michigan State must now deal with a new group formed to protect free speech.
Politicians in three Midwestern states – Michigan, Indiana, and Wisconsin – have lately been working on plans that are based on the idea that higher education can spur state economies along to better performance. While the details differ somewhat, all are rooted in the concept that increasing the number of residents with college educations is an investment for the government. Put some money in now, get much more money back later.
Will it work?
In Michigan, Governor Jennifer Granholm calls the new Michigan Promise scholarship a cornerstone of her economic plan to revive Michigan’s lagging economy. The program provides a $4,000 scholarship to students who complete two years of post-secondary education at a two- or four-year school in Michigan, public or private, provided that they have a GPA of at least 2.5. In her press release, Governor Granholm stated, “A $4,000 scholarship makes earning a college degree or technical certification a real possibility for every student. It’s an amazing opportunity for our students and a critical necessity for our economy.” This new scholarship is part of an effort by the state to double the number of college graduates within the next decade.
RALEIGH — In June 2003, the Supreme Court heard two cases concerning racial preferences in Michigan higher education, Gratz v. Bollinger (on preferences used by the University of Michigan) and Grutter v. Bollinger (on preferences used by its Law School). The Court ruling against outright racial preferences in admissions while ruling in favor of considering race in admissions so long as it is used as only one of “pertinent elements of diversity.”
Race preferential admissions tend to depress the grade, the graduation rates, and advancement to graduate school for those favored in the admissions process. The Supreme Court will soon rule on the legality of such preferences in university admissions. What might this ruling mean for North Carolina?
All eyes are on Michigan now, thanks to a case before the Supreme Court involving the University of Michigan Law Schools’ use of racial preferences in admissions decisions. It is a case being watched with extreme interest by N.C. higher-education officials , public and private.
The litigation over race-based admissions policies is probably the most important case the Supreme Court will decide in its current term. Those who think that it’s somehow progress for government institutions to treat classes of individuals differently because of their ancestry are pulling out all the stops to defend race-based admissions policies, including an intellectually dishonest argument that diversity enhances education and cries that the sky will fall if schools like the University of Michigan can’t stack the deck in favor of applicants in certain groups. Here are a few thoughts on this momentous case.
By next June the nation’s highest court could finally issue a much-needed clarification of the constitutionality of using racial considerations in college admissions decisions. The Supreme Court took up two cases in which white applicants argued that their applications to the University of Michigan and its law school were turned down because of their race.
The stage is set for the Supreme Court to tackle that thorniest of issues, the legality of racial preferences in college admissions. All that remains is for the Court to decide to review the case.