Most read
- HOW MICHIGAN MEN ARE MADE: A look inside the timeless tradition
- Breakdown: Michigan football vs. Ohio State
- Heisman Trophy winners Archie Griffin and Desmond Howard reflect on both sides of the Michigan-Ohio State rivalry
- Ex-Black Panther speaks about police brutality
- Pryor returns to Ann Arbor for first time since recruitng visit
On the Blogs
-
News
Special Report: DPS Oversight Committee may be in violation of state law
-
The Statement
-
The Statement
About Campus: The law student "party" house behind West Quad
-
The Statement
-
News
Prof. once denied meeting with MSA execs about DPS Oversight Committee, airs issues at meeting
-
The Statement
-
Men's Basketball
-
Bside
Printmaker Takeshi Takahara: mixing metal and acid to make beauty
-
Bside
Lila Kalick: Hippie hash, spunky clientele and greasy spooning at Fleetwood Diner
-
Men's Basketball
Comments
I think there are much greater problems with institutional bias against individuals rising through the ranks by their own initiative. Too often do we see the same mistakes of the Roman Empire repeated. The wisest of the Roman Emperors, Marcus Aurelius in particular, were adopted by the previous emperor, because their own spoiled, ignorant offspring were not trusted!
Today, we have the scions like the Bush family (Dubya!) and the Kennedy family (Caroline was a joke of a consideration for the New York senate, and Patrick Kennedy is a joke of a Congressman in Rhode Island) which is nothing more than hereditary peerages imported into America by the backwards British monarchy.
The microcosm is the institutional bias in the state of Michigan is against Michigan State University in favor of those who graduated from the University of Michigan (this includes all the undergraduate, professional, and graduate schools).
On a larger scale, and you guys know it, is that the first families (and their pet minority proxies) who attended Harvard and Yale medical/law/business schools whereas you are stuck at University of Michigan despite your obvious brilliance at parity (honestly, does a single UMich Law student not KNOW in their hearts they are 5 times more intelligent than Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor?)
We do have a problem with race at the university. We have articles today in the daily talking about the black student union singing the black national anthem. We have latino fraternities, asian fraternities and black fraternities, where only members of a certain ethnic group can join. If you want equality, than there has to be equality. No affirmative action, no scholarships for minorities, no groups that restrict admittance based on race.
Dalak claims to have read Said, but he might want to try again. At a place like Michigan that prides itself on its high theorizing, surely our discussions of race and institutional oppression can be more substantive? And I'd hate to think they admitted us students because we're so smart...and then treat us like we're stupid...? Michigan can do better, and we all deserve better. Here's what I want to know: what next?
Another Michigan article about race. Blah blah blah. Different U President, same undies in a bunch.
How about how a real story regarding how to convert a University degree to a job?
Or, how about we all agree that, as our High Priestess Oprah has said, we are all a little bit discriminatory, and we MOVE ON to another topic.
Stay Liberal Ann Arbor!
Just a comment: I am a white suburban male and I was invited to one of President Coleman's fireside chat's last semester. I however didn't attend because I had too much else going on at the time.
Coleman holds these chats by invitation most likely because if she just held a large group discussion for anyone to attend, it would be too difficult to have an intellectual discussion when so many are trying to speak at once.
Those who were interested in talking about diversity probably just happened to be the loudest and the most passionate. That is why their thoughts dominated the fireside chat, and that is why the Daily wrote an article about them. It's not because there aren't other opinions out there. It's because the media tends to cover those who are the loudest. I know this, as I am apart of the media. Do I think this is ideal? No. I do hope to change this, but it takes time and effort by all.
"Coleman holds these chats by invitation most likely because if she just held a large group discussion for anyone to attend, it would be too difficult to have an intellectual discussion when so many are trying to speak at once."
That's a cop-out. There have been plenty of large group discussions here at the U of M, and except for the pro-affirmative action BAMN fascists, the people in attendance have been respectful of protocols re. speaking in turn, respecting others' right to speak without interruption, etc. Are you suggesting that Coleman is too weak to manage this type of large meeting? If so, then she's unqualified for her job.
