You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Fri, Dec 2, 2011 : 4:07 p.m.

New federal policy supports considering race in college admissions practices

By Kellie Woodhouse

The U.S. Departments of Justice and Education today announced that they support factoring race into admissions policies at public universities.


U-M President Mary Sue Coleman has been a supporter of affirmative action policies throughout her tenure at the Ann Arbor school.

File photo |

The announcement comes after the two departments issued a "guidance" today revising Bush-era federal policy that frowned upon affirmative action.

The decision further strengthens the University of Michigan's opportunity to revive its former policy of factoring race into admissions, a policy that until recently was prohibited by a state law that banned public universities from considering race in admissions.

That state law, called Proposal 2. was struck down by a federal ruling this summer.

Dennis Parker, director of the racial justice program at the American Civil Liberties Union, said the guidance was a big win for U-M and other schools that have been struggling with the legality of affirmative action policies.

"Under the previous guidance there was a lot of confusion," he said. "This is a clear and accurate statement of what the Supreme Court has said... which is essentially that diversity in the higher education context is a compelling governmental interest and that there are steps you can take to achieve that interest."

Parker acknowledged that state laws in Michigan have "created additional complications" for U-M.

Those complications continue to stymie the school's desire to consider race in admission policies.

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette this summer vowed to appeal the federal ruling dismissing Proposal 2.

In September, after a motion from the state of Michigan, a federal court of appeals said it would reconsider the July decision, thus putting the legality of affirmative action in Michigan in limbo.

“Entrance to our great universities must be based upon merit, and I will continue to fight for equality, fairness and rule of law,” Schuette said in July.

The new federal policy will likely weaken Schuette's appeal.

The justice and education departments say the revision has the full support of the Obama administration.

"As the Supreme Court has recognized, the benefits of participating in diverse learning environments flow to an individual, his or her classmates, and the community as a whole," the policy says. "Postsecondary institutions may develop admissions procedures designed to achieve diversity."

Michigan voters originally passed Proposal 2, a ban on considering race in admissions, in 2006, three years after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling found that U-M could work toward achieving diversity in its admissions policy, but that the school's existing policy considered race too heavily.

U-M spokesman Rick Fitzgerald said the university has no immediate plans to begin factoring race into admissions again, due to the federal court's recent decision to reconsider its July ruling. He said U-M will continue to operate under Proposal 2 guidelines until a final decision is reached by the court.

Fitzgerald said the university is still familiarizing itself with the change.

"We just received a copy of the additional guidance and are reviewing it now," he said in an e-mail. "We will carefully review the guidance to see if it offers any additional ideas that would enable the university to promote those educational benefits in a manner consistent with the state’s Proposal 2 of 2006."

Thumbnail image for 110210_SNYDER_ELECTION_PART.JPG

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette has been an outspoken opponent of affirmative action.

The new guidance supports a university's consideration of race, as well as an institution's consideration of an applicant's socioeconomic status, residential stability and school district of origin.

It also sanctions pipeline programs that promote diversity, including partnerships between postsecondary institutions and school districts.

The new policy replaces an August 28, 2008, letter issued by the Education Department entitled “The Use of Race in Postsecondary Student Admissions.”

More than 18,000 colleges and universities were notified of the change today.

Minority enrollment at U-M slightly declined this year. Underrepresented minorities represent 10.5 percent of the freshman class, compared to 10.6 percent last year.

Approximately 5 percent of U-M’s student body is Hispanic. Another 6 percent is black and slightly more than 1 percent is Native American.

Underrepresented minorities do not include Asians, who make up approximately 16 percent of enrollment at U-M.

This story is being updated.

Kellie Woodhouse covers higher education for Reach her at or 734-623-4602 and follow her on twitter.



Mon, Dec 5, 2011 : 8:12 p.m.

joe kidd: here is a link to The Journal Of Blacks in Higher Education, which keeps track of this on a yearly basis. <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> As you can see, the white graduation rate at UM is 88% and for blacks it's 67%. The less able the institution is to cherry-pick the brightest, best-prepared, often more affluent black students, the wider is the gap. From the Journal: &quot;This journal has always placed emphasis on financial pressures as a major agent in producing low black graduation rates. But, undoubtedly, cultural and family issues bear a huge responsibility. Invariably, the critical problem is that a very high number of young blacks are entering college with wholly inadequate academic credentials, ambition, and study habits.&quot; This is the dirty little secret for institutions like UM-they accept to bolster statistics, but often the students are doomed to fail due to inadequate backgrounds. It really isn't fair to the students that don't succeed.


