Admissions Policy Lawsuit:
Affirmative Action Debate
An Open Letter from RC Students, Faculty, Staff and Alums 2/1/98
Date: February 1, 1998Authors: Carol Isen, Barbara Kessler, and Tom Stephens
(RC alums who are seeking further signatures on this letter from members of the RC Community)
We are students, staff, faculty and alumni of the Residential College (RC). Out of deep respect for the traditions and objectives of the RC, we write this letter to address the role of RC philosophy professor Carl Cohen as an expert consultant and spokesperson for the plaintiffs in the current civil action of Gratz v. Bollinger.
This high profile federal court case, brought by the Center for Individual Rights in Washington, DC and Michigan State Representative David Jaye on behalf of two white students who were denied admission to U of M, alleges that affirmative action admissions policies that consider race, among other factors, are unconstitutional.
In RC Director Thomas Weisskopf's recent statement on affirmative action, he points out that applicants of color to the University of Michigan who are admitted are equally as qualified as their white counterparts This letter is intended to lend support to Professor Weisskopf's statement and to provide further defense for the University's admissions program, specifically as it relates to the RC's mission. At this time we want to make three points regarding the litigation and Professor Cohen's participation.
1. Professor Cohen is entitled to his opinions.
One of the core values and principles of the RC is open debate of issues as the means to their just, ethical and appropriate resolution. In this spirit, we say at the outset that we respect Professor Cohen's right to state his opinions in whatever forums he deems appropriate. This letter is not intended as a personal attack on Professor Cohen, a senior faculty member for whom we have felt respect and affection.
Having said this, however, we do not believe that Professor Cohen's eminence as a logician qualifies him to speak for other members of the RC community on matters of affirmative action. This letter is intended to disassociate ourselves from Professor Cohen's views and actions and to provide an alternate view on the critical importance of consideration of race in U of M's admissions policies.
2. We profoundly disagree with the claim that affirmative action admissions policies which consider race among other factors are a form of invidious discrimination.
We believe that the core contention of the plaintiffs in Gratz, that consideration of race as a factor in affirmative action policies should be prohibited, directly contradicts and tends to undermine fundamental principles embodied in the RC educational program, and it is a claim with which we vehemently disagree.
Both at the RC and in our subsequent careers in academe, law, medicine, human relations, international relations, the arts, and many other fields, we have gained experience and insight regarding the critical importance of diversity. The representation of diverse cultures, individuals and viewpoints at institutions like RC and U of M is an essential requirement for fulfilling many institutional and personal goals, and is a central part of educational and professional development. Consideration of race as a factor in admissions is a necessary component of any program that seeks to foster such beneficial interactions among a broad array of diverse individuals, and is critical to the mission of RC's "living learning" community.
3. The litigation has broad implications beyond the RC and U of M.
We believe that, like the landmark 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the Gratz case will ultimately prove to be about much more than U of M admissions policies. The Brown decision that formally condemned "separate but equal" primary public school education has not eliminated racial segregation in the public schools; rather, it is remembered as the end of judicial approval of "Jim Crow" de jure segregation. Similarly, we suspect that Gratz will ultimately be seen as an expression of what kind of civil society Michigan can, should and will become around the essential American issue of race.
Representative Jaye's well-known public record shows that he clearly does not oppose "racial discrimination." Instead, he is part of an extremist national campaign to reverse the progress toward racial justice achieved since passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The real goal of these extremists is the perpetuation of institutionalized de facto racial discrimination and injustice, by well-funded attacks on measures like the U of M admissions policies at issue, which are calculated to do something constructive about ending discrimination in the real world. At its core, this argument is not primarily about logic, it is about morality and justice.
Conclusion. As members of the RC community who believe in the values embodied in democratic society and liberal arts education, we are appalled that a respected and highly articulate person of Professor Cohen's stature is providing enhanced credibility and impact to social and political forces that are regressive, destructive and antithetical to the basic interests of the RC and the U of M. Without Professor Cohen's participation Gratz could be more easily and clearly seen as an unprincipled, extremist action. We call on others from the RC and the U of M to publicly support the defense in Gratz v. Bollinger.