The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
University Of Michigan Reverses Course, Will Show ‘American Sniper’

University Of Michigan Reverses Course, Will Show ‘American Sniper’

By David Jesse, Detroit Free Press (TNS)

After a day filled with intense controversy, the University of Michigan reversed course late Wednesday night and decided to show the movie “American Sniper” at its originally scheduled time and place.

“It was a mistake to cancel the showing of the movie ‘American Sniper’ on campus as part of a social event for students,” the statement from E. Royster Harper, the vice president of student life, said. It was sent just after 10:45 p.m. to the media.

“The initial decision to cancel the movie was not consistent with the high value the University of Michigan places on freedom of expression and our respect for the right of students to make their own choices in such matters.

“The movie will be shown at the originally scheduled time and location. We recognize, however, that some students are uncomfortable with the content of the movie and appreciate that concern.

“Therefore, the university also will show an alternative movie, ‘Paddington,’ in another location on campus at that same time and date to provide our students with additional options that evening.”

The university had cancelled the planned showing of the Iraq war movie after some students complained about it. The movie had been planned to be shown on Friday night at a social event for students.

That set off a firestorm of criticism –- including from Michigan football coach Jim Harbaugh, who tweeted: “Michigan Football will watch “American Sniper”! Proud of Chris Kyle & Proud to be an American & if that offends anybody then so be it!”

The cancelation was announced Tuesday, following a student campaign.

Lamees Mekkaoui led the drive to get “American Sniper” tossed. She questioned why the school would play a movie that makes her uncomfortable and promotes what she and others have said are anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiments.

The drive, which included a letter signed by a couple of hundred fellow students, led the university’s Center for Campus Involvement to pull the film from its lineup of UMix events.

But when word of the movie showing being canceled became known, a backlash quickly developed, with a second petition making its rounds through the campus on Wednesday, accusing the university of censorship.

“The movie American Sniper is not about a racist mass murderer or a criminal,” that petition said. “If the University prevents a movie like this from being shown, it promotes intolerance and stifles dialogue and debate on the subject and goes directly against the atmosphere UMix purports to provide. As adults at a public university, we should have the option to view this movie if we so choose and have the opportunity to engage on the topics it presents to come to our own conclusions on the subjects. Students should be trusted to interact responsibly on a movie no different than any other film depicting the lives of the troops at war, such as ‘Saving Private Ryan.'”

Midafternoon Wednesday, the university said it would show “American Sniper” at a different time and different place with a discussion to follow. It said it would replace it with “Paddington,” a children’s movie.

“American Sniper,” directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Bradley Cooper, is based on the autobiography of Navy SEAL Chris Kyle, who served in Iraq and has the most confirmed kills as a sniper in U.S. military history.

It was a major hit at the box office but drew controversy over its depiction of the prolonged war.

Mekkaoui, a sophomore at Michigan, said she’s seen the movie.

“I felt uncomfortable during it,” she told the Free Press. “As a student who identifies as an Arab and Middle Eastern student, I feel that ‘American Sniper’ condones a lot of anti-Middle Eastern and North African propaganda.”

She wrote one letter to the university’s Center for Campus Involvement, asking for it to be pulled from the schedule of Friday’s UMix event.

“I like those events,” Mekkaoui said. “I don’t think this film fits that event, which is supposed to be fun and enjoyable. I think it should be played, but not at this event.”

She sent a second letter signed by a couple of hundred students, including some from the Muslim Student Association. Mekkaoui is a member of Students Allied for Freedom and Equality and the Middle Eastern and Arab Network at the university.

“Student reactions have clearly articulated that this is neither the venue nor the time to show this movie,” the Center for Campus involvement said in a statement it posted on Facebook and Twitter. “We deeply regret causing harm to members of our community, and appreciate the thoughtful feedback provided to us by students.

“We … did not intend to exclude any students or communities on campus through showing this film. Nevertheless, as we know, intent and impact can be very different things. While our intent was to show a film, the impact of the content was harmful, and made students feel unsafe and unwelcome at our program.”

On campus Wednesday, many students said they didn’t have a problem with the film being shown.

“I think you can show it and if it offends you, then just don’t go,” said junior Mary Coles, 21, of East Grand Rapids. “It wasn’t like it was mandatory to go. It was just an optional event you could go to if you wanted to. Pretty easy to skip if you don’t like what they are showing.”

Photo: Paddinton Movie via Facebook

Supreme Court Upholds Michigan’s Ban On Affirmative Action

Supreme Court Upholds Michigan’s Ban On Affirmative Action

By David Jesse, Detroit Free Press

DETROIT — The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a ban on using race in admissions to Michigan’s public universities. The court was divided on the case, which overturns a U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decision.

The opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, says the case is not about race admissions policies but about whether voters in a state can choose to prohibit consideration of racial preferences.

“The plurality opinion stresses that the case is not about the constitutionality or the merits of race-conscious admission policies in higher education. Rather, the question concerns whether, and in what manner, voters in a state may choose to prohibit consideration of such racial preferences,” Kennedy wrote. “Where states have prohibited race-conscious admissions policies, universities have responded by experimenting ‘with a wide variety of alternative approaches.’ The decision by Michigan voters reflects the ongoing national dialogue about such practices.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Clarence Thomas all filed concurring opinions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case.

The case centers on Proposal 2, called the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.

The appeals court said the state ban on affirmative action violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution by making it more difficult for a minority student to get a university to adopt a race-conscious admissions policy than for a white student to get a university to adopt an admissions policy that considers family and alumni connections.

The ballot initiative was pushed by Jennifer Gratz, who was denied admission to the University of Michigan and sued, and by Ward Connerly, a former University of California regent who backed a similar voter initiative in that state.

Michigan voters approved the ban, 58 percent to 42 percent.

More than 10 years ago, U-M was involved in a landmark Supreme Court ruling governing race and universities in two companion lawsuits, one filed by Gratz and others over undergraduate admissions policies. The high court upheld the U-M Law School’s use of race as a consideration in admissions, as long as there were no quotas attached, but threw out the undergraduate admissions system that awarded extra points to African-American, Hispanic and American Indian students.

It was considered a win for U-M, despite the ruling on undergraduate admissions.

Proposal 2 erased U-M’s court victory by banning the state’s universities and other public institutions from considering an applicant’s minority status or gender in their admissions or hiring processes.

“The ruling has no effect on our policies, which already are consistent with Proposal 2 of 2006,” said U-M spokesman Rick Fitzgerald. “We remain committed to the goal of a diverse, academically excellent, student body, and will continue to seek to achieve that goal in ways that comply with the law.”

Gratz, in a press release, cheered Tuesday’s ruling.

“Much progress has been made over the past 15 years in challenging discriminatory policies based on race preferences and moving toward colorblind government,” Gratz stated. “Today’s ruling preserves this foundation and is a clear signal that states are moving in the right direction when they do away with policies that treat people differently based on race, gender, ethnicity or skin color.”

George Washington, who argued the case for the group By Any Means Necessary, criticized the ruling. “This is a terrible ruling. It gives the white majority the right to deny black and Latinos the right to higher education. It is today’s Plessy v. Ferguson ruling. We will fight it by every means possible. The Supreme Court has made it clear they want to repeal the gains of the Civil Rights movement.”

AFP Photo/Karen Bleier