Lee Bollinger, former president of the University of Michigan and defendant in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, penned an op-ed for the Washington Post. He still supports racial preferences. (Surprise!)
Bollinger quotes a letter George Washington wrote to Alexander Hamilton about points he should have raised in his Farewell Address–education and the university–to bolster support for lowering standards for members certain minority groups, but he gets the sentiment entirely backward:
There have been few moments in our history when the nation so badly needed institutions to unify the country, overcome divisiveness, and dispel the unfounded “jealousies and prejudices” that our first president warned against. As George Washington wrote to Alexander Hamilton, bringing together the youth “from different parts of the United States” at a university would allow young people to learn there was no basis for “jealousies and prejudices which one part of the union had imbibed against another part.”
It’s bizarre, but there it is. Bollinger believes (with a straight face?) that lowering standards for blacks, Hispanics, and other “preferred” groups and discriminating against everyone else quiets the “jealousies and prejudices” we humans hold against one another. In Bollinger’s head, considering an individual’s unchanging quality—his race—as an admissions factor overcomes divisiveness! Incredible. So individuals who’ve been rejected for being the wrong race are supposed to understand that such racial bean-counting is necessary for…the greater good?
This is the context of what Washington wrote:
Since then, revolving on the paper that was inclosed therein, on the various matters it contained, and on the first expression of the advice or recommendation which was given in it, I have regretted that another subject (which in my estimation is of interesting concern to the well-being of this country) was not touched upon also;—I mean education generally, as one of the surest means of enlightening and giving just ways of thinking to our citizens, but particularly the establishment of a university; where the youth from all parts of the United States might receive the polish of erudition in the arts, sciences, and belles-lettres; and where those who were disposed to run a political course might not only be instructed in the theory and principles, but (this seminary being at the seat of the general government) where the legislature would be in session half the year, and the interests and politics of the nation of course would be discussed, they would lay the surest foundation for the practical part also.
But that which would render it of the highest importance, in my opinion, is, that the juvenal period of life, when friendships are formed, and habits established, that will stick by one; the youth or young men from different parts of the United States would be assembled together, and would by degrees discover that there was not that cause for those jealousies and prejudices which one part of the Union had imbibed against another part:—of course, sentiments of more liberality in the general policy of the country would result from it. What but the mixing of people from different parts of the United States during the war rubbed off these impressions?
Blacks didn’t count in this equation, but that’s not the point. Consider this: Was Washington saying one kind of man should be assessed under different standards than another kind of man in this assembling together at university? His point isn’t admissions, of course; it’s gathering together different men from different parts of the country to study and to learn. Bollinger takes the idea of unifying such men and turns it on its head.
That’s just the first paragraph of Bollinger’s op-ed. He defends Grutter, which allows taxpayer-supported colleges and universities to admit and deny admission to individuals based on race, as long as it’s used as a “plus” factor (wink, wink).
Bollinger half-heartedly supports class-based preferences, preferring that schools use both race and income. Different men should be held to different standards so that students may have a “meaningful opportunity” to mix with people of different races. Inherent in this process is the rejection of a better qualified individual based on race. And that isn’t divisive?