Affirmative Action Banned in Michigan

Applying to College
21

<p>As a Michigander and Ann Arborite myself (proud to say I voted against Prop 2), I know that this will hurt the U of M severely. We saw that URM applications declined significantly in Cali after they banned AA -- I'm sure we'll see the same thing in Michigan. I assume this will also affect admissions for international students, since "national origin" is included in the ban. Now that it has passed, my guess is that U of M will become far more white, and the best black students in our state who can afford to will go to private schools, and those who cannot afford to will be deprived of a college education. Our law school, which has long prided itself on maintaining a diverse student body, will suffer similarly.</p>

<p>Also, depending on how broadly the law is applied, it my eliminate programs within the University which help certain groups. For example, I worked for four years for the ADVANCE Project (<a href="http://www.umich.edu/%7Eadvproj%5B/url%5D"&gt;www.umich.edu/~advproj&lt;/a&gt;), which studies and improves the condition of women in science and engineering at the U of M... this program may have to be completely disbanded, depsite the 5 hard years of work that we have done and all that we have accomplished for women scientists, for the university as a whole, and for academic science as a profession.</p>

<p>Overall, truly tragic.</p>

<p>From Mary Sue Coleman, President of the University of Michigan:</p>

<p>
[quote]
I believe there are serious questions as to whether this initiative is lawful, particularly as it pertains to higher education. I have asked our attorneys for their full and undivided support in defending diversity at the University of Michigan. I will immediately begin exploring legal action concerning this initiative. But we will not limit our drive for diversity to the courts, because our conviction extends well beyond the legal landscape.

[/quote]
<a href="http://www.umich.edu/pres/speeches/061103div.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.umich.edu/pres/speeches/061103div.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

22

<p>Although they say "national origin" that doesn't mean the same thing as citizenship. It's just another in the long string of terms they use to cover race/ethnicity. Universities will still be able to consider non-citizen (international) applicants differently.</p>

23

<p>I wonder how this will effect me and my fellow '08 applicants.I only I had stayed in Detroit and my father had taken his scholarship at Michigan. :(</p>

24

<p>Post #21: "The best black students in our state who can afford to will go to private schools and those who cannot afford to will be deprived of an education."</p>

<p>I don't see how banning affirmative action deprives anybody of an education. Some black students who previously would have gotten accepted at U of M might have to go to Michigan State, Oakland U., or Wayne State. And some that previously would have gone to MSU, OU, and Wayne State might end up at Eastern, Western, or Central Michigan. And those who previously would have gotten in EMU, WMU, and CMU might end up at Saginaw Valley or a community college, etc. If you want to go to college, you can still go to college. You just can't go to a college over white and Asian applicants with better academic credentials. Think about it: it's 2006 and the taxpayers voted overwhelmingly against using their money in a racist and sexist way. What a novel concept.</p>

25

<p>Liberals in general will not accept race blind admissions - they consider it simply too unfair to presume that some groups could ever compete on the merits</p>

26

<p>TourGuide, I agree with you. Well, the first part of your statement. I think the biggest concern is not that black students won't get an education--because the kinds of kids that get in to Michigan will have no problem whatsoever gaining admission to other places. But there is a real loss in that the other students at U-M will be deprived of the diverse environment that U-M (and a number of other organizations) believe is optimal. Optimal for their educations, optimal for the society in which they will live, work, and lead.</p>

<p>I can understand why many of you object to whatever boost students of color get. I don't agree with you, but I do understand. What I cannot understand is why you imply that what we have (once you eliminate AA) is a system where people get in only "on the merits" and that no one gets in over others with "better academic credentials." This is not true.</p>

27

<p>Ho, I see what you mean...sure, athletes will still get in with lesser academic credentials. And maybe legacies will get a boost. But in the vast majority of cases an applicants' academic credentials are what will get him/her in.</p>

<p>Regarding the students being deprived of a diverse environment...I think it will still be diverse...maybe with a few more folks with Asian backgrounds replacing some of the Black and Hispanic students. And don't you get exposed to diversity just about everywhere these days? In the workplace, in bars, restaurants, in stores...why do you think that if people don't get their dose of diversity in college, they won't get it at all?</p>

28

<p>As I see it, it's not just athletes and legacies--there are a number of justifications for telling one kid "no" and another one "yes," even though on some raw measure of 'academic credentials' the denied student was better. For example, U-M favors residents (for what most of us would agree are sound reasons) over nonresidents, and favors U.S. citizens & PRA over international students. In some schools and colleges, it also favors other non-academic qualities (for example, Art & Design). I'm not trying to suggest that these standards are offensive or wrong--but rather I'm just reaffirming the idea that it's not just some kind of pure academic meritocracy at work once you strip away gender and race preferences.</p>

