Glad to hear you “ammend” your argument about preferences. If the students say they were “guaranteed” their spots, which are few, then I will defer to them on that, since they know their position better than any of us do or will (at least for now).

Obviously PhD programs in general are constantly attempting to renegotiate the concept of qualified. I can attest to that having set on a PhD admissions committee before, it’s not always as easy as it may appear.

To the extent that they expect fair treatment and non-discrimination, all people are entitled to that and it is not a preference to not discriminate.

Discussing the mis-match hypothesis here is too complex to do justice here (note above I said it wasn’t what I was trying to prove here, even though some parts of this story might fit). The point was that U-M has alot to explain here in this case, first in terms of fraud, and second in terms of how it defines certain terms like qualified.

(note reposted due to screening system error, originally posted several days ago)

Second, I know much about the Engineering program, and I believe the environment of retaliation and mistreatment there transcends race. These students have bona fide concerns and complaints about treatment because the department has serious problems dealing with all of its students and non-departmental chair faculty and professors. There is a culture in the department that is odd, at least. I wrote a story about how they thwarted departmental staff input during a chair search, in plain violation of the First Amendment (http://www.chetlyzarko.com/essays/kauffman-af.html,)

Third, this case does come at an interesting time and say things about race preferences. In response to Dumi’s assertion that this proves an “unqualified” or “underqualified” thesis and that is the argument conservatives are making, I would like to note that I’m not making the argument. My argument is far more detailed and nuanced than that – in its simplest terms I suppose this fits into the Richard Sander “mismatch” hypothesis, but this situation is more complicated than that. First, the students here clearly “expected” more programs and more preferences AFTER admission. U-M has always had two faces on this one – first, they say to the courts and general public that preferred admits are “equally qualified” and that this is a “one-time preference”. Then they recruit individuals privately with incentives, promises of aid and follow-through, and in literature targeted to minorities they claim that they have great follow-through assistance programs. I don’t blame the individuals for believing this – they were recruited that way. I blame the university for the double-faced approach – it’s called “fraud.” It’s REAL fraud, not this strange “opinion fraud” that BAMN has invented for public consumption about MCRI’s signature collection. So U-M should be called to serious task for this by both sides – its something we CAN AGREE UPON. I’ve also written about how serious academic supporters of preference have criticized the lack of follow-through on preferred admits and “soft-science tracking” in undergraduate departments to artificially boost graduation rates – its a serious problem with any preference system, because to really do preferences “justice” U-M would have to do ALOT MORE after the preference than it is, than it is willing, or than it should do (that’s why I demand that the resources be put into K-12, not inefficiently put into a policy that can’t realistically work). It’s a fundamental practical problem and inconsistency with preferences. We probably won’t agree on the final conclusion – that preferences can’t work in a rational sense of the word, but that’s just the way it is. Preferences are not about social justice – there about power. There not about redistributing power to poorer or less advantaged people – there about retaining power. The political climate is such that U-M’s “leadership” in preference-giving WILL ACTUALLY DECREASE THESE INDIVIDUAL BLACK STUDENTS ABILITY TO USE CIVIL RIGHTS LAW. As I’ve written, that is the greatest danger of preferences for minorities seeking to benefit from them. Once preferences are used everywhere, it will be exceedingly unlikely that any civil rights litigation succeed. Defendants will simply say – we give preferences to minorities, how can we be discriminating? That’s why corporations signed the green briefs. Individual enforcement of rights would be far more productive to truly aggrieved individuals than group dilution of rights through preferences.

Folks, keep a close watch on The SuperSpade for more coverage of this important news item. See the first story and comment from MCRI here.