<p>it might.................</p>
<p>Yes, the University feels it has a stake in this. It can't be surprising that administrators have an official opinion--the U went all the way to the Supreme Court to get a ruling on its right to consider race and gender in admissions.</p>
<p>Michigan law also specifically allows University officials to express their personal views on a ballot initiative or campaign issue.</p>
<p>FWIW, there is debate going on, and not just in the pages of the Daily. If you want a balanced view of the issues, the Center for the Study of Complex Systems at U-M has created a decision-making model to help people make up their own mind about the MCRI. It tells people both sides (how well it succeeds has been debated, but you can check it out for yourself), and encourages them to rank the importance of the issues involved -- and then use those rankings to guide them in making a voting decision consistent with their values. And like some of the posters here, it recognizes that this is a complex issue and you can agree with some aspects of AA but dislike others. </p>
<p>If you do a google search on "Decision-Making Guide MCRI" it's the first link or close to it.</p>
<p>mojo, now your telling me how to vote. ;) You obviously missed the last part of my sentence regarding my rational side, "The contrarian in me makes me want to vote for the ban because of this blatant abuse of power... then, my rational side steps in and says that would be silly." I think the silly part made it pretty clear. However, it hacks me off that the UM President sends out an email telling me how to vote. I have a perfect right to believe this is wrong... terribly wrong. This has nothing to do with the position she takes... it has to do with abuse of power. Michigan is an educational, not a political, institution. Our President should set an example for education. I bet you would be hacked if she came out in support of the ban.</p>
<p>Hoedown, can you provide the site to the Michigan law? I understood that Michigan law allowed them to express their personal views, but not to spam the entire student population with their views. I understood the administration was allowed to use mass student email lists to educate, but could not advocate. She was clearly advocating a position.</p>
<p>I have checked out websites both for and against the ban, but I was unaware of the site you noted. Thanks, Hoedown!</p>
<p>Anhydrosis, yeah lol i might have done that since im a bit biased for AA :p</p>
<p>mojo - if the experience of the University of California system is any guide, admittance based on socio-economic factors has not been much of a help in augmenting URM admission. Query why this is so? </p>
<p>Given UMich's flagship status, it is easy to see why the University is so against MCRI. It will impact Michigan in terms of likely materially lower URM matriculation. But it will help the Eastern Michigan's of the world, as they will get a better applicant pool. Again, this is predicted from California's experience, where a school like UC-Riverside has experienced both significant gains in URM matriculation and most importantly, graduation rate (similar to non-URM students). Beware of overstatements and the sky is falling from proponents on both sides of this issue - not sure the real, non-emotional impact of its passage or defeat will be as significant as it seems. </p>
<p>There is something bothersome about having a flagship university with a minimal African American population in a state like Michigan where African American contributions and presence to labor, industry, education and other fields have been so significant. I think even the most ardent Prop 2 supporters would concede that this would not be a happy state of affairs. On the other hand, passage of Prop 2 would tend to direct the focus on K-12 quality and the necessity to build a culture of academic achievement - the root cause of the problem for which AA has served a kind of a flimsy band-aid. One hopes people make up their mind with this sense of balance in mind.</p>
<p>I believe it is Section 169.257 of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act. Sections 57, 1(a)</p>
<p>The General Counsel restates it pretty well: "An exception to the restrictions in the Campaign Finance Act applies to the expression of views by an elected or appointed public official with policy-making responsibilities. The president of the University falls within this exception, meaning President Coleman may state her views on campaign-related issues in her official capacity in ways that most members of the University community cannot. </p>
<p>The University administration uses the University-administered e-mail system to communicate many things to students, so I don't think it's unusual or inappropriate that the President would use that medium to communicate her position.</p>
<p>I don't know the content of the message she sent out to students.</p>
<p>I never said the UCs base their decisions on socio-economic statuses, they infact dont even ask the income of the family members unless to request a fee waiver...</p>
<p>Hoedown, I did read the Guide and would recommend it to anyone who has the time and interest in the subject. (It is not short.) When I first saw who was sponsoring the Guide, I thought, "This will not be unbiased." Although some may still it is slanted one way or another, it does a good job of presenting the arguments for both sides. It certainly helped me sort out my thoughts.</p>
<p>I still like the Oxford-style debate and believe the student body would be well served by open debate by two knowledgeable individuals on each side of the issue. The University still has time to set this up.</p>
<p>As I have already stated, I LOVE the diverse atmosphere at UM and it is one of the primary reasons I came here. However, I'm also part of fairly selective group (Ross pre-admits) in a field that is still dominated by males. I don't want a "leg up" because I am a female or because I receive financial aid. Although I don't know the acceptance rates, I strongly suspect that females were admitted to the program at a higher rate than males, since Michigan's business school has a higher than average female population. I want my future employer to think I earned this spot based on merit. Call it pride or whatever, but that is my personal dilemma.</p>
