Michigan Anti-Affirmative-Action Law Overturned by Federal Appeals Court

College Search & Selection
1

<p>Michigan Anti-Affirmative-Action Law Overturned by Federal Appeals Court</p>

<p>By Andrew Harris - Jul 1, 2011 3:01 PM CT</p>

<p>A U.S. appeals court declared unconstitutional an amendment to Michigan’s state constitution that barred its public colleges including the University of Michigan and Michigan State University from considering race, gender or ethnicity in admissions.</p>

<p>The voter-initiated amendment, known as Proposal 2, took effect in December 2006, according to the Cincinnati-based appellate panel, in the wake of two 2003 U.S. Supreme Court rulings that said while universities couldn’t establish racial group quotas, they could consider race, ethnicity and other factors.</p>

<p>“We find that Proposal 2 unconstitutionally alters Michigan’s political structure by impermissibly burdening racial minorities,” the appellate court majority said today.</p>

<p>The 2-1 ruling reversed a lower court decision in favor of the governing bodies for the state schools including Wayne State University in Detroit. The University of Michigan is in Ann Arbor. Michigan State is located in East Lansing.</p>

<p>Dissenting, U.S. Circuit Judge Julia Smith Gibbons said she didn’t find that the amendment impermissibly altered the state’s political process and affirmed its lawfulness under the U.S. Constitution.</p>

<p>The Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigration Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary, a Detroit-based civil rights organization, filed a lawsuit challenging Proposal 2 in that city’s federal courthouse in that in Nov. 2006.
‘Great Victory’</p>

<p>“It’s a great victory for students and for the new civil rights movement,” attorney and organization chairwoman Shanta Driver said today in a press statement after the ruling was released.</p>

<p>The decision, Driver said, means thousands of black, Latino and Native American students “will now have the chance to receive an education at the state’s best universities.”</p>

<p>Writing for the two-person majority, U.S. Circuit Judge R. Guy Cole said an equal protection violation was created when Proposal 2’s proponents took away state schools authority to institute “racially focused” policies and “lodged it in at the most remote level of Michigan’s government, the state constitution,” effectively putting the issue out of the political reach of those who favored such policies.</p>

<p>Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, in a press statement, said he will seek reversal of the appeals court decision.
‘Based Upon Merit’</p>

<p>“Entrance to our great universities must be based upon merit and I will continue the fight for equality, fairness and rule of law,” Schuette said in a press statement.</p>

<p>Jennifer Gratz, whose 1997 lawsuit over the University of Michigan’s admissions policies led to one of the 2003 Supreme Court rulings cited in today’s appellate ruling, called the two- judge majority opinion “insanity,” and said she was confident it would be overturned.</p>

<p>Gratz, 33, campaigned for adoption of Proposal 2 and now works for the American Civil Rights Institute in Sacramento, California, which describes its mission as educating the public on “the harms of racial and gender preferences.”</p>

<p>“The U.S. Supreme Court has already approved this process and said the ultimate rule is with the voting public of each state,” she said. “Judges don’t get to legislate from the bench and overturn the will of the people.”
Amendment Upheld</p>

<p>U.S. District Judge David M. Lawson, in a March 2008 decision, upheld the amendment to the state’s constitution.</p>

<p>“Proposal 2 allows universities to use neutral criteria -- grades, test scores, schools of origin, community geographics, economic factors, and a host of others -- in the admissions process,” Lawson wrote.</p>

<p>“If these factors are not suitable proxies that generate racially diverse student populations, the universities will be all the poorer, but not because of conscious discrimination.” He added.</p>

<p>The case is Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights v. Regents of the University of Michigan, 08-1387, 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (Cincinnati). </p>

<p>Source: Michigan</a> Anti-Affirmative-Action Law Overturned by Federal Appeals Court - Bloomberg</p>

2

<p>Prop 2 should be reinstated. How is affirmative action not racist when it bases its judgment off race.</p>