Sun, Dec 4, 2011 : 12:54 p.m.

An excellent example of &quot;unless society treats them otherwise&quot; (see my first remark as a reply to @Macabre Sunset on 12/2/11 at 4:32 PM): <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> .


Sun, Dec 4, 2011 : 3:48 a.m.

Racism is an evil practice..... Period

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, Dec 5, 2011 : 2:29 p.m.

Yeah, quoting majority opinions in the relevant cases = &quot;made a bunch of stuff [up]&quot; More evidence that conservatives live in an Alice-Through-the-Looking-Glass world. GN&amp;GL


Sun, Dec 4, 2011 : 6:06 p.m.

We had this conversation last year We debatede supreme court cases You made a bunch of stuff

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, Dec 4, 2011 : 5:41 p.m.

I suggest you look up the meaning of the word &quot;racism&quot;. It is clear that you and most who lob that word around haven't the first clue what it means. GN&amp;GL


Sun, Dec 4, 2011 : 1:16 p.m.

That's a load of garbage. Let's make a more accurate comparison. A poor white rural kid from Iron Mountain raised in a single parent household versus a poor black urban kid from Detroit. Both are poor (and if you missed my last point, there is an order of magnitude more poor white people in the American than poor black people). The poor black urban kid gets special treatment, access to federal money, preferential treatment for college etc. The poor white kid gets nothing. By the way I am not caucasian, my mother immigrated here barely speaking english. I have multiple degrees and paid for my own education out of my own pocket. The only aid I did qualify for were subsidized federal loans (which I paid back completely). I am sick of this affirmative action garbage.


Sun, Dec 4, 2011 : 7:02 a.m.

You are correct, but what do you do for the people that suffered under racism for 300 years? By saying your kids are victims of racism You are telling me that the people who were repressed/ enslaved for 300 years are now on an equal footing with us and giving them a little help is racist. You are telling me that a child graduating from a Detroit school is equal to one graduating from Pioneer or Greenhills and UM should treat them as such.

Kai Petainen

Sun, Dec 4, 2011 : 2:33 a.m.

my wife had the credentials and the passion to teach. she had a degree from grand valley state university. at her graduation, the valedictorian was the son of an education director and kept thanking his mom for the job that he got. she went through the interviews in southeast michigan to teach at the schools. twice, she got into the final round and in each case... she was told that she was not a visible minority. it was down to her and to someone else of a different color. she was rejected on the color of her skin and told that she was great, but that they needed more diversity. she gave up on her dream to teach, because even with all the education.... the final job selection came down to political connections and color. i am a fan of diversity, of different cultures and different folks in this world. i appreciate others around me and all of that stuff. i am by no means racist, nor do i tolerate that sort of stuff. i appreciate diversity at the university and the strive to get that diversity. but when your wife can't get a job because of the color of her skin, it reminds me of how racism still exists. myself... i am a Finnish Canadian. Finland is a small country, and there are very few Finnish Canadians in Southeast Michigan. it is nearly impossible to find a true Finnish sauna in the ann arbor area. i am a minority. if anyone has a true finnish-water-throwing-hot sauna... let me know -- for you too, might be a minority.

Kai Petainen

Sun, Dec 4, 2011 : 4:56 p.m.

<a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> &quot;According to the 2001 census number over 114,000 Canadians claim Finnish ancestry. &quot; only 114,000. I am a minority. my color might not look like it, but I am.


Sun, Dec 4, 2011 : 2:33 a.m.

What a country, imagine people given all the opportunities of life whining because a minority, brought here as slaves and in most cases, going to an inferior public school, are given preferential treatment by the University of Michigan. I can remember when blacks could not live in Dearborn because the whites did not want to live with them. This was not a hundred years ago, it was fifty years ago. Is it racism when our first minority president is continually challenged on his birth origins, even after showing his birth certificate several times. There is still a heavy undercurrent of racism in this country and we have all seen it in one way or another.


Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 11:14 p.m.

So wrong on so many levels

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, Dec 4, 2011 : 5:40 p.m.

So many level that you cannot cite even one. LOL Good Night and Good Luck


Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 8:06 p.m.

Affirmative action is just like progressive tax. There is little wrong with it. It promotes fairness and social justice. Affirmative action is not just about race, but about underrepresented segment of the society in general. If you are white you are more like to be from an affluent family. That's the result of several decades of racial discrimination. A kid from a poor family works as hard as a kid from a rich family, the rich kid still has a big advantage (opportunity, network, family support, etc). So the rich kid stays rich, benefiting his children. The poor kid stays poor, his children living in a poor family. This vicious circle goes on and on. Affirmative action is about leveling the playing field, and breaking that vicious circle.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, Dec 5, 2011 : 4:45 a.m.

If &quot;Jane Fonda&quot; insists on facts not fiction, and if Jane Fonda think that a completely unverifiable piece on anecdotal evidence does not constitute proof of anything, I guess I'm Jane Fonda. So I guess that preferring fiction to fact and believing that one unverifiable story ought be the basis for national policy defines conservatives. GN&amp;GL


Mon, Dec 5, 2011 : 3:18 a.m.

I was waiting for &quot;Jane Fonda&quot; to comment. I wonder when people will stop using events that happened a century ago to explain today.... As a child of a poor immigrant it had nothing to do with me.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, Dec 4, 2011 : 4:51 p.m.

I see Larry, Moe, and Shemp have commented. &quot;There are more poor white people than black people.&quot; Yes, and that's because there are more whites than black. But 12.6% of non-hispanic whites live in poverty while 38% of Blacks do. Re. Vietnamese Boat People: Can you say &quot;apples and oranges&quot;? People who are descendants of slaves and who suffered under Jim Crow Laws, North and South, for more than 100 years afterwards are the same as a small number of people who came here voluntarily and, whatever hardships they might have encountered, were not the subject of discrimination orchestrated by the government and practiced by the vast majority of the population? Really? No, not everything is to do with race. Just many things. Good Night and Good Luck


Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 11:15 p.m.

There are more poor white people than black people


Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 10:04 p.m.

Golly, I'm sure the boat people from 'Nam would question your theory. Let's see: 1. Definately a minority. 2. Poor as church mice. 3. Started off at the very fringe of the 'playing field'. Yet, by just about any measure, incredibly successful now. Now don't that fly in the face of your theory? <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> scroll down to table [4]. Very interesting, to say the least.

Macabre Sunset

Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 10 p.m.

It's sad that so many people have this opinion. This blanket assumption that everything is to do with race and nothing is to do with personal achievement. Why try at all if everything is pre-determined and everyone simply takes without giving back?


Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 8:33 p.m.

You obviously have never worked with poor white people, who deserve the same consideration as blacks, whom after decades of special help and trillions of dollars still demand special programs and money in exchange for votes. We have a black president. Racism is over, or so we were told.


Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 7:51 p.m.

Except it is the Supreme Court of the United States that has supported the policy for decades, still supports similar efforts in a variety of ways, so your post is factually incorrect. The SCOTUS said the UM policy considered race too heavily previously, not that race shouldn't be considered at all if you read the opinion. The Education Department is acting on the order as it is written.

Seasoned Cit

Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 4:39 p.m.

Not a a surprise! Just another example of the Obama Administration disregarding the Constitution and existing laws to make executive decisions bypassing normal procedures. Anything to get some votes and stay in power !


Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 7:59 p.m.

Constitution was written by people who owned black people as SLAVES. Get a clue.

Billy Bob Schwartz

Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 5:30 p.m.

Excuse me. Were you talking about the President or our current state legslature and governor and Schuette. Oops, that just slipped in there. That's what it sounds like to me. Tossing a bit of money into a major bill in order to deprive the citizens of Michigan of the constitutional right to referendum, for example. Oh, sorry. You weren't talking about the Michigan Constitution and government. Oh, well, I guess I made a mistake. Did I?


Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 4:13 p.m.

racism - a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination The very definition of racism discriminating against people who are not of color. Around 2050 white americans will no longer be the majority. I'd like to know if we will get preferential treatment at that time. How can we ever have a color bling society when our government continues to throw out these blatantly discriminatory policies? Martin Luther King must be rolling over in his grave.


Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 4:08 p.m.

To al the naysayers, let's just say, yes, racism is alive and well in the good ol' US of A. To bad when whites become a minority in the very near future, you'll be off this earth (or in it), and when minorities become the majority, you'll be thanking the US government for this policy. It is of course, that those who benefit the most from the status quo are the same who don't want to see it changed. Regardless if there is a quality minority applicant who might not be able to attend college due to cost, this doesn't matter to some. All they can see is the color of one's skin. It will become a burden on society when minorities, who as a group are growing, can't obtain the same level of education due to their skin color, and those who would prefer it to stay this way. And the comment about throwing out the Constitution. I agree. Remember, African-American's weren't consider citizens. Yup. All men aren't created equal, our own Constitution even said so.


Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 8:30 p.m.

We have a black president. Racism is over.


Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 3:31 p.m.

Since we are thinking of factoring race in admissions ... does that mean if certain racial groups are found to be smarter than other groups, we can preferentially select them?

Kai Petainen

Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 8:27 p.m.

there are academic papers on race. go to <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> and run a search and you'll find them. i'm certainly not endorsing these papers, but there are papers out there. for example: <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> &quot;Pensions and Risk Aversion: The Influence of Race, Ethnicity, and Class on Investor Behavior&quot; &quot;Empirical data show that investor behavior is greatly influenced by race, ethnicity and/or class.&quot; I dare not list anything else from that study... as I do not wish to be labeled a racist.

Billy Bob Schwartz

Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 5:23 p.m.

What is &quot;smarter,&quot; please?


Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 2:15 p.m.

What ever happened to the dream of a colorblind society? Where a man is not judged by the color of his skin. It is human nature that if someone receives preference over another resentment is perpetuated.


Sun, Dec 4, 2011 : 1:48 a.m.

1bit, 1. Correct 2. By adding the word &quot;historically&quot; you affect or misinterpret my point.


Sun, Dec 4, 2011 : 12:13 a.m.

1. Your first sentence is where we want to be, not where we are. 2. Your last sentence defeats your argument as you've already realized that those who have historically been discriminated against resent it.


Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 1:59 p.m.

Another victory for the ACLU, the most dangerous organization to our country's future: even more dangerous than the world's terrorists.


Sun, Dec 4, 2011 : 12:12 a.m.

I don't agree with the ACLU often. Actually, I usually disagree with the ACLU's opinion on most matters. But I appreciate that they stand for the minority opinion in many cases and I realize that being in the minority is lonely. To call them &quot;terrorists&quot; is demagoguery and false.


Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 7:45 p.m.

How so? An organization standing up for civil rights and liberties is a dangerous organization? What specifically makes them dangerous? What rights do they advocate that you find so appalling?


Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 3:57 a.m.

The university administration admits poorly prepared students so that they can feel good about themselves and their politically correct policies, but often these students need so much special help and have a much lower graduation rate than those who are admitted wiith the usual standards being applied. Better to go to a model of accepting community college grads with good grade points as transfer students for junior year. It is not fair to the poorly prepared students or to the faculty that have to deal with this level of accommodation. It drags down standards. This should be done in grade school not college.

Joe Kidd

Mon, Dec 5, 2011 : 4:33 p.m.

Are you sure of that AA28? I have always wondered about graduation rates of students admitted for diversity rather than achievement based on the same theory that it is hazardous to admit a student who is not prepared, that they may be setting them up for failure. They never seem to publish the graduation/success rates of those students. Also opposition to programs like this do not use those statistics as proof that it is not helpful to students admitted based on race who otherwise would not be admitted. I think that would be the best proof that using race is a bad idea. My opinion is that any particular segment of children coming out of high school of a particular race is less prepared for college, then that is the issue and should be corrected well before they apply to college. Easing admission standards for any race is a poor solution to the problem, and way too late. I think a much better solution is to be assured all children have access to the same quality education and I cannot understand why the problem is not addressed as early as possible.


Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 12:59 p.m.

Good post.


Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 3:40 a.m.

Federal Courts will rule, and it's likely that the Schuette will be on the losing side as he normally is. The President, Attorney General, and Justice Department will likely be on the winning side - once again showing Michigan as the backward thinkers that most are.

