TRIGGER WARNING! University of Michigan Student Writer Suspended by Campus Newspaper for Satirical ColumnPosted: November 25, 2014 Filed under: Education, Humor, Mediasphere | Tags: Academia, Academic integrity, Affirmative Action, Ann Arbor, Anno Domini, Athletic director, BAMN, East Lansing, Michigan, Michigan State University, Michigan Wolverines, The Michigan Daily, University of Michigan 1 Comment
The column was offensive to progressives so obviously, the student needed to be punished.
Read it below, courtesy of the College Fix.
Read the ‘hostile’ column that got student writer suspended by campus newspaper
Editor’s note: Below is a satirical column penned by University of Michigan student Omar Mahmood, who writes for both the mainstream campus newspaper The Michigan Daily and the conservative independent publication the Michigan Review. Or at least he did.
After his column was published last week, Mahmood tells The College Fix: “I received a call from the editorial editor [of the Daily] telling me that I had created a ‘hostile environment’ among the editorial staff and that someone had felt threatened because of what I had written … The issue had been taken to the editor in chief who procured a bylaw by which I was given an ultimatum to leave the Review or leave the Daily within a week. I was not allowed to know the name of the offended individuals.” He added the newspaper’s leaders are “forcing me to write a letter of apology as a condition for staying on the Daily” and suspended his regular column in the Daily.
Mahmood has written for both the Review and the Daily concurrently for this fall semester, but after this controversial column was published the Daily’s editors decided “Mr. Mahmood’s involvement with the Michigan Review presents a conflict of interest. Our bylaws say that once a determination is made that a conflict of interest exists, the person in question will have one week to resign from either the Daily or the organization causing the conflict of interest,” according to a statement from the Daily to The College Fix.
Without further ado, we present to you “Do The Left Thing” by Omar Mahmood:
TRIGGER WARNING! Read the rest of this entry »
Heather Mac Donald: The Supreme Court’s Schuette Decision Exposes the Absurdity of Racial-Preferences JurisprudencePosted: May 8, 2014 Filed under: Law & Justice, Think Tank | Tags: BAMN, City Journal, HEATHER MAC DONALD, Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, Seattle City Council, Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court, University of Michigan 1 Comment
For City Journal, Heather Mac Donald writes: In a victory for common sense, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in late April that voters could require colorblind admissions to their state’s public universities without running afoul of the Constitution. Several of the justices arrived at this seemingly self-evident conclusion via tortured routes, however, and Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg rejected it. Their opinions reveal the counterfactual condition of race jurisprudence today, while also unwittingly providing a rationale for knocking down academic racial preferences entirely. Sotomayor’s long, impassioned dissent opens a disturbing window into her racialized worldview and offers an example of what might be called the black-studies-ification of elite discourse.
[See Heather Mac Donald’s book: The Burden of Bad Ideas: How Modern Intellectuals Misshape Our Society at Amazon.com]
The roots of the recent decision, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights . . . By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), were planted in 2003, when the Court upheld the use of racial admissions preferences by the University of Michigan’s law school. Preference opponents responded with a ballot initiative to amend the state constitution, prohibiting Michigan’s government from discriminating against, or according preferential treatment to, any individual or group based on race, gender, or national origin. The campaign over the initiative, Proposal 2, was highly visible and hard-fought, focusing primarily on the measure’s effect on admissions to the state’s public universities. Proponents of preferences, led by BAMN, argued that Proposal 2 would drastically reduce minority enrollment at the University of Michigan and that it was a thinly veiled excuse for racism. Voters rejected those arguments and passed the initiative with 58 percent of the vote in 2006. BAMN then sued to overturn Proposal 2 as unconstitutional. The group lost in federal district court but won in the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Proposal 2’s backers appealed to the Supreme Court. Read the rest of this entry »
College’s ‘Neutral’ Policy Stiffs Libertarian Students, Funds Their OpponentsPosted: January 28, 2014 Filed under: Education, Politics | Tags: Affirmative Action, BAMN, Daily Caller, Gratz v. Bollinger, Michigan, United States Supreme Court, University of Michigan, Young Americans for Liberty 2 Comments
Robby Soave reports: More troubling details have emerged in the case of a libertarian student club’s lawsuit against against the University of Michigan: Not only did UM administrators refuse to give the group funding for an anti-affirmative action event, but they also gave liberal students funding for a pro-affirmative action event just days before.
UM collects mandatory fees from students in order to distribute money to student groups for events and speaker fees–about $300,000 each year. However, administrators claim to have a blanket policy against using the money for political or religious events. On this basis, they denied the Young Americans for Liberty its request for $1,000 to cover the cost of bringing anti-affirmative action activist Jennifer Gratz to campus.
The Daily Caller previously reported on YAL’s lawsuit, which claims that the university provided funds to other political and even religious groups as recently as 2010.
Pro-affirmative Action Side Mocked by Conservative AND Liberal SupremesPosted: October 16, 2013 Filed under: Education, Law & Justice | Tags: Affirmative Action, Antonin Scalia, BAMN, Elena Kagan, Equal Protection Clause, Michigan, Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, Stephen Breyer, Supreme Court, United States Supreme Court 1 Comment
Robby Soave reports: Proponents of race-based admissions had a rough time during oral arguments at the Supreme Court this week, as both the conservative and liberal wings of the court humiliated an attorney for the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action for her faulty reasoning.
Shanta Driver, an attorney for the coalition, got off to a bad start when she said that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was “to protect minority rights against a white majority.”
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia immediately interrupted her.
“My goodness, I thought we’ve — we’ve held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects all races,” he said.