Diversity and Critical Masses

[stevenehrbar]

Whatever one thinks of affirmative action, the University of Michigan argument in its brief in the recent case was palpably dishonest. Specifically, the claim was that the U of M admissions system was designed to admit a "critical mass" of students of particular ethnicities necessary for educational diversity. However, it is clear that the U of M system was not designed to that end.

How so? There is no a priori reason to believe that a "critical mass" must closely reflect the ethnic distribution of the United States. In fact, a minimum critical mass of any ethinicity would, at first glance, logically be the same percentage of the U of M population as the critical mass for any other ethnicity.

So why was the system designed to bring in people of the black and Hispanic ethincities each by an order of magnitude more than American Indian students? If, oh, 2% of the student population is sufficient to be a critical mass of American Indians, then why isn't 2% of the student population sufficient to be a critical mass of Hispanics?

U of M has made no studies, no researches, and not even any arguments to justify the discrepancy. It is thus obviously clear that U of M was not engaged in an attempt to merely get a "critical mass" of various ethnic groups to further diversity for educational purposes, but was merely offering that lie in an attempt to pursue other goals, which it does not believe would hold up to the scrutiny of legal examination.

I make no claim on whether the Court decided correctly; I merely point out that U of M felt it needed to lie to hide the true rationale of its policies.