Joe Kidd

Mon, Dec 5, 2011 : 4:21 p.m.

You might want to read the supreme court decision that was listed as a &quot;win&quot; for this. It is in no way rock solid in favor of racial preferences.


Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 2:59 a.m.

I assume this also gives a green light to Universities to give White applicants preference, if they wish to do so.

Joe Kidd

Mon, Dec 5, 2011 : 4:19 p.m.

Mike raises the most interesting point. Suppose if the President's plan goes into effect, why couldn't some university give white applicants preference based on race? I do not see a difference compared to a university that admits based on whatever race they choose to prefer. How could one be racist, or a violation, and not the other? The president and universities need to be very careful. The supreme court decision authored by Justice O'Conner was not a huge win for racial preferences. She noted it must be &quot;temporary&quot; indicating it cannot go on forever.


Sun, Dec 4, 2011 : 12:07 a.m.

Because we all know how suppressed White applicants are...


Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 9:51 p.m.

Like that's about to happen. Don't think I'll start holding my breath anytime soon.


Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 1:17 a.m.

The rulings are a moot point...the cost of an education makes it unattainable for most people anyways, regardless of race.

Billy Bob Schwartz

Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 5:18 p.m.

Terrin...I keep hearing this, but I can't find solid data to support it. Could you please provide a link or two? Thanks.

Terrin Bell

Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 3:04 a.m.

Except that if you are a minority or a woman you are more opt to get a free ride.

Tom Todd

Fri, Dec 2, 2011 : 11:23 p.m.

Some people have to work hard and some people don't have to work


Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 12:26 a.m.

What does that mean?


Fri, Dec 2, 2011 : 10:45 p.m.

Diversity does not equal Freedom.


Fri, Dec 2, 2011 : 10:46 p.m.

Or equality.

Michigan Man

Fri, Dec 2, 2011 : 10:41 p.m.

This announcement means nothing. Arne Duncan, the basketball playing friend of BO ran the Chicago public schools before becoming Secretary of Education = Chicago schools - worst in the nation. We all also know how inept the Justice Department is under Holder - Team Obama, Duncan and Holder are kind of like the three stooges. Once Obama is tossed out in 2012 this silly edict will just be reversed.


Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 2:56 p.m.

Other than carrying the weight of law, you mean? It does come from the Secretary of Education of the United States so absent a court ruling it invalid it is legal.


Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 12:26 a.m.

And I think that the Detroit Public Schools hold the dubious distinction of worst in the country on the basis of test scores.

Billy Bob Schwartz

Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 12:16 a.m.

Referring to the President of the United States as BO (generation-old abbrev. for body odor) shows a lot of class. Please share your source for the amazing comment that the Chicago public schools are the worst in the nation. That sounds like a pretty ridiculous and indefensible comment. Prove it, please.

Jim Kress

Fri, Dec 2, 2011 : 10:17 p.m.

Racism is now Federal Policy. Isn't that wonderful. So much for equality before the Law.

Macabre Sunset

Fri, Dec 2, 2011 : 9:32 p.m.

Let's just throw out the Constitution entirely while we're at it. All men are created equal - unless the president says so.


Sun, Dec 4, 2011 : 12:47 p.m.

An excellent example of &quot;unless society treats them otherwise&quot; (see my first remark in this thread): <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> .


Sun, Dec 4, 2011 : 12:05 a.m.

Actually, one of the beautiful things about the Constitution is its protection of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The President did not overturn Michigan's prop 2, the courts did. Maybe you have read the ruling(s). I have read them and the argument of the court(s) are compelling.

Billy Bob Schwartz

Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 3:17 p.m.

@DBH....I agree. It's a difficult problem. I would quibble, however. I dislike the term &quot;reverse discrimination.&quot; First of all, it implies (actually, states pretty explicitly) that the group in question is a discriminator. Pretty pejorative. However, my real problem with the term is that, in my mind, discrimination on the basis of race is always wrong. Thus, if an person or group discriminates against any race, that is simply discrimination. So if you give preference to anyone on the basis of race, it is discrimination. To me, the problem is that any way you cut it, there will be discrimination here. The answer? Like you, I don't know. I just know that racial discrimination is racial discrimination, whichever way it goes. That bothers me.


Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 1:58 a.m.

Sorry DBH just a little dyslexic. I never had the opportunity to be diagnosed properly because someone else who was not dyslexic was given my seat in school! Just kidding. But I find it strange that you say in one post and I quote &quot;any reliable reference you would be providing should refer to contemporary discrimination, not past discrimination.&quot; Yet in another post you say and I quote again &quot;I recognize that, in terms of college admissions, some see taking race into account as one way to partially compensate for the discrimination that has historically occurred.&quot;

Macabre Sunset

Fri, Dec 2, 2011 : 11:57 p.m.

I was taught as a little child that two wrongs don't make a right. Or a civil right, in this case. I don't see any evidence that discrimination continues today, or that anything needs to be &quot;rectified&quot; at this level.


Fri, Dec 2, 2011 : 11:39 p.m.

@Macabre Sunset, you appear to have made the same incorrect assumption @jcj made. Read my original comment. To expand on its implicit meaning, IF someone, or some group, is not treated equally by society, THEN remedies are in order. Whether or not any subgroup in society (including, I suppose, @jcj's favorite, redheads) suffers discrimination is a matter for debate and investigation. I think it is obvious that some groups DO still experience discrimination (though I think redheads are not one of that group, in my experience, though I am not a redhead) so, yes, we (or some) have been, and should continue to, fight against it. I recognize that, in terms of college admissions, some see taking race into account as one way to partially compensate for the discrimination that has historically occurred. Others see taking race into account as reverse discrimination, perpetuation of discrimination or of stereotypes. Do I have the answer to this dilemma? No, I do not. But I do know there is a problem. My original comment was entirely in favor of treating everyone equally. The truth is, though, that society does not yet do that. How do you rectify it?

Macabre Sunset

Fri, Dec 2, 2011 : 11:16 p.m.

Well, DBH, what we have is essentially the encouragement of Jim Crow practices in college admissions. Thus, since there is a value in a college education, society is being encouraged to discriminate against certain non-protected groups. Isn't that exactly what we've been fighting against for generations?


Fri, Dec 2, 2011 : 11:15 p.m.

@Jim Kress, thanks for that link. The information indicates that the supposed discrimination against redheads now has taken on the mantle of humor and, in my opinion, is not any more serious than the supposed depiction of blond women as being intellectually inferior. Some may find the depictions of those sporting either hair color as humorous (I don't), but the reference you cite does not provide anything I can see that supports that actual discrimination against redheaded people in American society exists today. But, again, thanks for the contribution.


Fri, Dec 2, 2011 : 11:07 p.m.

First of all, @jcj, it's DBH, not DHB. Secondly, if I had made the statement, sure, I would be happy to back it up with a reliable reference. Since YOU made the statement and not I, it is incumbent upon you to provide the reference. Thirdly, recall that your original statement was &quot;...they ARE [my emphasis] not treated fairly.&quot; Whether or not they &quot;...have HISTORICALLY [again, my emphasis] been discriminated against&quot; is not germane. So any reliable reference you would be providing should refer to contemporary discrimination, not past discrimination. Once again, thanks in advance!!!!

Jim Kress

Fri, Dec 2, 2011 : 11:03 p.m.

<a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> A brief summary of some of the discrimination against red haired people ...


Fri, Dec 2, 2011 : 10:49 p.m.

Tell ya what DHB. Do a little research and you will find Red Headed people have historically been discriminated against.


Fri, Dec 2, 2011 : 10:24 p.m.

&quot;Maybe they should give people with red hair a free pass also. After all it is a well known fact they are not treated fairly.&quot; I never heard of that before. Please provide some documentation of this &quot;well known fact.&quot; Thanks in advance!


Fri, Dec 2, 2011 : 10:21 p.m.

&quot;Or unless society treats them otherwise.&quot; Maybe they should give people with red hair a free pass also. After all it is a well known fact they are not treated fairly.


Fri, Dec 2, 2011 : 10:15 p.m.

Or unless society treats them otherwise.


Fri, Dec 2, 2011 : 9:28 p.m.

Next thing you know they will be taxing tanning salons.....

Billy Bob Schwartz

Sat, Dec 3, 2011 : 12:12 a.m.

You mean melanoma generators? Maybe they should.