<p>"If those taxpayers wished to attend u of M and could not do so, they too would have a fair gripe, and they too, may wish their political reps to address the situation. "</p>
<p>Oh, okay. So we should admit 100% of applicants?</p>
<p>Public schools are in general unfair. So are police/fire force requirements (you have to pass a test after all). You have to be literate to hold a government job, that’s discriminatory against the illiterate. People are elected to public offices, that’s discriminatory against those who aren’t elected. The concept of money is discriminatory against everyone who is not the single richest person on Earth, get rid of all money.</p>
<p>The state higher ed system has a responsibility to educate those who wish to be educated at the appropriate level, that’s what people pay for. If that opportunity does not exist for a particular racial group, that group may then decide to take action either through the courts or politically. If I understand the complaint correctly, the issue is that Prop 2 blocks the right to take political action. One way to resolve the issue might be for the state to shift funding from U of M to lower level states or CC’s thus increasing minority enrollment. Another might be to set up other avenues for admittance to U of M, thus increasing minority enrollment. The state might even change the admittance qualifications and guarantee enrollment to the top 10% of students at any high school in the state. Prop 2 may block those approaches. The lawsuit might be more effective if it focused on the overall situation in Michigan and not just on the flagship. Is minority enrollment lagging at the other state schools? Gov data suggests that it is. Is that enrollment lagging at CC’s? Does the data indicate that a particular racial group is not able to access the system? If you paid taxes for health care and one particular group couldn’t access the system it would certainly be an issue. Why shouldn’t that also apply to the higher ed system?</p>
<p>It appears that the top institution in the system, perhaps the one that sucks up the most resources and provides them to an increasingly elite group is becoming inaccessible to a particular racial group. The most recent Supreme Court ruling indicated that race could be taken into consideration as an admission factor to provide educational diversity. Given the current situation in Michigan does Prop 2 interfere with the States ability to do that if it wishes?</p>
<p>You fail to make an important distinction: the Supreme Court ruled that states are allowed to use racial preferences, it certainly did not mandate that they be used. And yes, Prop 2 does interefere with Michigan’s ability to use racial preferences…that was the whole point! The state of Michigan decided, by popular referendum, that it does not wish racial prefences to be used by taxpayer funded public universities.</p>
<p>“race COULD be taken in to consideration,” does not mean that it has to be.</p>
<p>Prop 2 bans both discrimination and preferential treatment when it comes to race. But what does that exactly mean other than the obvious comparison of two applicants and their stats and scores. Can the State still seek diversity in it’s higher ed system. Federal law suggests that it can. Say you let the top 10 % of high school students automatically enroll at U of M. That may change the racial makeup of U of M but is it "preferential’ under Prop 2? Is the establishment of satelite feeder campuses in low income areas “preferential”? That would seem to satisfy Prop 2 and may well change the racial/economic makeup of U of M. Is that legal? These are the kind of questions that may come up if U of M continues to become more elite and inaccessible to low income students and African Americans.</p>
<p>I’ve been reveiwing the arguments here, and I think it’s simple. Michigan - Ann Arbor is an institution with some of the most sought after programs in the world. Entry into those programs is, by necessity, limited. Since they’re limited resources, entry into those programs should be based on whoever can best make use of the high quality education that is provided, regardless of race. Not all african americans are poor, and not all caucasians have access to high quality private, college preparatory, secondary school educations. So a poor caucasian, and a poor african american applying from the same school should have an equal chance of getting into the university, but their grades, scores, essays, and recommendations should be the deciding factor, and if the high school they attended did not adequetely prepare them for the rigors of UM courses, then neither should be admitted to the university. That’s what community colleges are for, and they’re tax-supported institutions too.</p>
<p>Honestly, the whole PC diversity thing drives me crazy. I’d venture to say that the vast majority of the high achieving students that make up the student body at UM could care less whether the campus is racially diverse. They’re, for the main part, so heads-down and into their books that a martian would go unnoticed except for the occasional suggestion that he might want to see a doctor about his green-in-the-gills look.</p>
<p>Every less academically-qualified student that is admitted, after all, takes the place of a more academically-qualified one, and if I were the one passed over for the sake of “racial diversity on campus”, I’d be one ticked-off taxpayer, and I might take “political or legal action” because of it too.</p>
<p>QwertyKey, you very well know the difference between exclusion of minorities and those from low income backgrounds and the situation you’re describing; you’re just trying to be facetious. </p>
<p>The point is that it is agreed upon, and upheld by the supreme court, that the exclusion of minorities and low income students from these universities is, on the macro level, systematic. Systematic problems often warrant systematic solutions and the question is whether the state has a right to block programs which explicitly seek to increase minority access, if this is the only way minorities are able to act politically for their own well being. </p>
<p>The plantiff has to prove that there is no other viable avenue for minorities to pursue political action to alleviate this systematic problem. The defense has to prove that there exists other ways. </p>
<p>So, those opposed, if we must, by ruling of the supreme court, operate under the premise that exclusion of minorities from higher education is systematic, how can we tangibly resolve that exclusion and how are people able to fight for the change?</p>
<p>One example might be to increase funding to impoverished inner-city schools. But if the overwhelming majority not attending these schools refuses to pay increased taxes to fund them, then it is not a viable solution. Systematically, students at these schools do not have the power to affect that change.</p>
Operating under the premise that a problem is systematic (which is a strange use for the word; perhaps you meant systemic?) is a HUGE assumption, and it’s an even bigger one to assume that the only solution is via government interventionism.
