Letters

Updated 4:00 PM July 28, 2003

Letters

Diversity science beyond review

As author of the Wall Street Journal's "The Evidence of Things Not Seen," I write in response to Ms. Gnagey's June 2 lead, "Courant: Challenge to diversity evidence is unfounded." Gnagey, also executive editor, refuses me a longer rebuttal. She reasons the "500 word limit" must be adhered to the last word, since "consistency is an important element of fairness."

Her foolish consistency isn't very consistent, as I have found other letters up to 585 words. The historical question of whether science was misrepresented to the Supreme Court would alone be cause for exception.

I am, therefore, limited to a general response. First, U-M still won't release the underlying data. If indeed the "challenge to diversity evidence is unfounded," why officially withhold the dataset that would prove or disprove Patricia Gurin's conclusions? What is she or Michigan afraid of?

U-M suggests it is protecting the "commercial value" of the data. There never has been "commercial value" to this data. U-M has given parts away to graduate students for dissertations. No one has ever purchased or expressed commercial interest in such data. Finally, the part requested is nine years old. Gurin had ample opportunity to extract commercial value through publication (she "published" to the court and academic publications). Typical scientific review procedure is to share data for peer review after publication.

Second, why did John Matlock write another 1994 memo to Lester Monts suggesting procedures be implemented to ensure that the data was only released to those people whose goals didn't "clash" with U-M's? They knew the dataset yielded "mixed" conclusions, and would cut both ways if analyzed without bias!

Finally, the suggestion is that I "erred" in my reading of the 1994 report itself, and that later reports reported everything of substance mentioned in 1994. A flood of specific defenses followed, and I don't have space to address them all. At the most basic level, the 1994 report represents an evenly "mixed bag" of conclusions, supporting some aspects of diversity and implicating the failure of others. One expects a "mixed bag" from most "good science." Indeed, Gurin testified firmly that it was "unusual" in science to find such remarkable "consistency" she reported. Following my publication and a scientific analysis of other documents I provided to Drs. Lerner and Nagai, Gurin now admits she ignored (seemingly important) variables not "relevant" to "[her] hypothesis." This explains the variance between the 1994 summary and her testimony. Gurin's choice of variables may have been "subconscious," and not "intentional" manipulation. They were nonetheless not fair to the public, and "misled" the court. Remarkable "consistency" isn't surprising when one picks and chooses the variables (and hypothesis) with goals in mind. Borrowing Emerson's wit, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
—Chetly Zarko is an Ann Arbor freelance writer most recently published in The Wall Street Journal and The Michigan Bar Journal. His work has been cited by Nat Hentoff, Thomas Bray, Linda Chavez, and on Hanitty & Colmes. See http://mywebpages.comcast.net/chetly/index.html.

Consider the value of the woodshop

Your article, "Closures allow U-M to focus on 'core mission'," is seriously misleading with regard to closure of the University woodshop. On July 2, Unions Director Loren Rullman clarified the situation before a delegation of woodshop users.

He explained that the Unions are self-supporting financially, and that their income derives largely from the provision of banquet and catering facilities, demand for which has fallen with the loss of disposable income. Rullman stated that he was "philosophically committed" to the shop but included it among his $700,000 cuts because many of its users are non-students. (Your article said "most of"; the actual figure is almost half). This particular cut is no part of any considered University strategy, to focus on a core mission or anything else.

Indeed, consider that the vision statement of the University aspires to "... foster creativity and productivity among all faculty, staff and students." Consider the value of contact among students, faculty, staff and alumni in an atmosphere of mutual interest and respect. Consider that students of architecture or engineering can make mockups or working models of design projects. Consider a place where chemists learn to appreciate beauty and artists learn about structure. Consider that students may provide themselves with furniture, utilitarian or crafted, for little more than the cost of material (so many cradles!). Consider a place where problems of three-dimensional design and constrained optimization routinely are considered and solved.

The value of the woodshop to the University community is out of proportion to its $55,000 budget. It helps to define the nature of the community in which citizens of Ann Arbor wish to live, and helps the University to attract those brilliant minds that create its excellence. (Perhaps no one comes here because of the woodshop, but they flock to the sort of community that values a woodshop.)

The paradox is that the shop sheds a modest radiance over the life of the University, which is so diffused that it appears as a line item on nobody's budget. It was wrong to have it dependent solely on the benevolence of the Unions. The problem now is to place it on a more secure organizational basis that properly reflects and secures its unique contribution to the educational and societal values of the University.

With sufficient, timely support from the University community (in its broadest sense) closure may be avoided. A successful rescue would demonstrate that true core missions can survive difficult times.

Indeed, it may yet be the case that financial pressures are beneficial, even in this case, because they force us to define those core missions. Hopefully there will be a period not of reconsideration, but of consideration, before any irrevocable actions are taken.

The Student Committee to Save the Woodshop has raised, on extremely short notice, pledges of more than $20,000 from users, community members and academic units. They will be pleased to receive messages of moral support (better, financial support; better yet, institutional.
—Philip Roe, professor, aerospace engineering

Letters

Diversity science beyond review

Consider the value of the woodshop

More stories