University of Michigan has no plans to alter admissions process after federal court ruling
The University of Michigan will not make any immediate changes to admissions policies after a federal appeals court overturned a state ban on using affirmative action in college admission or employment decisions, officials said.
By a 2-1 vote, judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled the ban on using race as a factor in college admissions and public employment to be unconstitutional. The ruling overturned a 2006 amendment to the state’s constitution that was approved by voters.
George Washington, attorney for BAMN, said the court ruling would open doors to minorities that were closed by the 2006 ballot proposal.
File photo
University spokesperson Kelly Cunningham issued a brief statement Friday indicating that U-M would be making no immediate changes to its admissions policies.
“The university is reviewing the possible implications of the court’s decision, and recognizes that there may be further legal steps as well,” Cunningham said.
Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette announced he will appeal the ruling by the court, which would keep the amendment in force while the case remains in the courts.
Schuette said the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, as the 2006 ballot initiative is known, "embodies the fundamental premise'' of equal opportunity.
“Entrance to our great universities must be based upon merit, and I will continue to fight for equality, fairness and rule of law,” he said.
Since Proposal 2 was passed in the fall of 2006, the number of black students attending the University of Michigan has dropped every year until the 2010 freshman class entered the university.
According to university statistics, 1,709 black students attended the school in the fall of 2006 — about 6.6 percent of the freshman class. That number dropped to 1,531 in the fall of 2009, about 5.6 percent of the freshman class, before rising to 1,548 or 5.7 percent of the class, in 2010.
Among graduate students, more black students attened the university in the fall of 2010 than in the fall of 2006. However, the percentage of black students as compared to the rest of the class also dropped every year from 2006 to 2009, before rising in 2010.
Approximately 5.3 percent of graduate students attended graduate schools in 2006, or 569 students, were black. In 2010, 570 black students attended U-M graduate schools, but made up 4.6 percent of the incoming class.
To view a full PDF of demographic information from the university, click here.
The lawsuit was brought by the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight For Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) against the regents from the University of Michigan, trustees from Michigan State University, the Board of Governors of Wayne State University, U-M President Mary Sue Coleman, MSU President Lou Anna K. Simon and WSU President Irvin Reid.
By prohibiting preferential treatment “to any individual on the basis of race, sex, color ethnicity or national origin,” Proposal 2 was an illegal political restructuring, U.S. Appeals CourtJudge R. Guy Cole wrote.
“We find that Proposal 2 unconstitutionally alters Michigan’s political structure by impermissibly burdening racial minorities,” he wrote in the majority opinion.
Read the full decision by clicking here.
George Washington, the attorney who represented BAMN, cheered the decision and said doors would be open to racial minorities that had been closed.
“The Sixth Circuit held that Michigan could not manipulate the political process by making it impossible for racial minorities to seek admission programs that benefited them while allowing every other group to seek any admission program that they wanted,” Washington said in a statement.
Kary Moss, ACLU of Michigan executive director, also rejoiced at the decision, calling it a “tremendous victory for equality.”
“Today’s ruling has kept the door open for thousands of academically qualified students of color to continue to pursue the American dream through our state’s colleges and universities,” she said in a statement.
One of the main proponents of the amendment in 2006 was less than complimentary of the court’s decision.
Jennifer Gratz, who took a lawsuit against U-M to the Supreme Court to ban the university’s racial point system in admissions and is currently the director of research and the director of state and local initiatives at the American Civil Rights Institute, called court’s decision “ludicrous” and urged universities and public employers to hold off on changing their policies.
“I don’t believe it will stand long-term,” Gratz said. “The justification for the ruling is ludicrous. The judges are trying to be supreme rulers, maybe they missed the fact that Michigan has the right to petition the government and vote on issues on the ballot.”
Kyle Feldscher covers K-12 education for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached at kylefeldscher@annarbor.com or you can follow him on Twitter.
Comments
Mark Wilson
Sun, Jul 3, 2011 : 4:24 a.m.
How are the Most Popular Comments selected? It is apparently not based on the number of votes each receives.
alternativeview99
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 8:50 p.m.
Maybe we are going at this all wrong. Why not broaden the idea of "merit" to include points for students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds? Afterall, those who come from families where both parents work and they are needed to help out either in the family business or in a part-time job or taking care of siblings, have less time to study and perform academically. Oh, and of course they can't afford the special tutoring, glasses, or sports equipment that some parents have no problem providing their kids with that help allieviate stress and serve to foster healthy socialization.. I am all for "merit". But, how should we measure "merit"? Do we use standardized testing that favors the economically advantaged? That doesn't seem like merit to me.
1bit
Sun, Jul 3, 2011 : 11:59 a.m.
I agree. In life, we often don't deserve what we get and, for better and worse, don't get what we deserve.
debling
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 6:41 p.m.
Another setback in the fight for equal rights and freedom. Just in time for the 4th of July celebrations. That some Americans still believe certain groups of people should be given special privilege and preferential treatment in areas of employment and admission based on the color of their skin instead of merit baffles me. We have much more to accomplish.
Dr. I. Emsayin
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 5:05 p.m.
The AAPS has a Rising Scholar Program to help underserved students achieve and enter U of M. The premise makes sense and supports these kids so they can follow through with support and be the contributors to society that their potential suggests.
Lac Court Orilles
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 4:54 p.m.
Why is affirmative action meant only for Blacks ?
Mike
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 4:41 p.m.
