Ann Arbor News
November 5, 2007
By Chibuzor v. Ozor
Ann Arbor, MI—Nothing made me more hopeful and forward looking since the passage of Proposition 2 last November than reading the account of the University of Michigan Alumni Association’s vowed determination to give need-based financial support to those who need such help. For that reason, the Alumni Association is lending voice to those without one, and knowledge to those without access to it.
I was so delighted to read about the commitment of the Alumni Association to award several need-based scholarships to minority students who otherwise were shut out of the access to higher education by those who voted in favor of Proposition 2. I commend leaders of the Alumni Association and those who have committed their resources to right the wrong wrought by Proposition 2. Those of us who voted against the proposition knew very well that the intention of placing the proposal on the ballot was to limit access to mostly minority students who have meager resources to pursue a college education at U-M in particular, and in other Michigan public universities.
As a graduate student at U-M working towards my doctoral degree, I knew intimately the contentment and joy of not worrying about paying back student loans and tuition costs. I was a beneficiary of the U-M’s various scholarships and fellowships, which enabled me to complete my Ph.D. Nobody could deter me from taking advantage of the numerous scholarships and fellowships, because they were open to the graduate students with the higher GPAs. But before my GPAs could play any role at all, I must have access and be admitted to the university. Proposition 2 was designed by those who are against that very concept, such as Ward Connerly, Jennifer Gratz and supporters like Attorney General Michael Cox, who vowed to enforce the law.
I am sure that these people and those who consider the passage of Proposition 2 a fait accompli in sealing the coffin of minority students from having access like their majority counterparts will no doubt become involved with changing the Alumni Association’s financial deliberations. Deceptive tactics that supporters of Proposition 2 used blatantly said that the proposal was intended to create equal access by using the same standards of admission for every student. What they failed to understand was the role of family wealth, upbringing and the school system in which most minority students were brought up.
Most of the supporters of Proposition 2 are incapable of understanding that equal opportunity is a generation in making. Without an equal historical opportunity, criticism of special efforts to redress past injustice is na ve or outright racism or gender bias. My upbringing in an environment where community as a whole and individuals in particular were not at odds makes me wonder how any interest to enable and empower minority students could undermine the rights of the individual majority student. I find it disturbing that the supporters of Proposition 2 are quick to choose an individual’s rights over community rights. However, I am also aware that the 58 percent of Michigan voters – of whom many were deceived, thinking they were voting to support affirmative action – would no doubt argue that the majority voted to outlaw affirmative action.
Supporters of Proposition 2 believe that affirmative action deprives individuals of the opportunity to pursue their educational rights, without worrying about minority students taking advantage of what the majority students have enjoyed before 1965. I believe that the majority rights and that of the minority – as well as those of the community and individuals – should never be compromised in a nation that claims to be united under God. Abraham Lincoln once quoted scripture that states, "a nation divided against itself cannot stand." And how could a state divided between the majority and minority – or, as a matter of fact, between the whole community and individuals – stand united? It is my opinion that people should not construe the Alumni Association’s action to be divisive, because the scholarships come from private donations.
I am delighted that the Alumni Association is committed to restoring community spirit and generosity that will continue to unite the divided Michigan community and individuals as well as the majority and minority students. The Alumni Association’s scholarship will prove to be an invaluable investment in the future. This action will ameliorate the harshness of Proposition 2. As an Igbo proverb goes, "When traveling or moving uphill brings exhaustion, going down the slope brings pleasurable joy."
The University of Michigan Alumni Association inspires pleasurable joy that Proposition 2 destroyed or sought to dismantle. The Alumni Association should be commended for their courage to take this bold action. A new battlefield may be under way now between Proposition 2 supporters and the Alumni Association, because both groups appear to have divergent views of the meaning of community and individual values. Will this divergence irk supporters of Proposition 2 like Ward Connerly, who might cry foul and threaten to go to court? The Alumni Association will triumph over the narrow view of supporters of Proposition 2. If Connerly spent a tenth of the time he now spends on his crusade to combat affirmative action on college campuses explaining his views and values of education to elementary school parents, he would have done t
his nation a great service.
I must end by quoting the renowned African philosopher and theologian, John Mbiti, who said, "I am, because we are," which means that the value of individuals depends on the value of the entire community. This is contrary to the philosophy of the Center for Individual Rights, which supported Gratz in suing the U-M a decade ago.
About the writer: Chibuzor v. Ozor is pastor and lives in Ann Arbor.
African American Policy Forum Archive 