AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND ITS DISCONTENTS

Guest Opinion

by Isiah Smith, Jr.

The Supreme Court did not go far enough in ending affirmative action (AA) in college admissions. Instead of being bold and decisive, the Court took the road most traveled.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. Many commentators, at least those who support affirmative action, argued that the ruling will force a dramatic change in how the nation’s private and public universities select their students.

But if one looks at the case more closely, it becomes clearer that Roberts’ opinion also reinforces existing systems of preferences.

Chief Roberts in his majority wrote: “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.” What he didn’t say is “eliminating discrimination means eliminating all of it.” He said, instead, “Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.”

The decision would have been stronger and more credible if Roberts had instead written:

“Today we hold that preferences of all types have no place in a fair and just society. For far too long, our finest institutions of higher learning have catered to the needs of the privileged classes. Children of parents who attended Harvard and North Carolina have been awarded admission over more qualified applicants. Children of parents who have donated large sums of money to these institutions are given preferences over those whose parents can’t afford to donate such sums. And finally, students whose ancestors have their names on buildings at these institutions are seldom turned away

“The decision I am announcing today also eliminates preferences based on athletic ability. The ability to pass, catch, run, and block must no longer be given preference over the ability to read, write, and think. The Court’s decision eliminates all these types of discrimination. Gone are the days when the only kind of affirmative action considered offensive is the ones put into place to benefit those who for centuries suffered the most brutal and inhumane treatment on account of the color of their skin or their national origin.”

But that is not what Roberts’ decision did. Instead, legacy admissions, athletics admissions, and the affirmative action for children of donors and faculty members were untouched.

A 2019 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper by Peter Arcidiacono found that 43 percent of students admitted to Harvard College were either athletes, legacies, members of the Dean’s or Director’s lists of relations of donors or prominent figures, or children of university employees. (We’ll call that 43 percent “ALDCs.”)

Almost 70 percent of Harvard legacy applicants were white, which is also the case at the University of North Carolina. Therefore, Roberts’ decision protects, preserves, and perpetuates the status quo where “them that’s got shall get, them that’s not shall lose.”

The two Supreme Court cases were brought on behalf of Asian students. Apparently, it was argued that but for Affirmative Action, more Asian students would have been admitted to Harvard. However, it’s just as likely that if ALDC didn’t allow so many white students to be admitted, more Asians would have gained admission. The percentage of Asian students at Harvard is double the percentage of Black students. The percentage of ALDC students is greater than the percentages of Black and Asian combined.

So, really, the Asian students’ complaints were misdirected; the argument could have easily been that by admitting lesser qualified ALDCs over more qualified Asian students deprived Asians of equal protection of the law. To effectively ban consideration of race in college admissions requires banning ALDC admissions! Otherwise, unqualified applicants will continue to dominate college admissions.

These discriminatory practices have disturbing consequences, to wit: George W. Bush’s father and grandfather both attended Yale University. So, naturally, George W. was admitted to Yale, where he was a C student, scoring 77 percent (with no As and one D, in astronomy) with a grade point average of 2.35 out of a possible 4.00. He did, however, excel in cheerleading.

Bush’s legacy admission had devastating consequences. George W’s grandfather served as a senator, and his father was a one-term president. So naturally, George W. became Governor of Texas and later arguably the second worst president in the history of the country. As president, he falsely claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region.”

The stupid war that followed devastated the nation’s budget. When Bill Clinton left office, he had balanced the federal budget and erased the federal deficit. The Iraq war cost the U.S. $757.8 billion and dug a massive hole in our economy from which we still haven’t recovered.

In conclusion, legacy preferences are discriminatory and detrimental to the welfare of our great nation. There’s no evidence that affirmative action has had a similar adverse impact.

Isiah Smith, Jr. is a retired government attorney.

Harbor Springs Car Festival

Harbor Springs Car Festival

Harbor Springs Car Festival

Michigan Farmers And Ranchers Deserve The Right To Repair

guest opinion

by Bob Thompson

Imagine you’re a farmer. You’re passionate about growing food, and you put in hours of labor each week to ensure your animals get fed, your crops get watered, and your farm keeps operating. Then, at the height of the growing season, your tractor breaks down. The earliest a technician can come to diagnose the problem is in three days, and after that you’ll have to wait another three days for a repair — at a shop that’s two and a half hours away.