Here we go again; school admissions, jobs, etc should be given to those who are most qualified. Competition creates the strongest and the best, special treatment diminishes a persons accomplishments. Dr. Martin Luther King would be disappointed we are still discriminating based on color and ethnicity and not on content abd character.
johnnya2
Sun, Jul 3, 2011 : 11:54 p.m.
Braggslaw, Why should a person in the drama club get PREFERENTIAL treatment? Why should somebody able to AFFORD to be a member of the honor society get special treatment? I guess a person who scores a 4.0, but took shop classes should have better treatment than a person who took Advanced Math or AP History. Why should a kid like Tate Forcier be allowed to come to Michigan just because he has athletic talent? Why should the kids of Rick Snyder get into UM just because he went there? If your definition of merit is clubs and test scores, tell me does a drama club and Spanish club get more favorable treatment than the chess and computer club? The entire admissions process is based on MANY factors. Including, but not limited to race, gender, geography, areas of interest, extra curriculars.
1bit
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 6:48 p.m.
braggslaw: Perhaps looking at it from an admission committee's standpoint would be helpful: 1. Schools are not equal - GPAs are not necessarily comparable. 2. How do you value one extracurricular activity against another? 3. SAT / ACT scores are not necessarily good measures of applicants nor necessarily predictive of future success. 4. Part of the "education" you receive at a place like U of M is exposure to people and ideas to which you might not otherwise be exposed. It sounds like you don't like the value alloted to race, but that doesn't necessarily mean it has no value. Ultimately, the admissions committee is looking to recruit future alumni. The committee wants the students to succeed. They want students to send their kids and their money back to the school. Any criteria they choose will ultimately be subjective and imperfect. I believe including more factors helps lessen the imperfection. From my experience at U of M, I did not meet anyone of any race or gender that I did not feel belonged there.
braggslaw
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 5:55 p.m.
Objective measures are grades and test scores.... participation in clubs, honor society etc... What pinches my butt is that race trumps all of these things.
1bit
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 5 p.m.
"Dr. Martin Luther King would be disappointed we are still discriminating based on color and ethnicity and not on content abd character." Well, I don't think he would want us discriminating on content and character either! Kidding aside, I know what you meant. What makes someone "qualified"? What defines someone's content and character? It's not just test scores or extracurricular activities.
Silly Sally
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 4:25 p.m.
1bit says, "I believe there is a misperception that U of M was using race as the sole determinant of admission rather than part of the total picture of the applicant." If you read the Ann arbor News articles from a decade ago, they had a point system for undergraduate admissions. On it, being black was worth 20 points, the same as a straight "A" average GPA. This effectively placed poor quality black students at the head of the line, if all other things were equal.There were many other considerations such as test scores, legacy, outside activities, essays, etc, that was a larger share, but this give away for being black was huge. This racist practice was stopped by the US Supreme Court case, which UM lost. (UM narrowly won the graduate case, which is all they ever mention
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 5:09 p.m.
Bragg: 1) No criminality. Civil law. 2) You describe somewhat inaccurately the old LS&A admission system put on trial in the Gratz case. If one understands how that system worked (and you appear not to), it clearly violated the standard set forth in Baake. Why the U took this to the SC is beyond me because it was a clear loser. A gift left by Lee Bollinger. But LS&A quit using that system BEFORE the SC heard the Gratz case, so it is ancient history. The Gratz case, in an opinion written by that liberal Anotnin Scalia, and concurred with by that liberal Clarence Thomas, affirmed that race may be a factor in admission--just as there are many other factors that figure into that decision. But keep trying to make more of this than it is (e.g., "race-base"). Tells us much about your agenda. Good Night and Good Luck
1bit
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 4:55 p.m.
Sally: I've answered you elsewhere in this repetitive thread. Quotas are impermissible, using race as a factor is permissible by the US Supreme Court. Prop 2 was the answer to that. The Court of Appeals (and the whole point of the article) is that Prop 2 may be unconstitutional. The full decision by the Court of Appeals strikes me as convincing. If you would like, I can also dissect your posts as well including: "There were many other considerations such as test scores, legacy, outside activities, essays, etc, that was a larger share..." Was your sentence so different than what you quoted from me?
braggslaw
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 4:41 p.m.
Out of a 100-110 points race was 20 converting a 2.5 to a 3.5 or a 3.0 to a 4.0 This was almost criminal
Justice4all
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 3:53 p.m.
To write an affirmative action story and only reference statistics on black students is the reason that affirmative action gets such a bad rap. It is not just a black/white issue. Affirmative action is just as much for women as it were for minorities, all minorities. Prop 2 lost in large part due to this misconception. You can debate Affirmative Actions usefulness/success, but at least lets have a fact based debate. I'm sorry, but what happened to reporters learning an issue inside and out and reporting from a well rounded and informed view point. Having a little knowledge about an issue and putting it out to the public is almost as detrimental as flat out fictional reporting. It paints so many false perceptions not to mention it only fuels the underlying racial divide in our county.
braggslaw
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 3:57 p.m.
FYI more women goto college than men...
Harley B. Rider
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:54 p.m.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but if this is all about diversity the wrong indicators are being considered. Seems to me that diversity of beliefs, backgrounds and experiences are more valid diversity indicators than diversity of skin color or gender. If the U of M wants true diversity it would ensure that faculty would fairly represent ALL political pursuasions and actually encourage the open-minded examination of ALL points of view, including (sorry to have to use this term) CONSERVATIVE. Sorry. Someone must have slipped something into my coffee, causing me to hallucinate for a moment.
