<p>
[quote]
In a legal battle with potential implications for any state that bans affirmative-action preferences, a federal appeals court is weighing arguments that the ban adopted by Michigan voters in 2006 is unconstitutional because it places distinct burdens on minority residents seeking more access to the state's public colleges.</p>
<p>A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is expected to hear oral arguments in the case this week.</p>
<p>....</p>
<p>The plaintiffs' argumentthat Proposal 2 prevents minority members from using political means to try to obtain fair access to educationechoes those that were made in a challenge of Proposition 209, a similar amendment to California's Constitution adopted by that state's voters in 1996. Even though the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the California measure in 1997, opponents of the Michigan ban say they have a decent chance of prevailing.</p>
<p>One key reason is that, following the Ninth Circuit's decision, the U.S. Supreme Court removed much of the uncertainty surrounding the legality of race-conscious college-admissions policies with its 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision, which upheld the consideration of applicants' race and ethnicity by the University of Michigan Law School.
<p>Agreed, bearcats. So much for Federalism and State’s Rights. Makes me sick to think that someone with a 3.0 and a 22 ACT can bump out overqualified candidates simply because they’ve got a lower melanin count.</p>
<p>I believe the real issue here is no one is “entitled” to attend University of Michigan, an attitude that is all too common among applicants and their families. Admissions offices at elite and selective universities use a holistic approach, which includes non-academic AND academic factors. Getting a perfect score on the ACT/SAT and high school GPA is not enough and should not be the deciding factor. </p>
<p>U-M has consistently stated that it has a strong commitment to diversity ([Diversity</a> Matters](<a href=“http://www.diversity.umich.edu/]Diversity”>http://www.diversity.umich.edu/)). Historically, public colleges and universities have a strong tradition of providing its residents access to a quality education. This includes addressing the pipeline issues among URM residents who have a history of disenfranchisement. You don’t have to agree with the university’s stance, but I believe students benefit from a diverse student body.</p>
<p>I’m extremely liberal and still I’m very disapproving of affirmative action and other pieces of legislation and philosophies that devalue merit.</p>
<p>tenisghs, regardless of your opinion on the addmittance of “disenfranchised” students, that doesn’t change the fact that the University of Michigan is a public university whose endowment is granted by the government and paid for by taxpayer dollars. While I disagree with the idea of public education in general, the system in place dictates that students be admitted by merit, not by race.</p>
<p>I never said U-M should not admit students with high academic achievement (I did my undergrad at Northwestern, so I had a rigorous high school background). At the same time, colleges and universities also realize that a diverse student body is beneficial to the overall campus experience. It is the exposure to different ideas, backgrounds, beliefs, etc. Let’s be honest here: most college freshmen come from homogeneous communities, and college is the first time they will meet people from different backgrounds. Public higher education has a mission to serve its residents and the larger community, including underrepresented populations.</p>
<p>I agree that diversity is a great benefit, but not at the cost of denying more qualified applicants, which the University of Michigan does. If they were a private University, I could care less, do whatever you want. However, they’re funded by taxpayer dollars, and thus, admission should be based strictly on merit. That’s true for any public University. And besides, if U of M were TRULY committed to diversity, they would be far more accepting of political, social, and economic philosophy that differs from their (as you so aptly put it) homogeneous ideological environment.</p>
<p>I don’t get it. Underrepresented minorities are subject to the same tax brackets as everyone else, so how does it make sense to maintain an environment where they are systematically excluded from the Universities the majority of the resources go to? </p>
<p>I don’t agree with that argument necessarily as a defense of affirmative action, but I do believe it a refutation of the claim that Michigan and the other public universities have to conduct ethnic and gender diversity blind admissions because they’re marginally funded by tax payer dollars. </p>
<p>The people of Michigan have to be especially careful of how hard they rely on that argument as the University could easily leave them in the cold.</p>
<p>CronoTriggerfan, evaluation of merit is highly subjective. You appear to define that solely by a reference to a GPA and ACT score. I suspect if those were the sole criteria for admittance, then the football team would have lost to Delaware State too and that many of the artistic contributions to the university would be lost. You are also assuming that GPAs and ACT scores are unbiased measurements of one’s qualifications in the areas GPA and ACT seek to measure. It is also naive to think that race based admissions are the only non-merit based factors taken into account in making these decisions. Most of these factors tend to weigh against disadvantaged racial groups. I can’t believe too many black students would gain admittance to the University of Alabama or the University of Mississippi because their grandparents went there or that they would gain admittance to college because their parents or grandparents were senators or CEO’s of Fortune 500 companies. The goal of the university is to provide the people of the State of Michigan with the best educational opportunity it can offer even it means admitting non-residents, individuals with lower GPAs and test scores and those who are ideologically opposed to race based admissions. Some of my best friends from college have opposite political views from me. They make for interesting conversation and we have each influenced each other’s thoughts. If you are admitted to and choose to attend Michigan I hope you will find this to be the case for you but I suspect you are already resigned to this not being the case in which event you would probably be happier if you went elsewhere irrespective of the prestige factor.</p>
