<p>I'd bet that anyone on campus who isn't talking about Prop 2 is probably voting for it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't find it that strange. I think the strategy for Prop 2 opponents has been to distance themselves as much as possible from BAMN, but the group itself is tough to silence.</p>
<p>About when will we hear the result of this proposal?</p>
<p>November 7th</p>
<p>What are the chances of Proposal 2 passing? If it did, would it mean that UM no longer would be able to give minorities an advantage in admissions, starting literally Nov. 7th?</p>
<p>Polls vary into whether the yes or no camp is leading, but like one of the above posters said, those who are for it are not speaking out. As for your second question, yes and yes.</p>
<p>wow...I haven't been here in forever, and what do I find? None other than a firey discussion on Prop 2.</p>
<p>Well...here are my thoughts. I mentor 6th grade boys in Ypsilanti...they like me are all Black, and I'll never cast a vote that hurts them. I'll vote no on Prop 2.</p>
<p>BUT...make no mistake, the University of Michigan has hammed up affirmative action in dramatic form. The University has offered 4 legal arguments as to why it may legally discriminate by race. a) to increase the number of minority professionals, including doctors, lawyers etc. b) countering the effects of past societal discrimination c) training professionals to serve in poor areas and d) to ensure a diverse learning environment. The first 3 arguments (which I feel are the only ones that make sense) have been soundly rejected by the Supreme Court, going all the way back to Bakke. A and C, according to the court, basically amount to discrimination for discrimination's sake. Its like a white restaurant owner saying "I don't serve black people because I want there to be more room for white customers". B doesn't work because while you can prove societal discrimiation against a group, you can't prove it against an individual.</p>
<p>That leaves us with the whole diversity bit. I find it insulting as a Black man that the University would have the gall to say to me that I was admitted to the University so I could offer the "Black" perspective on things. That's like saying that I'm an exhibit in the University's diversity petting zoo, where over-suburbanized white kids get to meet and touch a real live Black person. Its an insult to say that this , rather than my grades, test scores, or extra-curriculars, is the reason I was admitted to the University. If this is their idea of help...I don't want it.</p>
<p>So...in the end I don't know...I don't want to hurt kids by getting rid of affirmative action, but at the same time, the only valid legal argument in favor of it i find to be patronizing and insulting. In the end I'll probably hold my nose and vote no on 2...but I certainly hope that the U finds a better way to do its admissions policy.</p>
<p>KB</p>
<p>Hahaha, and you're very right, and I'm glad that you're able to say what you've said. We should definitely all vote yes though, and it saddens me to think of the environment there with a bunch of people wanting to vote no. I understand your situation though, and it is all situational, certainly. I just think it would only make sense to think objectively, and to thus vote yes. It's unfortunate that the problem will perpetuate itself so much, uneducated families having uneducated children and so on, but they can't really admit people just because they didn't have the same opportunities... it should be by raw aptitude, ideally. Otherwise I could just wish that I came from a poor primarily black area so that I'd have an excuse for few extra curriculars. This is why they should (and I believe they do) spend so much time evaluating each app based on things like this. It's better than just saying "black? go easy on him." or "Mexican? well, you can't really expect much." Equality, thanks.</p>
<p>kb, I'm sorry you feel patronized and insulted, but I think you're putting a particular spin on that argument--one that I don't think the University would claim. You weren't admitted so that you could constantly be called upon to speak for a particular race. Just like the kid from Kansas isn't expected to stand up and talk about wheat farming all the time. Diversity is not about that. Would that happen, sometimes? Well, sure, in a diverse classroom, one would hope that people would have a chance to hear the perspectives of people from multiple groups (when approriate). But there is a lot more to it than that. </p>
<p>When GM and all those other companies say they want to hire people who were educated in a diverse environment, surely you don't think they mean "They know the black perspective because they have heard it from kb and others with his skin color." </p>
<p>A campus featuring students with many different backgrounds, talents, and experiences will offer a richer environment. Students are better off when they can learn and develop in an environment where they get the experience of leading diverse groups, of seeing capable, intelligent students of all races and ethnicities and genders and religions contributing, of interacting with people who aren't just like them. </p>
<p>awheio, I've yet to see anyone present an admission model based on "raw aptitude" that really offered the "equality" you champion. It sounds easy, but it's not.</p>
<p>I'm voting "no" on 2 because I believe there is still a place for these programs. But I'd probably vote "No" anyway because I have serious issues with "Governance by Constitutional Amendment." I think it is bad politics and bad governance--an all-around flawed process that ultimately does not serve states or their citizens well.</p>
<p>Oh, I know it's definitely not easy, likely not possible, that's why I said "ideally." It is inarguably ideal, but I'm no optimist. The elimination of all racial bias is just the first step.</p>
<p>Well hoedown, of course the University wouldn't adopt the same spin I do. When the University says "minority students can offer a different perspective", how is that any different from saying we are here as token representatives?</p>
<p>I thought I'd explained that--I guess I did a poor job of it.</p>
<p>But you know, I think you know what I mean. You're smart as a whip; I've seen you posting here for a while.</p>
<p>Darn...for a second I thought you said that you knew what I meant...i was about to claim victory and everything.</p>
