Op-Ed Submission to Capital Times 12/09/06, by W. Lee Hansen (574 words)
What if Wisconsin voters in the recent election had been asked, as Michigan voters were, to amend the state constitution to “ban public institutions from using affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes”?
This question is timely because State Rep. Stephen Nass, R-Whitewater in a recent letter to the UW Board of Regents threatened to propose a constitutional amendment banning the use of race/ethnicity in admissions to UW System campuses. The possibility of such a vote would provoke a spirited debate on affirmative action.
The UW System Board of Regents and top UW-Madison administrators would oppose such an amendment. They would argue that diversity is central to the UW mission and essential to high quality education for all students. Without diversity, recruitment of minority faculty and underrepresented minority students will be imperiled. Lacking “diversity competence,” UW campus graduates will experience difficulty finding good jobs in the global economy. Moreover, using race as one among other factors in decisions to admit students is permissible based on a pair of 2003 U. S. Supreme Court decisions concerning the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences.
Supporters of the amendment to ban affirmative action would argue that preferential treatment for underrepresented groups is unfair. Everyone should be held to the same standard. Preferences stigmatize these preferred groups, leading others to question whether those hired or admitted would have earned their places based on merit alone. Though Wisconsin law already prohibits UW campuses from discriminating in hiring and admissions decisions, the law is not enforced.
What if in the last election both the affirmative action ban and the marriage definition amendment had been on the Wisconsin ballot? In opposing the redefinition of marriage, the Regents would have found themselves arguing that people should not be denied equal rights because of their sexual preferences. In opposing the ban on affirmative action, they would have been defending unequal rights–giving preferences to minorities in hiring, admissions, and contracting is okay.
How might Wisconsin vote on an affirmative action ban? A statewide poll several years ago showed 84 percent of respondents opposed “the use of race and ethnic preferences in determining who should be admitted to the University of Wisconsin.” The opposition ran deep, with 77 percent of minority respondents and 76 percent of Democrats opposing race and ethnic preferences.
Pre-election polls in Michigan showed similar opposition to affirmative action. That opposition was confirmed when Michigan passed the amendment banning affirmative action by a decisive 57 to 43 percent margin.
Increasingly desperate actions have fueled public skepticism of efforts to increase diversity here in Wisconsin. The latest include “taxing” UW-LaCrosse students with an extra tuition charge to increase diversity on their campus, adopting a “holistic” approach to campus admissions decisions for the avowed purpose of increasing minority enrollment, and launching the Orwellian Think Respect program at UW-Madison to make the campus climate more welcoming to minorities.
When will UW System leaders finally recognize their band-aid approach fails to deal with the root cause of low minority achievement. Despite countless diversity programs and hundreds of millions of dollars spent on affirmative action over the past four decades, the results remain disappointing.
Until minorities can create a culture of learning in their communities, families, and children, diversity programs can do little to help achieve the world of equal educational opportunity we all support.
##
Submitted by W. Lee Hansen, Emeritus Professor, Economics, UW-Madison
3215 Topping Road , Madison WI 53705, 608-238-4819 wlhansen@wisc.edu