1bit
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 3:58 p.m.
Harley: I agree to a point. Diversity of the faculty is in many ways as important as diversity of the student body. No one is stating that race, gender, etc should be the only criteria used for admission but just that they can be additional factors to consider in maintaining diversity. However, as Ghost notes, race and gender really do affect one's world-view.
Roberto Acosta
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:19 p.m.
The merit of someone's performance, no matter their background or socio-economic status, should be what is weighed above everything else. I also don't believe something is 'owed to me' as commenters have stated for transgressions made in the past by unenlighted or short-sighted people. We have to live in the here and now. Dr. King said "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." All of us are made of flesh and blood, thus it's our actions, achievements and accomplishments that should be matter the most.
1bit
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 3:52 p.m.
Milton: Agree with you completely.
Milton Shift
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:52 p.m.
Can't overlook potential, though. If someone grew up in a poor mining town with a one room schoolhouse, they may show little achievement compared to someone from Orange County, but they also may potential to do much more, given the chance.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:17 p.m.
From the article: "I don't believe it will stand long-term," Gratz said. "The justification for the ruling is ludicrous. The judges are trying to be supreme rulers, maybe they missed the fact that Michigan has the right to petition the government and vote on issues on the ballot." And Ms. Gratz misses the point that voter initiatives, simply because they represent popular opinion, nevertheless cannot be unconstitutional. I learned that in 8th grade civics. Shocking that Ms. Gratz was not offered admission to the U. Good Night and Good Luck
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 8:21 p.m.
Misdirection = facts and logic braggslaw does not like. Good Night and Good Luck
braggslaw
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 5:53 p.m.
nice misdirection again... Have a nice vacation.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 4:56 p.m.
Admissions that take into account a student's scouting experience is not "scouting based" Admissions that take into account a student's musical experience is not "musical based" Admissions that take into account a student's drama club experiences is not "drama club based" etc.... Nor is an admissions that take into account a student's race "race based" Race-based admissions = quotas. This is what the Baake decision tells us, affirmed by the Rehnquist Court in G&G But keep on using misleading and loaded language (e.g., race-based) Tells us much. Good Night and Good Luck
braggslaw
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 4:35 p.m.
Ghost I don't know if you are being disingenuous or you are ignorant From your previous post "Bakke declared "race-based" admissions to be unconstitutional. G&G affirmed that decision." this is clearly wrong on its face. Race is and has been used as a factor and that was not the point of the Bakke decision. Quotas were the issue. The administrators in universities have tried to determine the modulus of elasticity for race based admissions. You berate other posters when you clearly misrepresent a case and then try misdirection.... you failed and everyone knows it.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 4:13 p.m.
And the Gratz case reaffirmed Baake, with Thomas and Scalia, the conservative bedrocks of the Rehnquist court that decided the case (and of the Roberts court now), concurring. Yes, bragg, as you experience all too often, it is indeed OK to be wrong. Good Night and Good Luck
braggslaw
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 3:49 p.m.
Another game of hide the sausage... Bakke was a schizophrenic decision that struck down quotas BUT Justice Powell concluded that though race could not be the basis for excluding a candidate, race may be one of many factors in admissions considerations. Thus we play the game of smoke an mirrors where the far left attempts to use race to govern outcomes but cloaks it under another name... It's ok to be wrong Ghost.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 3:34 p.m.
Bakke declared "race-based" admissions to be unconstitutional. G&G affirmed that decision. But don't let facts get in the way of a good opinion. Good Night and Good Luck
braggslaw
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 3:11 p.m.
Last I looked Rehnquist is no longer on the court. the Roberts court will decide these issues. Under strict scrutiny most race based policies fail. Previous courts played "hide the sausage". Race based admissions are not narrowly tailored and there is no compelling state interest.
conservative
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:45 p.m.
I prefer Yahoo.... Good morning and may the force be with you!
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:36 p.m.
conservative: Hit google. You'll find plenty. Good Night and Good Luck
conservative
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:33 p.m.
I shall be going to the library to read the cases you mentioned. Perhaps then and only then will I be able to sound as intelligent and informed as you! Good morning and may the force be with you!
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:28 p.m.
Not according to the Rehnquist Court. But one would have to actually READ the Gratz and Grutter cases to know that. Good Night and Good Luck
braggslaw
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:20 p.m.
Ultimately the "strict scrutiny" standard (and the make up of the Supreme Court) will kill most race based preferences... she is right.
clownfish
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:12 p.m.
What I never understood was what harm was done to Ms Gratz? So she did not get into her first choice school, so what, many people don't. She was able to get a her law degree and is a successful lawyer now. An engineering student may not get in because another kid can throw a ball better than the first kid. Another person gets excluded because he/she did not join the right after-school club. Another gets sidelined because someone else's daddy gave some money to the UM. Another because too many already enrolled from Washtenaw County. I have to laugh at some of the know cons here, whining because life is not fair to them! Isn't that their mantra, life is not fair, get used to it!
braggslaw
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:18 p.m.
if you understand the enrollment process at UM you would understand. Asians changing their names to anglo names and then not checking a box for race. Aggressive recruiters trying to enroll as many other minorities as possible. The "privileged" white students from downriver comprising collateral damage to the whole mess.
Milton Shift
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2 p.m.