Adding insult to injury, you know the repair would have cost significantly less and would get fixed in less time had you been allowed to fix it yourself or take it to a local shop.

time when a minor equipment issue could jeopardize their livelihood.

Right to Repair is also an issue of economic fairness for farmers, ranchers, and their communities. It’s been the case for some time that giant agriculture companies hire lobbyists to write laws that protect their bottom line while everyone else pays the price—especially farmers and ranchers. These laws impact independent farmers by limiting competition and self-sufficiency. It’s time we rein in the control that corporate agriculture has on farmers and eaters alike. Allowing farmers the right to repair their own farm equipment is a good first step.

Right now, the rules are rigged in manufacturers’ favor to ensure that farmers don’t have the ability to repair their own equipment, and this must change. The current system is broken and costs farmers precious time and money.

As the president of the Michigan Farmers Union, I hear these concerns from our members all too often. Right now, the rules are rigged in manufacturers’ favor to ensure that farmers don’t have the ability to repair their own equipment, and this must change. The current system is broken and costs farmers precious time and money.

Farmers own the equipment they use, so it’s only common sense that they should have both flexibility and options when it comes to making repairs on the equipment they own. But for too long, farm equipment manufacturers have refused to make the software tools and parts needed to repair modern tractors, combines, and other farm equipment fully available to farmers and independent mechanics.

Thursday August 10, 2023

A short time ago, most rural farming communities had a couple options when it came to repairs and finding machinery. Now, in many places, there might only be one dealerauthorized repair center. This dynamic is part of a broader trend in rural areas that favors the consolidation of industry. Consolidation means that there’s less competition and fairness in the marketplace, which often means that us farmers and ranchers, and ultimately folks who eat our food, pay more.

What we’re seeing now with independent repair shops is that they can’t get business because they can’t access the tools, parts, and diagnostics for repairs. By passing the Right to Repair, farmers can get their equipment serviced at independent shops in their own communities, or do the repair themselves if they’re capable, saving them both time and money while supporting local businesses. This means that jobs can stay local rather than going elsewhere.

5:30 PM till dusk

Thursday August 10, 2023 5:30 PM till dusk

Thursday August 10, 2023

Zorn Park - Downtown Harbor Springs

To make matters more complicated, farmers and ranchers might have to travel several hundred miles just to get a tractor or combine repaired at a dealer-authorized repair center, and it may cost a small fortune. That’s simply unfair.

5:30 PM till dusk

Zorn Park - Downtown Harbor Springs

Hosted by: The Harbor Springs Area Chamber of Commerce

Zorn Park - Downtown Harbor Springs

Hosted by: The Harbor Springs Area Chamber of Commerce

Hosted by: The Harbor Springs Area Chamber of Commerce

Luckily, state lawmakers are considering a bill proposed in the state legislature to address these ongoing concerns farmers and ranchers are voicing.

HB 4673, the “Agricultural Equipment Repair Act,” (aka Right to Repair) was introduced by Rep. Reggie Miller (D–Van Buren Township) and ensures that farmers and ranchers in the state of Michigan have the right to access the tools and equipment they need to repair the equipment they own. The state legislature should pass HB 4673 as soon as possible, because repairing a tractor shouldn’t require days and a significant financial setback to get fixed.

HB 4673 would save farmers both time and money during the growing season, at a

Right to Repair is a key issue in National Farmers Union’s Fairness for Farmers campaign, which aims to build fairer and more competitive agricultural markets, and to address the consolidation crisis in agriculture. The Michigan Farmers Union believes that HB 4673 is a win for independent farmers and ranchers across Michigan and provides another important precedent for other states across the nation.

As a fourth-generation independent family farmer, I know all too well that it’s time to bring some fairness to agriculture so folks who grow our food can make a living and thrive.

I’m pleased that Rep. Miller introduced HB 4673, and I hope both legislative chambers pass this bill soon, allowing it to make its way to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s desk.

Bob Thompson is president of the Michigan Farmers Union.

MONDAYS

TUESDAYS

WEDNESDAYS

THURSDAYS