<p>As for diversity, I don't think the issue is whether or not they'll be exposed at all--you're right that students' lives aren't confined to campus. But many prospective employers and educators believe it's meaningful that they experience a broad range of diversity on campus, in the residence halls, in classrooms, during group projects, etc.</p>

29

<p>Ahhh...and some conservatives (cough!).</p>

30

<p>Ho and Isleboy, what do you think about post #25? I think Citation is right. There is a condescending tone that seems to be coming from the blasters of Prop 2 that sounds something like this: "Those poor URMs--they'll never be able to compete, and without my benevolent help they'll never see the inside of a college classroom." Note how proud people are to mention that they voted against Prop 2...as if voting against it is the 2006 equivalent of marching in Selma. This is how I'm perceiving it. Maybe you don't mean it that way. Am I wrong? I think the discussion so far has been amazingly civil, so I'm not trying to start a crap fight. I just want to know what you guys think of post #25.</p>

31

<p>It's unnerving to be called "ho" LOL.</p>

<p>As for post #25, I don't agree with the first premise because I know liberals who don't agree with affirmative action, and would agree with race-blind admissions. It's one of those generalizations that (IMO) doesn't really inform thoughtful debate.</p>

<p>As for the second premise, it's not clear to me if he means liberals believe it's unfair to presume some people can't compete, or if they believe that it's unfair to make those people compete. I think he means the latter. I can't really speak to that. That's not really the way I frame it, because I see it as more of a supply-and-demand issue. When some kind of flat admission system is going to yield you too few of a group you find valuable, you may wish to change that system. That goes for residents, for men in nursing, for students of color, for students from rural areas, for oboe players. Although it has a plethora of qualified applicants, U-M has a relative undersupply of specific kinds applicants that it believes is necessary for an optimal educational environment. Therefore, it uses techniques like affirmative action (to boost admits) and scholarships (to boost yield), to shape its class from among those qualified. </p>

<p>That's how I look at it--I don't frame it as helping the downtrodden.</p>

<p>Now, it is true that some groups seem to have a greater likelihood of having encountered barriers to opportunity (the poor, for example, and yes, some minorites. We should all be worried about that (regardless of our AA stance). Some would make a case for why those students deserve a different kind of evaluation (a case which, admittedly, not all would agree with). But it would be ludicrous to claim that NO students from such group have a chance, or could succeed. Do some liberals claim that? Maybe they do. Surely all of us can see that it's not credible and, indeed, that's pretty insulting. I think they are right to be worried about vulnerable groups, but I believe it is misinterpretation to conclude that when Citations' liberals talk about those groups, they mean ALL students of a particular race.</p>

<p>I guess generalizations are attractive because they make it easy to scorn your opponent's position. Both sides do it. They pretend to misunderstand, they exaggerate the other's statements, all so they can "point out" how ludicrous the other side is. It's intellectually lazy, and altogether too prevalent on the internet. I've done it too; I'm not proud of it. I think it drives thoughtful, moderate people from discussions.</p>

32

<p>What is stopping colleges in Michigan from asking your race? College admissions is not emperical, so any random factor can tip you closer to admission or closer to rejection. Michigan can still ask people race and still admit URMs with slightly lower stats. You can always attribute the admission of less qualified URMs to "amazing" essays and recs. Also, if colleges are truly color blind, there is a good chance that the diversity may be 45% asian, 45% white, and 10% other (at best). Colleges would never want these types diversity numbers.</p>

33

<p>Hoedown, I think he meant "in general" liberals think minorities can't compete...and he meant it the former way, not the latter way. And I don't think his position is outlandish, considering that when race is taken out of the admissions process, affirmative action proponents (including President Mary Sue Coleman) often make the point that diversity will come to an end. They usually don't say "Diversity will be slightly less." They make it out to be like diversity will simply vanish. What conclusion are we to draw from that type of position other than they think the underrepresented minorities cannot compete against whites and Asians?</p>

<p>Also, re your excellent point that colleges give an edge to all sorts of people, oboe players, athletes, etc.: it seems that as a society we've come to the conclusion that it's generally unfair to use criteria that one can't change. You can't change your height, race, gender, national origin, etc., so we've decided it's generally unfair to use them as criteria for jobs, etc. Likewise, we think people should be able to hold onto their chosen religion and still be able to get jobs. Of course there are obvious exceptions like you can't become a Catholic chaplain in the Army if you're Jewish, etc. But what happened was that we went to great lengths to outlaw the use of those factors in getting jobs, college admission, etc., and in the next breath said "Oh, well you CAN use race, gender, etc., as long as you use it to favor THESE groups." The irony of instituting major official uses of ethnicity and gender (i.e., the warped use of affirmative action as it evolved way past mere outreach programs and into differing sets of standards) on the heels of outlawing it seems to lost on many proponents of affirmitive action.</p>