A quote from the above article: "One might as well argue for an election law depriving a certain percentage of whites of the right to vote in order to offset the lower participation rate among minorities, due to poverty, illiteracy, inability to get time off work, lack of transportation or outright discrimination."
johnnya2
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 10:36 p.m.
Milton, Bad analogy. Race based criteria would be ADDING more polling places that are closer to their homes for people who are poorer, do not have cars and tend to use public transportation as their means of getting to the polls. The U has not, nor ever done things to hold back white from succeeding. They are helping to allow people of color to have a fair chance. As for voting %, I believe election day should be a national holiday OR better still multiple days should be afforded for elections. How about Sunday through Wednesday. I believe all people should be REQUIRED to vote, just like paying their taxes. They are free to vote NONE OF THE ABOVE if they are disgruntled and do not believe in the system. I also believe there should be polling spots within walking distance of every home, or a system that allows people FREE transportation to a polling center. Republicans would hate my idea. Young people and poor people have traditionally voted less frequently than others. Their votes would turn the country around.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 4:24 p.m.
Really? I see that quote nowhere in the story. But I could be wrong. So, please, which para, and who said it? Good Night and Good Luck
braggslaw
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 1:58 p.m.
If a non-race based factor such as poverty were used as a factor for admissions, white enrollment would rise as there are more poor white people than poor people of color. Whether you want to call the use of race "affirmative action" or a factor, it is still using race as a plus factor. (and a minus factor for asians). Any use of race is subject to the "strict scrutiny" constituational standard, with the present make up of the supreme court strict scrutiny would find almost all racial preferences unconstitutional. This is a fight between "white privilege and white guilt" a senseless conflict.
1bit
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 4:48 p.m.
I agree that this is a decision for the US Supreme Court to make. The Court of Appeals is making the argument that Prop 2 is unconstitutional based on previous legal precedent.
Milton Shift
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 1:57 p.m.
Murrow, not everyone opposed to affirmative action is a white supremacist or against progressive values. A criticism of affirmative action by the left: <a href="http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/may2001/aa1-m03.shtml" rel='nofollow'>www.wsws.org/articles/2001/may2001/aa1-m03.shtml</a> Scroll down to "The struggle for social equality" if you're short on time.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 8:25 p.m.
In a post above I made at 930AM: "In the former [the Baake decision], the Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action in university admissions was unconstitutional, but that race could be a factor taken into account in admissions decisions. In the G&G cases the court affirmed this decision, ruling in the Gratz case that LS&A admissions amounted to an unconstitutional racial preference, and in the Grutter case that the Law School's process did not." Someone, apparently, cannot or will not read. Not surprising. Good Night and Good Luck
braggslaw
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 4:37 p.m.
"Bakke declared "race-based" admissions to be unconstitutional. G&G affirmed that decision." this was your post not mine. I think you have failed as a left wing intellectual
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 4:21 p.m.
"Ghost is making sweeping generalizations about Bakke without knowing or telling the relevant facts. Quotas-No Race- can be used as a factor" Gee, I think I've said that several times elsewhere in this discussion, though not in this strand. Reading comprehension problems, perhaps? Good Night and Good Luck
braggslaw
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 3:52 p.m.
Milton, Ghost is making sweeping generalizations about Bakke without knowing or telling the relevant facts. Quotas-No Race- can be used as a factor
Milton Shift
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 3:09 p.m.
So are you going to discus the social implications at all? Or just obsess over the distinction between the common and legal definition of a term (which doesn't apply in any other country on earth), despite the fact that these types of policies and their social realities are applicable throughout the world, and will endure well beyond the end of the US government and the US legal system?
Milton Shift
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:56 p.m.
I am not talking about the legality of it here. I am talking about a principled position that is not narrowly confined to any one country or set of legal definitions. And as always, I appreciate the dismissive insults. I could return the favor and suggest you don't understand the social implications at all and that's why you're slinging mud over whether to use the common or legal definition (in US courts only) of "affirmative action."
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:48 p.m.
I would be nice, however, if you actually knew what you were talking about. But that's your choice. Good Night and Good Luck
Milton Shift
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:41 p.m.
I don't have to talk like an attorney in a federal courtroom to make a point about a social issue.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:39 p.m.
Milton: That's not the court's definition, nor is it the definition under federal law. Read Bakke. Until then you don't know what you are "talking" about. Good Night and Good Luck
Milton Shift
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:37 p.m.
"Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, gender, or national origin"[1] into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually as a means to counter the effects of a history of discrimination." Wikipedia's definition. What's your definition? If you don't think UM has used and continues to use affirmative action policies (under other names - now they look at whether you come from a geographic region with a large minority population), defining "affirmative action" as given above, then I don't know what planet you've been living on.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:26 p.m.
"Those who defend affirmative action . . . " Affirmative action in public university admissions is dead. Died 32 years ago this summer. Any article or person who uses that term in relation to this case is either 1) ignorant, or 2) knowingly using a term that has no meaning in this context in order to enlist support and to inflame anger. In the case of 2), I'll let you decide what one would call such a person. I've made no judgment. There are no other options. But feel free to keep using and citing the term. Good Night and Good Luck
Milton Shift
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:18 p.m.