<p>I voted a couple of hours ago.</p>
<p>Interesting point with the b-school. I assume if Prop 2 passes I will have a better chance of getting in the b-school.</p>
<p>ha! we all know what you voted for now...</p>
<p>You don't. I didn't read that post until after I had dropped off my ballot.</p>
<p>Either way, there are some proposals that aren't getting a lot of attention. Among them was proposal 1, which puts conservation money into a fund that must be used for conservation purposes. Proposal 3 was for mourning dove hunting, 4 was for emminent domain and 5 was for educational spending (a really tough choice).</p>
<p>Anhydrosis, if your future employer thinks you didn't get in by merit, the employer is an idiot. It's not like women can just waltz in on their gender alone. Does it mean you may have edged out a man? Maybe. Does that mean you wouldn't be admissable otherwise? Laughable.</p>
<p>A diverse classroom is better for everyone. If anything, you are helping your fellow students get jobs. Look at the staggering number of briefs filed in the Supreme Court lawsuit; some would say those same arguments apply. Employers want to recruit at schools where graduates have been educated in well-rounded, diverse environments. It's not just that they want to hire women--they also want to hire men who have been educated in an environment where women were contributors.</p>
<p>I have another question. I'm assuming I know the answer. I know that many minorities are given preferential treatment in many scholarships. If this passes, is that likely to change? I said no because the state doesn't fund the scholarships, rather they are university-funded. Is that correct?</p>
<p>The Justice Department is taking a very dim view of scholarships set aside for a specific race or for gender. Southern Illinois Univ. has had to cease and desist with such a program. With or without Prop. 2, those kind of scholarships (to the extent the lawyers have not already modified them) are in peril of extinction. Nothing in the civil rights laws prohibits set asides for the disadvantaged, however, and these will continue and likely grow given the enforcement realities. Keep in mind however, that programs for the socio-economically disadvantaged do not work to obtain the same state of racial engineering - there are too many people in tough circumstances from all races and creeds. </p>
<p>I do not think there is any distinction between the University and the State when it comes to the constraints of Prop. 2. Both are public entities subject to the same state law (if it passes) - and race preferred scholarships will violate Prop 2 (independent of any federal enforcement action). California's experience reflects that any legal challenge will lose, and constraints on preferences will become the order of the day if it passes. </p>
<p>Hoedown has it right - the University will follow the law - and because diversity means so much to them - and alternate ways of acheiving it are extremely difficult - the top schools all chase the same people of whom there are not nearly enough - it is clear the stakes are exceedingly high.</p>
<p>So maybe I missed this ealier, but could the looming results of Prop 2 be delaying the admissions process this year. It seems to be considerably behind last year when the first decisions were released 10/14.</p>
<p>Hey, that's a good observation. If they are waiting for proposal 2, then it is probably likely that some people are not going to get admission. Maybe they want to minimize their deferal rate by waiting for a decision on 2.</p>
<p>YES on 2! YAY!</p>
<p>The logic doesn't hold. </p>
<p>Michigan would be better off making admit decisions on as many people as it can before the ballot proposal. If it passes, U-M will have to change its process which may very well cause delays for every applicant (not just women, internationals, minorities--every single applicant). The more applicants U-M can process before the ballot proposal, the fewer of them will be caught up in limbo.</p>
<p>It was a computer issue, and it has been resolved.</p>
<p>Thanks hoedown for the inside scoop.</p>
<p>Hoedown:
In the sake of fairness though, wouldn't it make more sense to judge all applicants with a consistent admission criteria? Why should someone get preferential treatment in October but not in December? I think they should accept all the overwhelmingly strong applicants now, and worry about the rest post-election.</p>
<p>matthew - the school beseeches everyone, I mean everyone, to apply early so I don't think your logic holds. Applying early is advantageous irrespective of Prop 2. </p>
<p>Having said all of this, I am slowly coming to the conclusion that Prop 2 will pass. Every common sense bone I have (and it may not be much) tells me that while the polls are close, polling is bound to be inaccurate because so many fear being deemed racist when questioned. Not a criticism, but a reality. The school is going to have to find other ways to sustain their views on diversity. </p>
<p>The shame of it all is that groups like BAMN have discouraged debate, and unintentionally or not, have lessened the credibility of those who are against Prop 2 and helped the other side's chances immeasurably. Of course, one can disagree, but by and large people want to be fair (including giving folks who have suffered discrimination a thumb on the scale), and BAMN's violent posing and in your face countenance that leaves no (and literally no) room for any sort of balanced debate completely turns people off. I find it strange that groups that are against Prop 2 - recognizing affirmative action has its limits but right now is useful - have not been able to coordinate matters sufficiently to shut BAMN up. Although BAMN is not synonymous with being a supporter of the defeat of Prop 2, the perception has become such that they are.</p>