34

<p>I heard Michigan is going to try to fight the ban.</p>

35

<p>Yes, I agree that such language is histrionic. It may be that they are aiming for melodrama, but I also know that some are still reeling from the revelations about Berkeley, where the number of certain groups of URM are alarmingly low. But even given that case, even if it were to be duplicated here at Michigan, I think it goes too far to say diversity would disappear. It would definitely diminish, which is worrisome to those who value it and believe it is a critical part of U-M's success.</p>

<p>I like your distinction about that which you can change and that which you can't. I think that's a useful way to think about what seems fair. </p>

<p>I don't think the irony is lost on too many people, that we work so hard to eliminate race and gender in some areas and then turn around and think they are relevant in others. The irony abounds. But it's an irony and inconsistency that proponents of affirmative action apparently feel is worth enduring.</p>

36

<p>It's not that they "eliminate race and gender in some areas and then turn aboutnd and think they are relevant in others." They pat themselves on the back for eliminating race and gender in one area, and then IN THE SAME AREA they decide to use race and gender.</p>

<p>Re diveristy...do you find it bothersome when the representation of Asians on the football team is "alarmingly low" or when the representation of whites on the basketball team is "alarmingly low"? How can women get by on the softball field and in the nursing schools without a male point of view? If diversity is so vital, why are there still thousands of black students who choose to go to historically black colleges? Why are such colleges allowed to exist if their primary feature (a lack of racial diversity) is such an impediment to a good education? I'm probably wrong, but it appears like people are pretty inconsistent about where a lack of diversity is a problem, and where it isn't.</p>

<p>Essay topic: "Can a university have diversity without affirmative action?"</p>

<p>I've read statements from the presidents of U of Mich and EMU, and both seem to be turning this into a moral issue which they think makes it trump any legal concerns. When abortion foes do the same, they are often called religious kooks.</p>

37

<p>Tourguide,
Historically black colleges and universities do not exclude anyone. Students of any race can apply and attend. HBCU's formed because blacks were not allowed to attend "white schools." Should they all close now because minorities are allowed to attend other schools?</p>

38

<p>The distinction between what you change and what you can't sounds nice, but truly doesn't hold up.</p>

<p>You can practice singing all you want, but if you don't have a nice voice or a good ear, you won't get recruited to a music program. You can study as hard as you want, but if you aren't somewhat intelligent to begin with, you won't get into the best schools. Students, of course, are evaluated all the time on things they can't change, like basic music ability, intelligence (studying for the SAT will only raise your score so much -- not that I think the SAT is an intelligence test, but it at least pretends to be and colleges think it is). Similarly, most college applicants don't get a say in where they live and where they go to school -- this is their parents' choice. However, most people think UM giving preference to Michigan residents is fair. Similarly, they don't mind the school taking into account that the student went to a particularly competitive high school.</p>

<p>The distinction just isn't that easy.</p>

39

<p>Perfect, I know that historically black colleges admit all types of people. I'm glad they exist, and I hope they continue to prosper. My point is that if they are 90% black, nobody blasts them and claims it's tough for the students there to get a good education because of a lack of diversity, even though they are way less diverse than most of the other colleges in the country. It's the selective way that diversity crises are located that I'm saying is a bit odd. A school is 90% black, 5% white, 3% Hispanic, and 2% Asian, it's great. A school is 60% white, 30% Asian, 5% black, and 5% Hispanic and it's a diversity catastrophe, nobody can get a decent education, and Mary Sue Coleman will be standing on the steps of the admissions building like George Wallace, trying to stop the National Guard from escorting in some Asian students.</p>

40

<p>I agree with post #31 in that not all liberals agree with affirmative action. Two pieces of unsourced evidence.
1) I'm extremely liberal and for the most part against affirmative action. I've read proposal 2, and along with proposal 4 (eminent domain), it's too "all or nothing".
2) Michigan and California are each very liberal states. Here in Michigan the percentages were 52%-48%. I'm not quite sure about California.</p>

<p>I remember when I was voluteering for the Democrats I overheard a conversation between a couple women, and one said "If proposal 2 passes, you and I will never get a job again." I felt like exploding. Figuratively.</p>