Murrow, before resorting to insults and a dearth of arguments, perhaps you could read that article to get an idea of where I'm coming from. "Those who defend affirmative action and race-based politics, however sincere may be their desire to defend the rights of oppressed minority workers and youth, accept the framework of capitalist society and the domination of the vast majority of working people by a tiny privileged elite. They inevitably adapt themselves to the politics produced by this system, which is based on splitting working people along racial, ethnic, religious and other lines to cover up the fundamental class divisions of society."
braggslaw
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:15 p.m.
a rose by any other name would still be affirmative action...
braggslaw
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:14 p.m.
Is the union thug white? or a person of color?
clownfish
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:13 p.m.
Or being called a"union thug".
braggslaw
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:06 p.m.
I agree with you but that card will always be played. Being called a racist is akin to being called a pedophile.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 1:30 p.m.
For those who keep using the term "affirmative action," regarding the this decision, might I suggest that you read up on the Baake case and on the Gratz and Grutter cases (the UM cases) In the former, the Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action in university admissions was unconstitutional, but that race could be a factor taken into account in admissions decisions. In the G&G cases the court affirmed this decision, ruling in the Gratz case that LS&A admissions amounted to an unconstitutional racial preference, and in the Grutter case that the Law School's process did not. So, per Baake (1978), affirmative action in university admissions has been dead for more than 30 years. Amazing what a little education will do! Good Night and Good Luck
KJMClark
Sun, Jul 3, 2011 : 11:48 a.m.
Looking at the Grutter case again, there are some important points in there that might make things swing the other way this time. First, the court is quite different (what a change from 2003.) Of the original majority, only Ginsburg and Breyer are left. Of the original dissenters, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas are left. Of the new court, Roberts and Alito seem likely to uphold Michigan's referendum along with the original three dissenters, and Sotomayor and Kagan seem likely to side with Ginsburg and Breyer. But that leaves a 5-4 majority upholding Michigan's referendum. And Justice Thomas apparently presaged some of this argument in his dissent: "Another criticism raised by Justice Thomas compared Michigan Law to the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, where California's Proposition 209 had barred Berkeley Law from "granting preferential treatment on the basis of race in the operation of public education." Despite Proposition 209, however, Berkeley Law was still able to achieve a diverse student body. According to Thomas, "the Court is willfully blind to the very real experience in California and elsewhere, which raises the inference that institutions with 'reputations for excellence'... rivaling [Michigan Law's] have satisfied their sense of mission without resorting to prohibited racial discrimination." [Wikipedia on Grutter] Why would they take the case with the whole thing having been last decided in 2003? Because it's a different case. This Appeals Court ruling is essentially throwing out Michigan's Amendment, California's Prop 209, and Washington's Initiative 200. Gratz and Grutter involved only challenges to UM's admission policies. This case involves a challenge to three states' constitutional amendments.
conservative
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:21 p.m.
Good morning and May the Force be with you!
dexterreader
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 1:25 p.m.
This issue was addressed and resolved at the polls back in 2006. The voters have spoken.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 12:52 p.m.
Listen carefully. Can you hear it? Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. All that sturm und drang? That's the sound of white entitlement. Good Night and Good Luck
outdoor6709
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 12:20 p.m.
Would someone explain "burden to racial minorities"? If you look at the groups that fought prop 2 their names would lead you to believe they support discrimination by race. How is that a good thing? If liberals want a race neutral society, you need to allow people to stand on their own 2 feet and not rely on preferencial treatment by government. Does anyone believe there should be 50% white players, 20 % latino, ect on sports teams? No. Mertit rules. Why is education different?
1bit
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 4:45 p.m.
braggslaw: There are a lot of factors involved in the admissions process. I disagree that using race or gender would equate to quotas.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:47 p.m.
"race being used as a factor equals implied quotas...." Not according the that famous liberal and his court, William Rehnquist. Good Night and Good Luck
braggslaw
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 1:59 p.m.
race being used as a factor equals implied quotas....
1bit
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 1:06 p.m.
No need for us to explain it - read the link for yourself. The Court of Appeals does a pretty good job of explaining their reasoning and the legal precedents. As I noted above, no one is arguing for quotas. But the US Supreme Court has already ruled that race can be a factor in the admissions process. And, again, I believe that anyone using the word "merit" needs to define it.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 1:05 p.m.
Because intellectual heft is not as easily judged as is basketball talent. Good Night and Good Luck
C. S. Gass
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 6:53 a.m.
As usual, the activist judges on the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit are wrong. And their decision is the most convoluted and unintelligible construction. It lacks sense. It will likely not stand. What the ACLU has to applaud is beyond me. This case is not about access, it is about preferential treatment of one group over another. THAT is what they've come to represent. They've lost all relevance. And finally, the "Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight For Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN)" apparently intends to "Fight For Equality By Any Means Necessary" by using inequality as a weapon. News flash! You just lost the moral high ground...
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 1:11 p.m.
"This case is not about access, it is about preferential treatment of one group over another" Sorry, but no. The Supreme Court, in Baake, ruled that it was NOT preferential treatment to take race into account in admissions decisions. Both the Gratz and Grutter decisions--the UM cases--affirmed this reading of Baake. Activist judges? Hardly. They were merely affirming decisions made by Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, et. al. But nice use of loaded language to blur reality. Good Night and Good Luck
Gnat
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 4:09 a.m.
MLK must be turning over in his grave over this ruling. A court admitting that minorities cannot make it on their own merit.
1bit
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 11:13 a.m.
