<p>then change the process that they were using, not pass a constitutional amendment. u know how radical this is? pple don't understand the concept that this is BIG and it will mess up alot of things.</p>
<p>Just got back from Mary Sue's address. They're going to court to try and continue their policy for the rest of this admissions cycle, so students don't get judged by two different set of requirements. Pretty sure they intentionally released results just before election so they could use that argument, which I don't agree with. Technically the "right" thing would be to wait until after the election, and then release results in accordance with the new standards, but apparently we're very set against fighting this thing.</p>
<p>Judge a man by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin. If you grew up in Africa, I can see that adding to your character. If you come from a poor area and didn't have the same opportunities to excel as others, I can understand that. But letting someone benefit purely from their race is outright racist. Yes, Mary Sue said all the people that benefitted from AA are qualified to be here, but the point is that their race made them more qualified than other applicants (think Animal Farm).</p>
<p>Open question: Forced racial diversity vs forced racial purity? Similarities? Differences?</p>
<p>so being african american or hispanic american doesn't add to your character? someone's race makes them more DESIRABLE not qualified. College admissions is not just #'s, they accept who they want.</p>
<p>so, because you're african american or hispanic american, you have more character than me because I'm caucasian? If someone's race makes him/her more desirable to adcoms, isn't that racism? They're giving preferential treatment to minorities due to desirability, not qualification.</p>
<p>I'm just playing devil's advocate.</p>
<p>Also, I'm just wondering if I had applied to UofM this year (instead of last year and being waitlisted), with the same stats, would I have had a better chance of getting in?</p>
<p>so i read on the michigan daily today that there was a 60% decline of black student enrollment the year after their affirmative action proposal was passed.</p>
<p>so does that mean michigan will have a significantly less amount of blacks next year and a bigger number of asians? berkeley has an insane amount of asian people..</p>
<p>ya prbbly.</p>
<p>F**ck. I hope that doesn't happen. One of the reasons I chose Michigan over Berkeley was that Cal is like 67% Asian. I'm Korean, by the way, so don't flame me about being racist toward Asians or something like that.</p>
<p>California has a much higher Asian population than Michigan.</p>
<p>Gosh, people...I hate treating races like groups. Will rant on facebook later. As for right now, I've got to go work hard because being a chick isn't gonna be an excuse for me anymore.</p>
<p>Which really means that it's 2:47 in the afternoon...I'm going to go put on real clothes and make-up, then clean my room. And buy more cookie dough for baking cookies tommorrow. Yeah. I know my place!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Pretty sure they intentionally released results just before election so they could use that argument
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's interesting, but you know, I don't think that's the case. One reason is the way the process works. Evaluations of candidates--which is where race and gender may be considered-- is separate from the admit decision. That is, as described on their webpage, your app gets a rating in one of five categories (or fifteen, if you count the plus-minus modifiers). Then entire groups of students are admitted together, by their category, at intervals. Therefore, whether or not they admitted people this week, they still had weeks of evaluation work already completed. </p>
<p>I think it's bad policy to delaye verything until after the vote. That's effectively saying that no reader should look at an app until after we figured out what the new policy (if any) should have to be. You can't have readers start reading apps in mid-November or December and still expect to get 25,000 decisions out in a timely fashion. Plus, why hold your process hostage to an unknown outcome? We had a legal, approved process for admission, one that helps meet institutionally stated goals. Why shouldn't Michigan use it, exactly as it would in any other year, up until it's legally determined they cannot?</p>
<p>Dilksy's dead on on this one.</p>
<p>I loved Mary Sue's speech, by the way. First she says that "Proposal 2 is not Michigan!" But Michigan has a long tradition of racism and sexism (women weren't allowed in this university till the '60s for Christ's sake), I'm glad this proposal isn't "Michigan." </p>
<p>Then she quotes Martin Luther King Jr. Apparently she never heard the part of his speech about being judged by the content of your character and NOT the color of your skin. Her bad.</p>
<p>Finally, she says that she will fight to get the proposal postponed, at least until the end of the admissions cycle, because "it's unfair for applicants to be judged by different criterion." I actually think she's onto something there. :)</p>
<p>will this years applicants be affected?</p>
<p>I agree there might be logistical issues with waiting for the election results to come in before evaluating that I know little about. But it seems like they wouldn't have an obscene amount of applications already in at this point. Why not just hold on to them and be about 3-4 weeks behind?</p>
<p>My problem is that the University is pretty much planning on doing everything to be non-compliant with state law. I'm sure if the situation were somehow reversed and what the University wanted wouldn't become applicable until after the election, they might've found a way to hold up the process.</p>
<p>"Why shouldn't Michigan use it, exactly as it would in any other year, up until it's legally determined they cannot?"