Also, did anyone else notice that this meeting took place at Trotter House? I wonder how many opponents to affirmative action hang out there.
I like that this article included Lacy's comments outside of the fire-side chat. My only question to you, Lacy, is why didn't you come right out and say it while you had the chance? Here you are, sitting in front of the president, a wonderful opportunity, and you interject this comment outside of earshot. Did you have to tone yourself down in front of the president? It's a bold statement, not that I don't agree or disagree with it, but I feel like you could've at least alluded to it, because it is an issue. Also, and this is my last question, what's the evidence? This is both a fault on the daily staff and Lacy. What makes you think this?
Also, to the anonymous comment left above "old alum," I think the university knows that there are a few (just a few) students who "angrily oppose the reaction to proposal 2." Your comments were thoughtful, until you went on a tirade about suburban white people. Hide behind your anonymity, keep quiet, because as you admit, that's all you know how to do. I wish there was more of a voice out of people like you, it would really provide an interesting vibe to campus.
Invitation-only chats on diversity? Does anybody else find this cynical and ironic?
If Coleman is truly interested in diversity she'd open these meetings up to anybody who wanted to attend, implement initiatives to hire and retain conservative professors, address the male/female disparities in students, staff, resources and opportunities, etc. Instead she acts like a petty authoritarian narcissist who only listens to people who agree with her.
I like that this article included Lacy's comments outside of the fire-side chat. My only question to you, Lacy, is why didn't you come right out and say it while you had the chance? Here you are, sitting in front of the president, a wonderful opportunity, and you interject this comment outside of earshot. Did you have to tone yourself down in front of the president? It's a bold statement, not that I don't agree or disagree with it, but I feel like you could've at least alluded to it, because it's extremely important. Also, and this is my last question, what's the evidence? This is both a fault on the daily staff and Lacy. What makes you think this?
1. http://www.michigandaily.com/node/50923/talk
Walter Lacy, what do YOU suggest we do about it? I'm sick of hearing people complain about campus segregation while offering zero potential solutions to the problem, expecting Mary Sue to wave a magic wand and solve it for us. Perhaps, Walter, the solution starts with YOU striking up a dialogue rather than expecting a safe haven to be constructed from the dust of the ground.
The University of Michigan doesn't want to hear from students who are not concerned with diversity, that's the final conclusion. For those of us in the large population of quiet students who oppose U of M's stance on Proposal 2, we can only find places like the semi-annonymous posting boards of the Michigan Daily to vent our anger and concern. Mary Sue Coleman often reminds me of recordings of the leaders in the USSR during the Communist Regime. She gathers the students who agree with her opinions, sits them comfortably in front of her, preaches like a pastor on the virtues of diversity and smiles at their ever-worshipping nods of approval. She is lucky that she never thought to invite me to one of her fireside chats. If she did, she'd find a very different audience member, one who would love her to see what her protests of the voters of Michigan did to my "college experience".
I hope the University realizes that underneath the surface, there are thousands of students who angrily oppose the reaction to Proposal 2. We are typically very quiet because if you dare to say that you desire equality or to mention that perhaps a white person can be something other than a rich pampered suburban brat, you will be labeled a "racist". I've learned since I've come to Ann Arbor that I must celebrate my race quietly, for political correctness would prefer that I regard it with shame. Like many other students though, I quietly relish the thought of my graduation day, knowing that due to the actions of Mary Sue Coleman: I will never give a penny back to U of M.
LOL!
What on earth can anyone gain from diversity amongst 18 year olds? Is it that important to know how to get along with the gang bangers and know when it is life saving to "give up" one's property that his parents worked so hard to provide? It is interesting that no normal students were invited by the President to her confab who don't give a damn about "diversity."
You want diversity. How about getting the women's lib professors who openly talked in Christina Hoff Sommers book about grading down students who disagree with them to accept diversity of opinion? I received a D in the Chinese History mid-term and must've received an A on the final because I received a B in the course. Mostly what I did was agree with the Professor, which is intellectually corrupt.
Post new comment