Please define "merit". Specifically, what factors you believe are necessary for admission and how much weight you would give them. As I've noted to a couple other posters, it is very slippery to define. I'm not sure most of us deserve much of anything - a lot of our lot in life has come through luck, chance or grace. Working hard helps, no doubt, and perhaps we create our own fate. But I am not so quick to deny opportunity to others.
KJMClark
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:41 a.m.
So the Appeals court ruled that "colorblind" is not the same as "equal protection". Unfortunately, they had to rely on 1969 and 1982 Supreme Court rulings, and this is a very different Supreme Court now. I'd just as soon the Supreme Court sat this one out, but I have a feeling they might not.
alan
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 1:58 a.m.
I think that time could be better spent focusing on the disparity in preparation. A black kid attending DPS is at a severe disadvantage but admitting those who might not be otherwise prepared does not solve the problem for all of those other kids.
Sallyxyz
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 12:28 a.m.
Use merit for admissions. Period. Stop the use of race, and also stop the admission of children of big donors. There is no place in a great university for students who are there for reasons other than merit.
1bit
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 12:34 a.m.
Sally: see my above comment to xmo. It would be helpful for you to define the factors you consider "merit" in the admissions process and how much weight you would put upon them. You may find that the factors you consider important, others would discount.
Carl Ebach
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 12:09 a.m.
Skin color has always been used in college admissions, for over 250 years it was use tp keep people of color out over the last 20 years it has been used to help get people of color in. Doing the math there is still 230 years to go to make it even.
antikvetch
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 8:57 p.m.
I responded to Carl's statement, not the original argument. Your eagerness to score points seemingly interfered with that comprehension -
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 8:18 p.m.
No. The 14th Amendment was raised by yesterday's court decision to which you object. Hence your use of the NBA analogy was inappropriate given that the 14th Amendment is concerned solely with a government's treatment of its citizens. Hence my comments to that your use of the NBA analogy was, at best, a silly one. Good Night and Good Luck
antikvetch
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 5:25 p.m.
The 14th Amendment argument was first used by you, Sir, to justify your belittlement of a sport analogy. I did not raise it, nor have I disagreed that it pertains to duties of the State. I do disagree that it promulgates the use of racial preference at any level. Title VII, amongst others, could (and has been) utilized to promote "fairness" in private employers, which would include the NBA. Thus, my response to Carl. The phrase "straw man" comes to man -
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 5:03 p.m.
There is an absolutely irrefutable interpretation about to whom the 14th Amendment applies. It might help if you actually read it as you would see that meaning. What is open to substantial question is the meaning of "due process", "privileges and immunities" and (especially relevant in this decision) "equal protection'. But there is no doubt about to whom the 14th Amendment applies. It applies to units of government--to public institutions--not to private institutions. But feel free to prove me wrong. @Mike: Yes. Because other people have put up with and succeeded despite injustice and inequity, we ought tolerate injustice and inequity. Yeah, that makes sense. Good Night and Good Luck
Mike
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 4:50 p.m.
Even? Fair? Equitable? You want someone else to do that for you? Who did it for the germans, italians, irish, japanese, and other ethnicities in the past? They did. They held each other accountable and worked hard to make sure their kids were well educated and had solid families and strong communities. They modeled themselves after sucessful, educated people and assimilated into the american culture. They let go of the past and only looked forward to a better future for themselves and their families. Life isn't even, fair, or equitable; it is what you make of it. Ask any successful person of color and they will tell you that.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 3:09 p.m.
"Ah, so the mythical concept of "fairness" should only apply to state-run institutions" I see that you'read the 14th Amendment? Because that is EXACTLY what it requires. Does not apply to the NBA or to private organizations. Only to public ones. Or were you simply being sarcastic and inadvertently hit on the truth? Good Night and Good Luck
antikvetch
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:47 p.m.
Ah, so the mythical concept of "fairness" should only apply to state-run institutions, and it is possible to legislate "smarter" but not "faster" or "stronger". Thank you for the clarification.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 1:36 p.m.
"The NBA needs to mandate the acceptance of much shorter players as well" Yes, because an NBA team responsible for entertainment and a state-run university responsible for education are the same thing. I love all the silly sports comparisons. Tells me there's no intellectual basis for their sentiments. Good Night and Good Luck
antikvetch
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:25 a.m.
Amen, Carl. The NBA needs to mandate the acceptance of much shorter players as well -
ThoseWhoStayUofM
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 11:21 p.m.
There is no misrepresentation of the impact of race on the admissions process. According to the UofM's admissions process, a black student with a 3.0 GPA was treated equal to a white student with a 4.0 GPA assuming all other criteria was equivalent. I, as many others, believe that this is not ok. Not only is it insulting to African-Americans, it is also holding capable students back in lieu of less capable ones. This mentality harms EVERYBODY in society and ought to be treated as such. The best and brightest students should be put in a position to receive the kind of academic enrichment that they need to become the best contributors to our society as they can. Doing anything short of that is robbing them of their potential as well as harming society and it's potential. Really, this discussion comes down to a misallocation of values. What is more important, equality or aggregate welfare?
johnnya2
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 1:27 p.m.
Actually it does not. Its funny how I never hear from people from say Oakland County who did not get into UM and the spot that they think they were entitled to was taken up by a person from the UP, even though the Oakland County resident had a higher GPA and ACT score. The U wants DIVERSITY. That means geographic, cultural, racial and gender diversity. It really amazes me how people think the playing field has been leveled after 50 years after HUNDREDS of years of rigging the game in their favor. There may be a day when race does not matter, but that day is not yet here. I would submit the entire "birther movement" is proof positive of that.
