"Once you become decidedly female in enrollment, fewer males and, as it turns out, fewer females find your campus attractive."Apparently, due process and civil rights aren't a problem at the author's university. The op-ed piece above starts out making a sympathetic appeal for a woman traumatized by having to turn away a female applicant to her university. Not because she wasn't qualified. She was more than qualified -- great grades, 300+ hours community service, extracurricular activities, the whole shebang. The reason she was denied admission to the college of her choice is because of her genitalia.
That saddest part of this story isn't the young woman's rejection, it's the author's oblivion to her own and her university's discriminatory admissions policy. Yes, I feel sorry for this young applicant in the same way I feel sorry for Jennifer Gratz and her rejection to the University of Michigan. But the author is simply unsympathetic.
Luckily, this won't be an issue in Michigan after the Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) passes. The initiative isn't a black and white issue, at least as far as skin color is concerned. It's a discrimination/no-discrimination issue. With the MCRI in place this young woman won't be rejected due her extra X chromosome. If she worked harder, volunteered more, took tougher classes, and scored higher than a male student she would be admitted and the male student would have to attend another college -- which is what should happen.
I wonder what U of M's critical mass is for males and females? I wonder if Justice O'Connor would have been as sympathetic to the university if Jennifer Gratz was rejected in favor of a white male with lower test scores? Would she have instead said:
"We expect that 25 years from now, the use of [sexual] preferences [favoring men] will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."I don't think so either.