In response to my criticism of David Broder’s column on diversity in yesterday’s G-File, a reader ads:
I enjoyed your column on diversity. I write in response to your quoting of David Broder’s outrageous column. Broder’s point, though stated quite forcefully, has one problem–not even the lawyers for the University of Michigan believe it.
In their brief to the Supreme Court they write “[a]t this point, however, every race-blind alternative alternative (to affirmative action) requires a dramatic sacrifice of diversity, the academic quality of all admitted students, or both.” Source: Page 34 of <a href="http://www.umich.edu/~urel/admissions/legal/grutter/UM-Grutter.pdf
” target=”_blank”> Michigan’s brief to the Supreme Court. Futhermore, Michigan’s lawyers write, “There are so many more white and Asian American applicants (than minority applicants) throughout the upper and middle score ranges that no incremental lowering of standards will create a pool with meaningful racial diversity.” Source: Page 36 of Michigan’s brief to the Supreme Court.
Thus, Broder is dead wrong. Not only is Michigan unable to achieve a diverse student body by “looking within the large pool of qualified applicants”, according to what their lawyers told the Supreme Court, no incremental lowering of standards will enable Michigan to achieve meaningful diversity. So much for affirmative action as a small plus factor….