Milton Shift
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 8:53 a.m.
johnnya2, why don't we use family college history instead of race as a criteria? The problem I have with affirmative action is it leaves poor white males from disadvantaged backgrounds out to dry.
1bit
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 12:13 a.m.
"There is no misrepresentation of the impact of race on the admissions process." No, but there is a misrepresentation of whether these students "merited" being at U of M. I believe they did earn their spot at U of M - it wasn't handed to them simply because of their race. If we really lived in a society where white and black people were born to equal opportunity, then your argument would hold water. But if one person is impoverished or comes from destitute means, or limited opportunity, and manages a 3.0 GPA by grit and determination then I would suggest that they "merit" admission to U of M as much as someone born to wealth, with every possible educational opportunity, who endeavors to get a 4.0 GPA.
johnnya2
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 11:53 p.m.
No, the fact of the matter is simple. EVERY study about attending college comes down to family history of college. Whites have had a distinct advantage in this. Blacks were not allowed to attend schools. "Separate but equal" was tried as well to keep blacks out of the educational system. If your philosophy is to base it soley on merit, then every person who has a parent who is an alum should not get ANY preference (they currently so). There should not be a preference for in-state students (there currently is), and geography within the state should not be a factor (the U tries to get people from each county). I would also suggest that athletics should not be involved in admission decisions (what does that have to do with ability to get an education). Musical or dancing talent should be ignored unless it is a persons major. If they do not major in music, then it really does not matter that they can play guitar or piano now does it. All extra-curriculars should be thrown out as well. Student council president does not show you have an ability to do anything other than win a popularity contest. If you spent time volunteering in a homeless shelter it should not matter to the U. That is your CHOICE to do it, so don't expect extra credit for doing something you CHOOSE to do. Yep, lets turn all colleges into homogenized bastions of people who have no diverse experiences or backgrounds. Why would you want people who have lived an experience when the only thing that matters is an ACT score from a Saturday after your junior year in high school, or a GPA which is measured on two completely different teachers in two totally different regions with totally different standards.
1bit
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 10:42 p.m.
I believe there is a misperception that U of M was using race as the sole determinant of admission rather than part of the total picture of the applicant. U of M has a lot of applicants. Many who would be great students aren't accepted simply because there isn't room for everyone. To say that those who were accepted didn't "merit" admission simply because race was a factor included in the decision-process are incorrect. No one is arguing for "quotas" and the US Supreme Court has already dismissed this in the admissions process. But I would suggest reading the full decision by the Court of Appeals because the argument they provide in overturning Proposition 2 is compelling.
Milton Shift
Sun, Jul 3, 2011 : 5:06 p.m.
I'm not talking about the legality of it here, I'm talking about right and wrong. We can't have a sane discussion if I talk apples and you talk oranges.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:35 p.m.
Milton: You keep using the phrase "affirmative action" It died 32 years ago this summer in the Baake case. So, it you disagree with the findings in Baake, that's fine. It would be nice, however, if that disagreement were based on an understanding of the case. But whatever. I understand that you disagree with a court decision about which you appear to have little actual understanding. Good Night and Good Luck
Milton Shift
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 1:30 p.m.
Perhaps I disagree with those judges? I look at NEED. If someone came from a poor black ghetto, or a poor white trailer park, they deserve help and consideration of their circumstances. If they came from a privileged background, then NO HELP for them. They don't need it! Affirmative action policies skip over a huge chunk of disadvantaged poor people while tossing favors to people that don't need it at all. We need *need* based action. And for those who say blacks historically and currently are in much worse shape than whites, yes this is true, and need based consideration would overwhelmingly benefit them. But I am sick of people slipping through the cracks on both ends, it leaves people with real need out to dry and fuels resentment of progressive ideas. Anyone who thinks there aren't large numbers of white males from very disadvantaged backgrounds needs to tour Appalachian schools and see them taking basic spelling classes in the 12th grade. What I am calling for is objective determination of whether someone is from a disadvantaged background and objective determination whether it merits extra consideration of their potential beyond past achievements. Doing so on the basis of race or gender fails miserably at this by any standard.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 1:16 p.m.
Milton: I urge you to read the Baake decision, and the Gratz and Grutter decisions (the UM cases). Those cases make clear that, in the eyes of the court, taking race into account is NOT discrimination. And Gratz and Grutter were decided by the Rehnquist Court--hardly a bastion of left-wing ideology. You might want to let some facts inform your opinions. Good Night and Good Luck
KJMClark
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 12:06 p.m.
The 14th amendment guarantees "the equal protection of the laws". It looks to me like the appeals court is basically saying that if we lock in things the way we are by ignoring race, we will be locking in a situation that still has vestiges of past discrimination.
1bit
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 11:05 a.m.
""We find that Proposal 2 unconstitutionally alters Michigan's political structure by impermissibly burdening racial minorities," he wrote in the majority opinion." Milton: I'm assuming you're not a lawyer. Neither am I and I didn't understand why the Court of Appeals would use the phrase of "impermissibly burdening racial minorities" in regards to Prop 2.. If you read the full decision, however, you would see that they are precisely arguing that Prop 2 is discrimination on the basis of race. Basically, there is legal precedent that the majority cannot "rig the game" to continually favor it over the minority. It seems to me that the Supreme Court will have to look at this for clarification.
Milton Shift
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 5:15 a.m.
