Status on Proposal 2

<p>oh...just so you know..the U can still ask applicants for thier race..but only for statisical purposes...the U may not take that race into account in the admissions process.</p>

<p>So does this mean the engineering and bschools will become more male-dominated?</p>

<p>kb is right, the U still must ask for race and gender. But if Prop 2 stands, it will endeavor to remove them from consideration of the application. They can mask these questions and responses from readers. It's certainly true that a reader can't help but know that someone named Jenny or who goes to an all-girl high school is female, or that someone applying from a UP reservation is likely Native American. And so on. </p>

<p>I would imagine it would be tough for readers to NOT let such information influence them in some cases. But they will have to make every effort. I've been impressed with admissions' efforts to be methodical and thoughtful about other aspects--such as using a mathematical algorithm to disribute apps among readers in a truly random fashion. I expect they'll try to approach this with the same professionalism.</p>

<p>"A delay of 3-4 weeks during busy season is pretty substantial."
I don't think it would be a complete delay, as you could probably accept/decline certain people regardless of whether or not you consider race/gender. But in any case, wouldn't this just translate into people getting decisions 3-4 weeks later?</p>

<p>"They are still asking for a name, and can't you draw numerous conclusions from that?"
I think they might already do this, to an extent (at least my friend thinks it helped her out). One big problem people have with Affirmative Action is that they make assumptions about a person based on things name or racial status, when the person is nowhere close to what they're looking for. Like rich black students who went to private schools, or people that are technically 1/8 hispanic but still as white as everybody else from their little town.</p>

<p>Will the University at all be forced to change their essay question, as it obviously opens the gate for somebody to bring attention to their minority/gender status?</p>

<p>I don't think talking about your race or culture in your essays can/should/will be prevented. It is a very important part of who you are, for a lot of people, and students should be able to discuss this in their essays.</p>

<p>I personally was unimpressed by Mary Sue Coleman's speech today. She was very vague and just kept saying how diversity is important...nothing I already didn't know. I was hoping to hear more about what programs and such would change at the U and I have no idea how she can do anything about the diversity issue now that aa is banned.</p>

<p>Honestly I just wish this would all have ended here so I don't have to continue hearing about any of this the next few months (years?)</p>

<p>It was a cause for celebration that Granholm and DeVos are off tv...I don't want to see affirmative action replace them.</p>

<p>For the record, I did vote NO on Prop 2...but this school belongs to the people of Michigan, and if the people of Michigan vote to end affirmative action, I think U administration has to accept that.</p>

<p>I agree. This is the state of Michigan's school. My tax money goes to this school. If the state of Michigan says "we want our school run this way in admissions", and they don't oblige, then something needs to happen, I don't know, i'm oblivious to politics.</p>

<p>
[quote]
A very interesting report was published about the effects of this legislation earlier this year (it was updated in September). If the report (23 pages) is too long for you, the group that published it (The Center for the Education of Women at Michigan) also published a good summary.</p>

<p>In addition to affecting the admission process, this affects all sorts of educational efforts. Programs cut when California passed their legislation:</p>

<p>-The CA Summer Science & Technology Academy, aimed at girls and students of color (though not exclusive to them).
-Scholarships that took race, gender or family heritage into consideration.
-Funding for teachers working predominantly with students of color to get extra training.
-Outreach programs aimed to prepare low-income students and students of color for college.

[/quote]

I found this in another thread under the College Admissions sub-forum. My apologies if you guys have already seen it.</p>

<p>I just wonder if you guys think the same thing is gonna happen in Michigan with Proposal 2.</p>

<p>mjb - the odds of a legal challenge prevailing are to my mind almost nil. Yes, the plaintiffs could perhaps find a liberal judge willing to grant them a stay, but the 6th Circuit will follow the law. Michigan and BAMN's arguments are weak - it is difficult to sustain that Prop 2 transgresses federal supremacy when the Civil Rights Act expressly states that its non-discrimination provisions do not grant or imply any preferences. It is further difficult to sustain an Equal Protection challenge under the 14th Amendment because an argument that reflects we need to be able to discriminate to avoid discrimination is circular and loopy, and doesn't go anywhere. Those that oppose Prop 2 are well aware of the 1997 9th Circuit decision that set forth just these points, and my guess is that they figure ranting and raving and litigating will buy them some time before they have to comply with the law. Not sure that is good leadership.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If the state of Michigan says "we want our school run this way in admissions", and they don't oblige, then something needs to happen, I don't know, i'm oblivious to politics.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know, I've never really warmed to the argument that because taxpayers help support the school, the taxpayers get to determine University policy. I don't feel it's appropriate or even logical for taxpayers deciding what U-M should teach, or what material to use in its buildings, or what research to do, or whether to buy natural gas on the open market, or what grade to give on a thesis. </p>

<p>There's a reason that you elect and hire thoughtful, responsible people to apply their expertise to their jobs. You have to expect that U-M will make judgments about what provides the best education for its students.</p>

