American Renaissance - 3 - January 2007
American Renaissance is published monthly by the New Century Foundation. NCF is governed by section501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code; contributionsto it are tax deductible.Subscriptions to American Renaissance are $28.00 per year. First-class postage isan additional $8.00. Subscriptions to Canada (first class) are $40.00. Subscriptionsoutside Canada and the U.S. (air mail) are $40.00. Back issues are $3.00 each. Foreignsubscribers should send U.S. dollars or equivalent in convertible bank notes.Please make checks payable to: American Renaissance, P.O. Box 527, Oakton, VA22124. ISSN No. 1086-9905, Telephone: (703) 716-0900, Facsimile: (703) 716-0932,Web Page Address: www.AmRen.com
Continued from page 1
Jared Taylor, Editor Stephen Webster, Assistant Editor Ronald N. Neff, Web Site Editor
would expect: Fifty-nine percent of white women and 70 percent of whitemen voted for the ban, 82 percent of non-white women voted to keep racial pref-erences. Perhaps more significant, nofewer than 86 percent of blacks and 69 percent of Hispanics voted to keep ra-cial preferences. What does this tell usabout what blacks and Hispanics will doonce they are state majorities?On November 8, the day after the pro- posal passed, the president of the Uni-versity of Michigan (U-M), Mary SueColeman, staggered to the microphonein a state of distress. In return for her annual salary of $742,148, the taxpay-ers of Michigan got the following state-ment: “I will not allow this university togo down the path of mediocrity. That isnot Michigan. Diversity makes us strong,and it is too critical to our mission, toocritical to our excellence, and too criti-cal to our future to simply abandon.”(See “highlights” from her speech on page 5.)We shall see below the extent of theracial discrimination U-M practiced inorder to prevent “mediocrity” and attain“diversity.” It did so in the shelter of twowidely publicized Supreme Court deci-sions.In June 2003, in
Gratz v. Bollinger
,the Supreme Court ruled that the methodused by U-M’s undergraduate Collegeof Literature, Science and Arts at AnnArbor to practice racial discriminationwas unconstitutional (see “What theSupreme Court Did,” AR, Aug. 2003).The university had been assigning ap- plicants a certain number of points for various qualifications and characteris-tics, including race. For example, anoutstanding essay earned a maximum of three points; being the child of an alum-nus, four points; personal achievement,leadership, or public service, a maximumof five points; a perfect score on the SATor ACT, 12 points; and
being black, His- panic, or Native American 20 points.
The only other qualification worth 20 points was the difference between a 4.0(i.e., straight As) high school GPA (grade point average) and a 3.0 (a B average).Socioeconomic background made nodifference. The child of a black or His- panic multimillionaire had an automatic20 point advantage over the child of non-English-speaking Bulgarian immigrants.The Supreme Court ruled that racialdiscrimination in admissions does notviolate the Constitution, but the mechani-cal, numerical manner in which the un-dergraduate college implemented itdoes. On the same day, the SupremeCourt ruled in
Grutter v. Bollinger
thatthe discrimination U-M’s law school practiced, which was at least as great asthat practiced by the undergraduateschool, was being done in the correct,flexible, constitutional manner. As the justices put it, race was part of a “highlyindividualized, holistic review of eachapplicant’s file,” rather than the coldformula the undergraduate school used.However, the majority also stated:“It would be a sad day indeed, wereAmerica to become a quota ridden soci-ety, with each identifiable minority as-signed proportional representation inevery desirable walk of life. But that isnot the rationale for programs of prefer-ential treatment; the acid test of their justification will be their efficacy ineliminating the need for any racial or ethnic preferences at all. . . . We expectthat in twenty-five years from now, theuse of racial preferences will no longer be necessary.”In their dissent from the majority inthe
decision, Justices RuthGinsburg and David Souter pointed outthat rulings like these would simply en-courage universities to discriminate with“winks, nods, and disguises,” rather thanopenly and honestly. That, of course, isexactly what U-M proceeded to do, andthe evidence now is available for all tosee.The Center for Equal Opportunity(CEO) and the Michigan Association of Scholars have obtained data on the ad-missions policies and academic perfor-mance of students in Michigan’s under-graduate, law, and medical schools sincethe
Lyndon Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964.