Well see, here in Michigan, we have a program called School of Choice, which states that you can attend any public school you want that is in the program. In fact, my school has a large influx of kids from Pontiac, a failing school district; with this in mind, the case for Prop 2 is immensely strengthened. </p>
<p>But I feel like everyone arguing in favor of the Supreme Court’s authoritarian rule is missing out on a little thing called the Bill of Rights, more specifically the Tenth Amendment. Whatever happened to Federalism? State’s Rights? Just because the Supreme Court decides to legislate from the bench doesn’t make it legal (see Dred Scott v. Stanford, Plessy v. Ferguson, Korematsu v. United States, Roe v. Wade, the list goes on). </p>
<p>Personally, I don’t even think we should have public schools at all in this country, but that’s a different argument entirely. :D</p>
<p>“QwertyKey, you very well know the difference between exclusion of minorities and those from low income backgrounds and the situation you’re describing; you’re just trying to be facetious.”</p>
<p>Yes. And you very well know know the difference between having no racial preference in admissions, and completely excluding minorities; you’re just… wrong.</p>
<p>So what is the actual situation in Michigan with African Americans in the colleges there. It looks from the figures that Wayne state is significantly black and also Central Michigan?
The two other big states U of M and M state are mostly white. I also read that Michigan is has one of the most segregated education systems in America. Almost 60% of blacks kids go to segregated schools. Does most of the money go to the white schools? I notice U of M appropriation per student is very high, over $15,000 a year.</p>
<p>Segregation? What the hell are you talking about? It’s 2009, not 1950. There’s no such thing as a “black school” or a “white school.” It’s a matter of simple location demographics. Your’re just extending your argument to ridiculous proportions at this point. Besides, even if you were to operate under the premise that Michigan schools are “segregated,” we, again, have School of Choice. No one has to go there.</p>
<p>I’m not really arguing on this, I’m not from Michigan I don’t know much about the school system there. The article says 60% in segregated schools and the most segregated system in America</p>
<p>That is one idiotic study. It defines a school as segregated if 80 percent or more of the students are black. So, if a city (i.e. Detroit) has more than an 80 percent black population, guess what? Detroit schools become “segregated”!</p>
<p>Maybe it is time to take Prop 2 to court, looks like in Michigan black folks are getting the short end of the stick, or perhaps whacked with the stick. What’s next a ban on driving while black!</p>
Really? The Government of the State of Pennsylvania has specifically set up black schools and does not allow black students to go to separated white schools? Because that’s what segregation means. I dunno if you’ve ever heard of Brown v. Board of Ed, but it was kind of a big deal. Pretty sure the NAACP would’ve burned Pennsylvania to the ground if the statement you just made was actually true (which, by the way, it isn’t). </p>
<p>
…aaaaand that’s where this debate stops being intellectual and starts getting stupid. You, sir, are a moron.</p>
<p>In my county the schools are segregated. Most of the better local districts are 95% white, and in the weaker districts the white kids go to parochial or private schools while the black kids remain in the publics. The black schools are mostly failing, the mostly black district next to me is ranked 401 in the state - there are 401 districts. NCLB mandated that kids in failing districts could move to other local districts but it never happened - blocked by local government and school boards. Here in Pa, schools are primarily funded by real estate taxes so if you live in a poor neighborhood you’re stuck. </p>
<p>I’m not getting the difference in your reasoning. What difference does it make if the government supports it or not. If 60% of black kids in Michigan go to primarily black schools then the schools are segregated. That’s what busing was all about in the '70’s.
Sounds like the Michigan colleges are becoming segregated too. Which are the black schools? Wayne State? are there any others. How good are they?</p>