Voting No on 2
Edited: I made this public because people have linked to it, and I had it as local friends-only. Apologies to people who aren't from these parts, but I didn't want folks to follow a non-functional link. NOTE: This is about a ballot proposal in the State of Michigan, in the US. If you don't live here, please don't use it as a guide for your own Proposal 2... ;-)
(I'm posting this because someone on my friends list was uncertain how to vote, and I figured I could put my opinion out there in case it helps anyone.)
I voted against the proposal to abolish affirmative action -- No on 2. Here are the reasons why:
1. Telling the government to be officially race-blind is not an effective way to get rid of racism. That's the French model, and it has failed disastrously for them.
2. The effects of Proposal 2 may be broader than you think. It will likely be used to shut down programs like Safe House.
3. Diversity is valuable in educational institutions, and not just to the minorities. Believe me, the rich white folks at Michigan Law need to see other perspectives (and once the minority students get there they do just fine).
1. Telling the government to be officially race-blind is not an effective way to get rid of racism. That's the French model, and it has failed disastrously for them.
Back in the 1960s, the US government took on racism through programs like affirmative action and anti-discrimination law. Since then, we've made some progress. Things aren't perfect by any means, and we still have a long way to go... so I've wondered what would have happened if we'd taken the other path: ordering the government to be officially race-blind. We'll never know, right?
Well, we do now. France took the other path, officially ignoring race and ethnicity: no affirmative action, no anti-discrimination law, no collection of employment statistics by race to see how things are going. Recently, university researchers did studies to find out -- and it's actually going very badly. They sent identical resumes with French and African surnames to 22 companies. The French-surnamed candidate got 20 callbacks. The African got something like 2.
France doesn't collect unemployment statistics by race, but as you may recall they had some huge riots last year and it's still bubbling away. Those riots are a direct result of discrimination against, and consequently unemployment of, people from non-French ethnic backgrounds. So yes, it's that bad.
And no, the French model -- which is what the backers of Proposal 2 want Michigan to adopt -- doesn't work.
2. The effects of Proposal 2 may be broader than you think.
Remember the anti-gay marriage proposal? And how all it was supposed to do was ban gay marriage? Well, a few weeks after it passed, it was being used to try to force cities and schools to stop giving benefits to the domestic partners of their employees.
If Proposal 2 passes, it could be used to try to shut down things like Safe House (a domestic violence shelter that accepts only women). And it will be.
3. Diversity is valuable in educational institutions, and not just to the minorities.
I did go to UM law school, so I can comment on it -- yes, it's valuable for the other students to have different ethnic perspectives present in class discussion. Many of the students come from a very sheltered background, and so do most of the profs... and without the ability for UM to select a diverse group of students, they would never hear any perspective other than "rich white guy lawyer".
And believe me, they need to. The law is for everyone, not just rich white guys. And those of us who study it need all the reminders of that we can get.
(And if you're wondering but are too polite to ask: yes, I had a number of black and Latino students in my section, and no, they weren't any weaker than the white ones. I'd hire any of them to represent me in a heartbeat, assuming I could afford it, and I'm damn proud to call them classmates. I'm hoping I'll get to call one of them "Senator" after this election.)
And finally, a personal comment because of the history of this proposal. Feel free to skip if you aren't interested.
The thing that's been obscured in all of this is that Michigan Law turns down a lot of people who are "just as good as the ones who got in". They accept 400 students a year, but they get thousands of applicants. They make decisions based on a lot of things -- one thing that may have helped me is that my undergrad degree was in science, which is underrepresented because most pre-Law folks take "easy" majors to pump their undergrad GPA. They do look at legacies (which actually makes sense from a donations point of view now that the state only pays ~30% of UM's expenses). They look at interesting work experience; one of my classmates had tutored kids in Watts for a couple years, another was an investigative reporter (who scored a Pulitzer midway through his 1L year), another had done fieldwork in Nicaragua, one was an actress, one had done serious work for the UN... etc. They look, at least within Michigan, at socioeconomic status.
Bottom line, what Grutter/Gratz/whatever should have done, instead of whining, was go off and do something interesting for a year (other than suing the University, I mean) and then reapply as a stronger candidate like a lot of her classmates probably did. Or go to another law school. Wayne State, for example, is excelllent. My own attorney went there.
