|
|
Wednesday, January 29, 2003 |
Dozens of companies, including 3M, Microsoft, Bank One, Steelcase, PepsiCo and Exelon, plan to tell the Supreme Court that universities should be allowed to consider race as a factor in admissions. In the lower court cases against the university, more than 30 companies argued that diversity in college was essential because future employees need the experience of working with people from different backgrounds.
The article presents some skeptical views, from people who imply that the companies are supporting affirmative action because "it buys them legitimacy with their employees and it buys them that with the public." The prospect of corporate America going against the Bush administration out of concern for what the public thinks of them is believable only to someone who is willing to ignore everything that has been printed in business section of the NY Times for the last three years.I've talked to one corporate recruiter who was quite frank about worrying that his company would drop UW off its list, because our student body isn't diverse enough. His company has major facilities in places like California, for example, which is less than 50% Caucasian these days, and they don't have the time to train new hires on how to deal with that, any more than they expect to have to teach college graduates how to read and write. To his credit, our currrent Chancellor, John Wiley, is quite serious and up front in his support for diversifying UW. At last year's forums for "Plan 2008" (the 10 year plan to diversify campus), he had most of his major deans and directors up on stage with him at the student union, taking sometimes hostile questions from students, staff, members of the public, and at least one of our Regents who opposes affirmative action.
Some Companies Back Michigan's Affirmative Action Policy [New York Times; free registration required]
Today, I've just started reading The Man Who Pulled Down the Sky, and it's starting out well:
"One thing that I hope I can teach you is that freedom is something more than our side's favorite slogan -- that it is something we do rather than something we own."
Update: I wrote this while offline, and I misremembered why Reynolds liked it; he actually makes no mention of Patton by name, instead picking up on a fairly obscure plot detail about Heinz ketchup. My apologies to him; I disagree with about 90% of his writing, but I was projecting in this case.