Because it's now legally determined that they cannot, and they still are and still will until the state forces compliance. I don't get why the University thinks they're above the law.</p>
<p>Message from UM President</p>
<p>"In the short term, we will seek confirmation from the courts to complete this year's admissions cycle under our current guidelines. We believe we have the right, indeed the obligation, to complete this process using our existing policies. It would be unfair and wrong for us to review students' applications using two sets of criteria, and we will ask the courts to affirm that we may finish this process using the policies we currently have in place."</p>
<p>i would not mind more asian people at all. i highly doubt it'll get as high as berkeley though since there aren't much asian people here in michigan to begin with. </p>
<p>ALSO..
i think those students campaigning for "vote no on 2" could've done a better job. i was seriously ****ed off at times by the amount of times i was asked if i was registered to vote. and all day yesterday, i was asked, "did you vote?". i would just say yeah to get them to leave me the heck alone!</p>
<p>if they want people to vote, they should start educating people first. i'm not gonna go research what in the world proposal 2 is just because some random annoying student told me to vote.</p>
<p>After receiving Mary Sue's email concerning her opposition the ban, is anyone really surprised that she will do everything she can to delay or get around the ban? </p>
<p>As state law has been explained to me (by an organization opposing the ban), she is allowed to "educate" but not "advocate" on a matter up for vote. Even though any person with two neurons firing in the gray matter between their ears could clearly tell she was advocating a position, the situation apparently was not clear cut enough to violate the law.</p>
<p>By the way, I do not believe a reduction in diversity is good for the University. I just think people felt that the powers that be pushed the edge of the envelope too far. For example, even though I favor a more diversified campus, I felt her email was an abuse of power.</p>
<p>It sounds like they're going to litigate the hell out of this. The question is do they have a strong basis on which to stand and potentially get around this, whether it even be a permanent injunction?</p>
<p>Women attended U of M way before the 1960's. </p>
<p>I live in Michigan, and there has long been a feeling among the common folk that the U of M is out of sync with them, even though the school isn't shy about spending their taxes. The university president trying to make an end run around the landslide will-of-the-people vote in favor of Prop 2 only serves to confirm the suspicion that the folks in Ann Arbor are arrogant elitists who think they are above everybody else in the state.</p>
<p>dilsky,</p>
<p>I was referring to U-M actions before November 7th, before the voters had any say in their procedures. They have quite a few applications in right now. A delay of 3-4 weeks during busy season is pretty substantial. There are grave concerns when they have to contemplate even a one-day shutdown for, say, a computer upgrade.</p>
<p>Anhydrosis, your source is wrong. Certain public officials like MSC can indeed advocate. It's a special exception to Michigan campaign law. Michigan has an FAQ about this and any student who is or was curious should seek this out. They also publicize the thing every time there is an election, because faculty, staff, and students need to know. You don't have to wonder--find out. </p>
<p>MSC sent a note last week to all staff and faculty urging them to vote on Tuesday--but without advocating a position on any proposal or race. Her message was about educating yourself about issues and candidates, verifying your polling status, and getting to the polls. For what that is worth.</p>
<p>So as of now, they can't review applications under their old form because it's against the law. They can't ask for race, they can't ask for gender, etc. </p>
<p>Still, isn't there ways around this? They are still asking for a name, and can't you draw numerous conclusions from that? And you can still give an advantage to an applicant after making those assumptions, since they can claim it was a "holistic review".</p>
<p>Well..the Sec of State hasn't certified the result yet...so techically admissions can still use race-conscious admissions. </p>
<p>I think the University has a strong argument on continuing race-based admissions through this cycle. There are serious equal protection issues with considering half the applicants in a race-conscious system, and the other half in a race-neutral system. On the other hand, a judge could require the U to review previous applications to ensure that they are all in compliance w/ Prop 2...who knows.</p>
<p>On the legal challenge to Prop 2 itself, I think the Gen Counsel's office is suffering from a bit of wishful thinking. But, challenging it in court gives people the feeling that the U is "standing up" for diversity...I don't expect the challenge will go anywhere.</p>