Diversity, Affirmative Action, and Hubris

Well, here's some academic hubris for you. For those of you who don’t know, this past Tuesday Michigan voters approved Proposal Two, which (from the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative web site):

“…is a statewide ballot initiative that will prohibit the state from granting preferential treatment based on skin color or gender in 3 specific areas: public contracting, public employment, and public education.”

And the voters approved the proposal in an overwhelming manner, by a margin of 58% for and 42% against. And this, in spite of intense opposition from all quarters, including (predictably) the Democrat party, nearly every institution of higher learning, and a lot of Republicans, too. Were I still living in Michigan I would have voted in favor of Proposal Two, but I’m that kind of guy: I believe in merit, not quotas.

So, what’s that have to do with “academic hubris,” you ask? Just this, from Mary Sue Coleman, the president of the University of Michigan:

I am deeply disappointed that the voters of our state have rejected affirmative action as a way to help build a community that is fair and equal for all.

But we will not be deterred in the all-important work of creating a diverse, welcoming campus. We will not be deterred.

[…]

I believe there are serious questions as to whether this initiative is lawful, particularly as it pertains to higher education. I have asked our attorneys for their full and undivided support in defending diversity at the University of Michigan. I will immediately begin exploring legal action concerning this initiative. But we will not limit our drive for diversity to the courts, because our conviction extends well beyond the legal landscape.

It is a cause that will take our full focus and energy as an institution, and I am ready to begin that work right now. We will find ways to overcome the handcuffs that Proposal 2 attempts to place on our reach for greater diversity.

[…]

We know that diversity makes us a better university—better for learning, for teaching, and for conducting research. Affirmative action has been an effective and important tool for creating this rich, invigorating environment.

We believe so strongly in affirmative action that we went before the United States Supreme Court to defend its use, and we prevailed.

Today, I pledge that the University of Michigan will continue that fight.

Just for the record, Ms. Coleman mentions “diversity” in her address 21 times, “affirmative action,” on the other hand, is mentioned only five times. No one said a damned thing about eliminating diversity. No one said they wanted the UofM to be lily-white, or predominately Asian, or predominately African-American, or predominately comprised of any ethnic or racial group. The proposal simply wants state government to be color-blind, in government employment, contracting, and admissions policies for state universities…which includes the UofM. And the voting public overwhelmingly agrees. The hubris comes in when Ms. Coleman essentially says “voters be damned…we will continue as we’ve been doing. Period.”

I find that amazing. But then again, academics and liberals—I repeat myself—know better than we do when it comes to what’s good for us, both personally and as a society. Right?