Either it is illegal to discriminate on basis of race or it isn't. If Prop 2 is unconstitutional, then so is the Civil Rights Act. You don't get to pick and choose what's unconstitutional based off of what serves your interests.
1bit
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 12:06 a.m.
I'm assuming the "it" you mean is race. The US Supreme Court has already ruled race can be factor in admissions. There are very valid reasons for allowing race, gender, ethnicity, etc to have "value" to an admissions committee. Again, although I am not a lawyer, the argument of the full decision is relatively easy to grasp for the layman and Prop 2 seems unconstitutional. I'm fairly certain this will be reevaluated at higher levels of the judiciary.
braggslaw
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 11:37 p.m.
Before the legislation and court cases it granted 20 out of 100 points... basically turning a 2.5 to a 3.5 gpa
braggslaw
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 10:17 p.m.
As a person of color it is an insult to me to use skin color to give me an advantage in college admissions... How did it go... content ... character
Will Warner
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 6:55 p.m.
10 nm? You're the invisible man, BL! As far as I know, there are no set-asides for ultraviolet.
braggslaw
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 6:07 p.m.
ROYGBV I am in the upper emag spectrum... 10nm
Will Warner
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 5:25 p.m.
braggslaw, are you a person of color in the sense that you play a role in chromatic dispersion?
Mike
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 4:44 p.m.
People like you should be celebrated in the person of color community instead you are looked at as a sell-out while rappers and sports figures who can hardly put a sentence together are held up as the example to follow.
J. A. Pieper
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 2:11 a.m.
My family dealt with the same kind of situation when AAPS decided to lower the GPA for the National Honor Society so more people of color could become members!
Denise
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 11:59 p.m.
But it happens...
tdw
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 11:31 p.m.
Sir/ Mam ( ? ) I'm white so I really don't know how to put it into words that would be executable ( just for the record I use my hand held spell check a lot so I don't look too stupid ) but I have always thought the same way.There are MANY blacks ( again sorry for my lack of PC ) that are much more smarter than me.I've always thought the theroy ( see I can't even spell theory correct ) that standards need to be lowered for blacks, was in and of itself was racist.I think it would be much better to help those who are qualityifed ( Rats ) fininaceally ( Rats again ) would be much better than lowering standards for a " public " collage
Roadman
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 9:43 p.m.
One of the most vocal opponents of affirmative action was James Meredith, the black student who integrated the University of Mississppi in 1962. He felt it accorded African-Americans a status as second-class citizens.
bedrog
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 10:03 p.m.
Are you looking to stand for the Supreme Court when whoever you support wins ??( and its an ongoing mystery from the nature of your post s who that is...although the GREEN candidate is a longshot as he/she may well be in Israeli detention soon...here's hoping anyway!). And there is no "TRUTHINESS Party" to my knowledge...and if so steven colbert would be the nominee.
xmo
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 9:36 p.m.
Its too bad when you allow race to be a factor in admissions. Why not go simply on merit? Ooops! Too many Asian-Americans would get in! Affirmative action tells Blacks/Latino students that they cannot compete with the rest of America!
Macabre Sunset
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 8:39 p.m.
The SAT is the best predictive measure available, but it is not a complete picture. Keep in mind that it measures readiness for a college-level program, not the intelligence of an applicant. Race, however, should be completely eliminated as an admissions factor and replaced by socio-economic status.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 12:51 p.m.
Not all GPAs are created equal. SAT/ACT test scores do a fairly poor job of predicting student success. So universities take other factors into account in their admissions decisions. Good Night and Good Luck
1bit
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 1:10 a.m.
Denise: It is data. I didn't use the words "deserving", "background", or "where they come from", you did. The chief argument for using this data is to add diversity to the class. Obviously not everyone black came from poor means and not everyone white came from wealth. The idea is, however, that numbers do not define a person. There is value to insuring a spectrum of different people at an institution of learning that is dedicated to fostering new and sometimes disparate ideas.
Denise
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 12:57 a.m.
1bit.... "Adding race, gender, ethnicity, etc to the mix doesn't really change that and I would argue only gives more data for the committee to consider in developing an understanding of the applicant." 1bit...you really think all this can tell you more about an applicant? Race, gender, ethicity, etc. doesn't tell you anything about an individual or how deserving they are. It also doesn't give you ANY information about their background or where they come from.
1bit
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 12:22 a.m.
xmo: The problem is defining "merit". How would you define it? A grade-point-average? Well, some schools are easier than others - so you can't compare it equally. An SAT score? I don't think we want one score on a standardized test to be the determinate of our future educational opportunities. How about extracurricular activities? Well, what if I'm puny and can't play sports? How do you rate the value of one extracurricular activity versus another? The problem is that much of the admissions process is subjective in one way or another. Adding race, gender, ethnicity, etc to the mix doesn't really change that and I would argue only gives more data for the committee to consider in developing an understanding of the applicant.
tdw
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 9:40 p.m.
xmo PLEASE do not bring logic or reason into this.It makes it confusing
glacialerratic
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 9:26 p.m.
Again, this is a mess. "According to university statistics, 1,709 black students entered the school in the fall of 2006 — about 6.6 percent of the freshman class." Really? Just do the math to see if this makes any sense at all. The link, by the way, is to enrollment data, not admissions numbers.
Kyle Feldscher
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 11:06 p.m.
I've changed the story to reflect that, thank you for pointing that out.