<p>I'm not talking about U-M having no accountability--it does. Voters can recall regents or not re-elect them. Legislators can pass laws and withhold funding. Citizens can refuse to send their sons and daughters there. And U-M has to follow state and federal laws. The University can be sued -- and, as we all know it has been, over this very issue.</p>

<p>The MCRI folks took a form of legal action (creating a referendum) when they did not agree with an authoritative decision (that of the Supreme Court's decision). Should not the University also have the right to take a form of legal action when it feels an authorative decision (in this case, by voters) might be wrong?</p>

<p>The taxpayers aren't determining "University policy", they're determining state policy that applies to all public institutions. It just so happens that the University is subject to state policy. I don't get why the University thinks it deserves autonomy from state law.</p>

<p>I believe the authoritative decision from the Supreme Court was that affirmative action wasn't illegal, not that it was something good or something the state of Michigan wanted. The referedum isn't going against the Supreme Court decision, it's saying that we don't want this in our state. If the Supreme Court had ruled it illegal, there would be no need for such a referendum, which is why it happened after the SC decision.</p>

<p>I believe the Supreme Court called diversity a "compelling interest". Such a phrase implies an assignment of value beyond legality alone. The fact that Michigan voters dismissed something that was assigned value by the Supreme Court is telling.</p>

<p>Without trying to sound high and mighty, this amendment could be considered an example of why the nation's founders were opposed to direct democracy beyond pure logistics. Neither Granholm OR DEVOS supported the proposal because they are public figures that need to uphold what they determine to be best for society. The masses that went to the polls were not subject to the same scrutiny and shirked their moral obligations.</p>

<p>MJB, I think you need to work a little harder at trying not to sound high and mighty.</p>

<p>How is he sounding high and mighty?</p>

<p>I understand but consider the fact that voters have no one to answer to but themselves. It not necessarily that other people are smarter, but they have an incentive (re-election) to weigh all options more carefully. Dispassionate analysis is not always an easy thing at the polls.</p>

<p>are you insinuating that politicians are more often correct?</p>

<p>You know what, you're right. Ignore the 84% of people who think the war in Iraq is a bad idea. Bush says it's a just war damnit. Stupid dispassionate citizens. Voting against racism, what do they know?</p>

<p>Let's put intelligent design back in the classrooms too while we're at it. Devos isn't just feeding his base of support with that **** or anything. He absolutely believes it. Who could honestly think that men and chimpanzees are related? What? One day a chimpanzee just jumped out of the trees and started walking around on 2 legs? HAHAHAH. Idiots.</p>

<p>While were at it:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Neither Granholm OR DEVOS supported the proposal because they are public figures that need to uphold what they determine to be best for society.

[/quote]

That, or, you know, whatever they think will get them the most votes. Either way.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The masses that went to the polls were not subject to the same scrutiny and shirked their moral obligations.

[/quote]

Yes, because voting against racism is "shirking your moral obligation."</p>

<p>Do you know what affirmative action is? White Man's Burden.</p>

<p>Please, go away.</p>

<p>Racism? Really? .... I am a white man. I do not feel that affirmative action is racist toward me at all. In fact, I feel proposal 2's passage has negative effects for me; namely the fact that I will not be exposed to the same diverse environment I enjoy currently. Diversity is valuable, no way around that. Also, I've heard the white man's burden argument so its nothing eye opening; the fact is that insitutional advantages since the days after Colombus have given disproportionate advantages to particular groups of people. Addressing this is a moral obligation and most certainly not racism.</p>

<p>As far as politicans go, I certainly would never say that they are right all the time by any means. But imagine candidate X decides to throw his support behind proposal 2. He/she'd be SKEWERED and scrutinized by the general public; citizens are not under this watchful eye.</p>

<p>He/she'd be SKEWERED and scrutinized by the general public</p>

<p>ummm yeah, that's exactly why they don't do it. Listen: this is their job. They provides for their families by getting votes (except Devos.) They care about winning. They don't give two ****s about what gets them elected, as long as it DOES get them elected. I feel I've been very clear on this point.</p>

<p>MJB4431, the University and all three branches of state government are legally obligated to abide by Michigan's constitution, unless it violates the US constitution. Michigan voters have specific authority to amend the state's constitution:</p>

<p>"The people can force the enactment of laws, or reject some laws passed by the Legislature, through the process of petition, submitted to the electorate at the next general election or special election as set forth by the Legislature:
...
(3) The CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, requiring 302,700* signatures of registered voters, is used to amend the Michigan Constitution.</p>

<p>*In each case, a percentage of the total vote cast for all candidates for Governor at the last preceding general election at which a Governor was elected: (1) 8%, (2) 5%, and (3) 10%."</p>

<p>A sufficient number of people signed the petition and the people voted to amend the constitution. They are not shirking their moral responsibility, unless you are dictating what their moral responsibility is. And, believe it or not, some people consider it quite logical that voters answer to themselves. Who else should they answer to when going to the polls?</p>

<p>Moreover, the will of the passionate and dispassionate voters count the same. You don't get extra points just because you're dispassionate. Also, consider that many people who hold views contrary to yours have made a dispassionate analysis and came out different on this issue. IMO, both sides have very good arguments.</p>