So there's the insider's view. And if Whiny Bitch G. had spent a couple years on an archaeological dig, or tutoring poor kids, she might have been able to give it to you too. But instead, she's a loser who sued because she didn't get one of the 400 places available each year.
(I'm posting this because someone on my friends list was uncertain how to vote, and I figured I could put my opinion out there in case it helps anyone.)
I voted against the proposal to abolish affirmative action -- No on 2. Here are the reasons why:
1. Telling the government to be officially race-blind is not an effective way to get rid of racism. That's the French model, and it has failed disastrously for them.
2. The effects of Proposal 2 may be broader than you think. It will likely be used to shut down programs like Safe House.
3. Diversity is valuable in educational institutions, and not just to the minorities. Believe me, the rich white folks at Michigan Law need to see other perspectives (and once the minority students get there they do just fine).
1. Telling the government to be officially race-blind is not an effective way to get rid of racism. That's the French model, and it has failed disastrously for them.
Back in the 1960s, the US government took on racism through programs like affirmative action and anti-discrimination law. Since then, we've made some progress. Things aren't perfect by any means, and we still have a long way to go... so I've wondered what would have happened if we'd taken the other path: ordering the government to be officially race-blind. We'll never know, right?
Well, we do now. France took the other path, officially ignoring race and ethnicity: no affirmative action, no anti-discrimination law, no collection of employment statistics by race to see how things are going. Recently, university researchers did studies to find out -- and it's actually going very badly. They sent identical resumes with French and African surnames to 22 companies. The French-surnamed candidate got 20 callbacks. The African got something like 2.
France doesn't collect unemployment statistics by race, but as you may recall they had some huge riots last year and it's still bubbling away. Those riots are a direct result of discrimination against, and consequently unemployment of, people from non-French ethnic backgrounds. So yes, it's that bad.
And no, the French model -- which is what the backers of Proposal 2 want Michigan to adopt -- doesn't work.
2. The effects of Proposal 2 may be broader than you think.
Remember the anti-gay marriage proposal? And how all it was supposed to do was ban gay marriage? Well, a few weeks after it passed, it was being used to try to force cities and schools to stop giving benefits to the domestic partners of their employees.
If Proposal 2 passes, it could be used to try to shut down things like Safe House (a domestic violence shelter that accepts only women). And it will be.
3. Diversity is valuable in educational institutions, and not just to the minorities.
I did go to UM law school, so I can comment on it -- yes, it's valuable for the other students to have different ethnic perspectives present in class discussion. Many of the students come from a very sheltered background, and so do most of the profs... and without the ability for UM to select a diverse group of students, they would never hear any perspective other than "rich white guy lawyer".
And believe me, they need to. The law is for everyone, not just rich white guys. And those of us who study it need all the reminders of that we can get.
(And if you're wondering but are too polite to ask: yes, I had a number of black and Latino students in my section, and no, they weren't any weaker than the white ones. I'd hire any of them to represent me in a heartbeat, assuming I could afford it, and I'm damn proud to call them classmates. I'm hoping I'll get to call one of them "Senator" after this election.)
And finally, a personal comment because of the history of this proposal. Feel free to skip if you aren't interested.
The thing that's been obscured in all of this is that Michigan Law turns down a lot of people who are "just as good as the ones who got in". They accept 400 students a year, but they get thousands of applicants. They make decisions based on a lot of things -- one thing that may have helped me is that my undergrad degree was in science, which is underrepresented because most pre-Law folks take "easy" majors to pump their undergrad GPA. They do look at legacies (which actually makes sense from a donations point of view now that the state only pays ~30% of UM's expenses). They look at interesting work experience; one of my classmates had tutored kids in Watts for a couple years, another was an investigative reporter (who scored a Pulitzer midway through his 1L year), another had done fieldwork in Nicaragua, one was an actress, one had done serious work for the UN... etc. They look, at least within Michigan, at socioeconomic status.
Bottom line, what Grutter/Gratz/whatever should have done, instead of whining, was go off and do something interesting for a year (other than suing the University, I mean) and then reapply as a stronger candidate like a lot of her classmates probably did. Or go to another law school. Wayne State, for example, is excelllent. My own attorney went there.
So there's the insider's view. And if Whiny Bitch G. had spent a couple years on an archaeological dig, or tutoring poor kids, she might have been able to give it to you too. But instead, she's a loser who sued because she didn't get one of the 400 places available each year.