<p>Hoedown, I think we are making the same argument...the University feels it is necessary to lower its admissions standards for minority studentbs because if it didn't, those students couldn't offer thier unique perspectives in the educational environment. I'm saying that that encourages the type of tokenism that the University claims to be opponents of. Why can't the University do more to encourage diversity among academic equals, instead of stomping on the most sensative issue in this country, which is that of race?</p>
<p>I think you've identified one of the potential problems with affirmative action--and it bothers me (as I am sure it bothers many others) that some students feel this way because of it. However, it's not enough (IMHO) to outweigh its benefits. It's certainly not enough (IMHO) to justify altering the constitution and banning any and all such efforts. Maybe we need to look for ways to mitigate these problems. A ban is a sledgehammer solution--and not a solution at all.</p>
<p>In some ways, I can see it being even worse for black students if it passes. Some will still get in, but overall there will be fewer in number. I would think the burden to "speak for your race" might feel even greater when you're the only black student in class, maybe one of the few your peers will have in any class that day.</p>
<p>kb54010... It's not just a race issue. I'm a white female who was pre-admitted to Ross... and they admit a greater percentage of females than other B-schools. I would like to KNOW that I received my spot based on my own merits. Hoedown noted in an earlier post to my quandry over Prop. 2, "Does it mean you may have edged out a man? Maybe." This bugs me. Even though I had above average stats for the pre-admit class, I will never know for sure if I was pre-admitted because of my gender.</p>
<p>Of course, this is the first time I've dealt with this issue from this side of the fence, so to speak. I'm from one of the whitest and poorest areas of the country. I came to UM largely because of diversity and desperately want to keep it, but I don't like the idea of anyone considering me as a token.</p>
<p>What has been missing in the debate is what affirmative action means. Take a scale of 1-5, with a 1 broaching no consideration of race, a 2 a thumb on the scale, a 3 perhaps more than a thumb (a standard deviation for a relevant measurement), a 4 the granting of considerable and material preferences, and 5 a quota reflecting a proportionate make-up of the population. </p>
<p>MCRI is a vote on 1 or 5, and not 2 or 3. Which is unfortunate. But I suspect that we are at this point because the University of Michigan and other institutions are distressed at the acheivement gaps in certain groups, and while they logically like to believe they are acting within the bounds of a 2 or a 3, the reality is that they are in fact acting in the 4 or 5 range, with preferences not being a thumb on the scale, but being generally much more than that, and this causes problems from matriculation to academic performance to graduation, leaving many with the impression that the costs are too significant and eviscerating as to morale. </p>
<p>An old trading adage is the greedy get needy. Too much of a good thing has attracted undue attention to the practice, and here we are.</p>
<p>I know it's not a race issue entirely, but One United Michigan has tried hard to make people think that its not about race at all. That's not the case...the University went to the Supreme Court because of race-based affirmative action...question of race overshadow the debate on affirmative action.</p>
<p>Anhydrosis, I think you need to seriously reevaluate how you think about yourself.</p>
<p>First of all, there is no way you are a "token" female at Ross. Look around you.</p>
<p>Second of all, take a look at Ross' profile. Does it look like the kind of school that just throws all female apps on the "ADMIT" pile? They didn't admit you because of your gender. They admitted you because of your grades, test scores, preparation, drive, essays, and so on. Being female may have helped you in a very competitive situation where there were more highly-qualified students than they had places for. But if you think this means you are underqualified, or admitted because you are female, you are very misled.</p>
<p>Finally, if you're admitted from a very poor area, they may also have taken that into account. Given your self-doubts, I hate to tell you that you may have gotten other helps, but the reality is that U-M thinks it's important to consider that as well.</p>
<p>I can understand how a seriously unerqualified student may martyr themselves over where they are and how they got there, but I don't think it's warranted by anyone admitted under U-M affirmative action programs. </p>
<p>Mam1959, I think your analogy is a very good one, in terms of there being a scale. However, I believe Prop 2 is all about voting on "1." Not on 5. If you vote for Prop 2, it isn't truly a vote against quotas (because it's unnecesary in admissions--they are already proscribed) and if you vote against Prop 2, it's not as if you're not voting FOR quotas. I also disagree that U-M is doing anything in the "5" range. I know that's true because of my knowledge of the process, but you don't have to take my word for it. I think the variation in numbers--including this year's--are strong evidence that quotas are not a part of U-M's policy.</p>
<p>hmm...on the scale issue...I think that consideration by race is by nature a 1 or 5 kind of thing. Either someone's race matters in how you treat them, or it doesn't...that's how the courts see it, and I think that's how most people see it as well. Its an unfortunate dichotomy, but I think that's the reality of how we deal with it. </p>
<p>Look, I'm not oblivious to the fact that MCRI could have some ugly practical effects. But what you have to understand is that I'm really tired of race being pervasive in every area. This university sections off every freshman class by race, and does a great job of maintaining that separation until you graduate. Admissions standards are separated by race. Orientation is de fact separated by race. Welcome week activities are separated by race. And even graduation ceremony's are separated by race. From the moment you show up on the U's doorstep till the minute you leave, the color of your skin determines everything. Is that seriously the type of University community we want?</p>