*Newsflash* – Lester Monts was at the core of the group of U-M administrators who created the legal arguments, and indeed, Monts oversaw Patricia Gurin’s “scientific research” claiming alleged educational benefits. Remember, Monts and Co. were arguing that preference was supposed to be a “remedy” for discrimination, only a way to make white people better by having a token representation of non-whites. To the extent that his comments are inconsistent over the course of time, it is fair for individuals to criticize both him and the university for that inconsistency. It proves that even the top people at U-M don’t really believe the “diversity” bull they espouse institutionally. And its not just Lester Monts. We have found quotes from Lee Bollinger, Mary Sue Coleman, and other leaders that reflect the same contradictions. Hypocrisy is always a fair argument.

Institutional policies are made by individuals. If I were to be restricted to your argument that individuals have different beliefs from their institutions legal arguments, there would be no way of judging the consistency of the institution. I argue that if some, or indeed most or all, of the individuals running an institution behave or speak inconsistently from the policies and rationales of their institution, that the institutional policies have less validity and meaning. Does that mean they have no meaning. Certainly not – but they do have less when their is such inconsistency.