They’re not. They’re given extra benefits, which is why people are ****ed in the first place. :/</p>
<p>Res Ipsa, I’m not saying that at all. Obviously there’s more to a student than GPA and ACT, and even in cases where an applicant is poor in these areas, they can certainly offer plenty more to any college than just their numbers. What your post advocates is a well-balanced college experience, and I agree. But to grant admission to an underqualified applicant for the sole reason that they have a racial quota to fill is discriminatory and racist, and is amplified by the fact that they’re doing it with my tax dollars. </p>
<p>As for this statement…
Please don’t put words in my mouth. It’s exactly that kind of elitist arrogance that makes so many people frown upon America’s modern collegiate system.</p>
<p>Source, Crono? I am an URM, and I pay federal AND state taxes just like everyone else. What are these so-called benefits that you keep mentioning? URM students who come from Detroit disporportinately come from neighborhoods that have higher insurance premiums and taxes than their suburban neighbors. I can list all sorts of disparities. The people who are truly screwed are low-income families. The people who truly get benefits are middle-to upper-middle class suburban families.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>U-M does not practice quotas. In fact, the state of Michigan’s African American population is around 15%, yet they make up less than 6% of the U-M campus population. Don’t throw around terms if you don’t understand their meaning.</p>
<p>You’re kidding me, right? The University got dragged all the way to the Supreme Court for their use of quotas, you’d be a fool to believe they didn’t implement some sort of point-system. Just look at how padded their application is in favor of racial minorities. You could be Mary Sue Coleman, you’d still be lying to yourself if you thought that certain minority groups weren’t inherently advantaged in the application process. Diversity is all-important, after all. </p>
<p>And if you’re gonna cite statistics and bring up claims of class warfare, you’re just opening up Pandora’s Box. Quit trying to be a defender of diversity and multiculturalism when clearly the root of your argument is antipathy to those who make above the poverty line, not the protection of minority “rights”.</p>
<p>Please explain this with relation to tax brackets? And the university does very little with YOUR tax dollars as the state hardly gives the University what it gives back to students. And if you’re going to use words like underqualified, please define them. Underqualified for what?</p>
<p>I’m not relating these benefits to tax bracket, I’m saying in general. And really, you’re going to make me define this crap? Use common sense. Underqualified for admission. Underqualified students are people who don’t deserve to be there. Under the line of being qualified. Hence, UNDERqualified. A student with a 3.2 GPA and a 20 on their ACT is underqualified in relation to Michigan’s median stats. A student with a 3.75 GPA and a 29 on their ACT is qualified. The fact that U of M would accept the underqualified student over the qualified one due to the color of their skin is racist. End of story.</p>
<p>The stats suggest that African Americans in the state of Michigan are attending U of M and the other state colleges well below their percentage of the population. Assuming they are paying their state taxes to support these institutions, if access is being denied, then, as a group, African Americans may have a case to be made. State flagships across America are experiencing similar complaints - lower income students often African American are not able to access many state schools. The reasons are not totally clear but very high admission standards, rapidly increasing costs and the failure of aid to keep up are the most likely suspects. U of M, currently only 6% African American, may be approaching the legal threshold for a discrimination case, although I suspect they won’t win at this particular time. If those percentages continue to decline to say 3 or 4% at U of M and to 7 or 8% at the other states, it would seem prudent for the state to intervene. The taxpayer has the right to access the services for which they pay, the state system is not supposed to be state subsidized ed for the upper middle class.</p>
<p>And yes, it may be true that the passed proposition blocks attempts at a political solution.</p>
<p>Crono, quotas have been illegal constitutionally since * Bakke v. Regents of the University of California<a href=“1978”>/i</a>. U-M currently does not use quotas. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in *Grutter v. Bollinger<a href=“2003”>/i</a> that universities can consider various factors (such as race, but also socioeconomic, geographic, etc.) to achieve a diverse student body. My argument is not antipathy. I come from a middle-class background. However, I’m not naive to think that all students applying to U-M and other selective universities come from the same background and educational preparation. If U-M wants to give students from underserved populations a chance to succeed and graduate with a quality education, I support it. Education should not be exclusive only to the privileged and powerful.</p>
<p>“The stats suggest that African Americans in the state of Michigan are attending U of M and the other state colleges well below their percentage of the population.”</p>
<p>If you want to go down that logic, how much proportion of the tax does African American account for? You pay for what you get. No one is entitled to jack.</p>
</p>