3

<p>Hopefully there can be some meaningful conversation on this thread, at least before the AA wars take it over.</p>

4

<p>The Michigan office of undergraduate admissions promised the BSU (black student union) that it would get African American enrollment to 10% many years ago. Clearly, this has not happened and after proposal 2, African American enrollment at the university dropped to about 5%. The university has a mission to actively recruit students from Detroit and they have to judge some of them based on race because the average ACT for Detroit public schools is a 14, which is a couple of standard deviations below from the national average. I think striking down the ban is a good start. I didn’t have the grades and test scores that my peers had, but I’m performing at higher level than many of them. Access to resources, undergraduate competition, and the quality of Michigan’s undergraduate student body makes it possible for underrepresented minorities to perform at a high level. Granted this is anecdotal and not statistical evidence, but I think Michigan makes very hard decisions when deciding on which minorities to admit to the university.</p>

<p>Sent from my iPhone using CC</p>

5

<p>“Prop 2 should be reinstated. How is affirmative action not racist when it bases its judgment off race.”</p>

<p>The racial makeup of the community was 92.5% White, 3.4% Asian, 1.9% African American, 1.40% from other races, and 0.80% from two or more races. 2.5% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race.</p>

<p>Those are the stats for VILLANOVA.</p>

6

<p>Believe it or not, we know.</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1171479-michigan-ban-affirmative-action-ruled-unconstitutional.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1171479-michigan-ban-affirmative-action-ruled-unconstitutional.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1171429-federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-law-banning-affirmative-action-admissions.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1171429-federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-law-banning-affirmative-action-admissions.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

<p>bclintonk explains the rationale behind the decision in the second thread I linked.</p>

7

<p>

One wonders if those students are actually prepared for a rigorous college like Michigan. What good does it do to admit students if they simply fail out?</p>

<p>I’ve supervised college students in an area with an average ACT of 17, and those students were not performing anywhere near the level necessary for a top college. (It’s been estimated that less than 10% of students in the area are prepared for any college.) Professors and TAs can work with these students, but it’s primarily their job to teach material, not get remedial students up to speed.</p>

<p>I don’t think such things are necessarily indicative of intelligence or drive - I certainly had students who were both smart and dedicated - but it is exceedingly difficult for a college to overcome 13 years of poor education in a dysfunctional public school system.</p>

8

<p>rjknovi those are the stats for the city of Villanova PA…how does that have anything to do with me or Villanova University. I’ll get u the demographics for Washtenaw county (uofM’s location).</p>

9

<p>I see where you are coming from, but Michigan often places these students in the summer bridge program. The ones that fail out can’t enroll in the university and the ones that succeed (passing English 125, Math 103 (Advanced Algebra) and or SWC 100) demonstrate the ability to handle college level work. Michigan takes risks in admitting these students, but ultimately, I think they know what they are doing.</p>

<p>Many out of state students like myself who were admitted with below average stats did not have to participate in the bridge program partially because out of state families are generally well off and also because most out of state students come from good and challenging high schools.</p>

10

<p>Villanova University is only 85% white.</p>

11

<p>Why does the summer bridge program even exist? Why does UM admit people who they know can’t handle the work?</p>

12

<p>That’s why the bridge program exists. It’s for the university to see who can handle the work and who can’t. Most can and most end up enrolling in the university.</p>

13

<p>rjknovi, it’s a good thing private universities(villanova) don’t accept people based solely on skin color…I would believe in allowing underprivileged students a better chance for acceptance given their hardships(i.e. base affirmative action off the students/parent/parents financial status, location, and high school). Instead you are going to have the white kid from Detroit Public get rejected and the black/hispanic kid from Cranbrook get accepted.</p>

14

<p>It’s funny because the people that disagree with proposal 2 in Michigan are minorities and the people that agree are non-minorities. All the black that I know, which is most of the black people on campus at Michigan, are really happy right now.</p>