<p>....but this is exactly my point....... WHY does the fact candidate X support prop 2 a problem in relation to garnering votes?</p>
<p>This would imply serious problems with the proposal</p>
<p>Andro, I do realize the benefits and drawbacks to democracy....under the current arrangements, it's the U's job to follow the law. What I'm saying is that individual voters vote for their own self interests, (a la James Madison's "tyranny of the majority") </p>
<p>These are my views but I believe this illustrates larger issues about democratic features, not that I'm advocating a significant change.</p>
<p>MJB, many people vote because they actually believe something is right or wrong. I believe I did and it sounds like you did. Of course, many people vote with only themselves in mind. Both Republicans and Democrats have taken advantage of this self-interest vote... consider the gay marriage ban to get out more Republicans and the minimum wage vote to get out more Democrats. Regardless of the grounds for each of these issues, the political strategists and many of the politicians were driven by their own self-interests in pushing to get these issues on state ballots.</p>
<p>Although the process for amending the US Constitution is more difficult, the Michigan petition process acts as a significant impediment to many issues getting on the ballot. As you can see by the footnote quote in my last post, amending the constitution takes more petition signers than making other changes. You can argue that it should be higher, but I believe the 16 point margin clearly indicates the will of the people. It even passes the 4/7ths requirement (57%) used by other states.</p>
<p>High and mighty: "The masses that went to the polls were not subject to the same scrutiny and shirked their moral obligation." Note that it wasn't concerned citizens and taxpayers who went to the polls, it was the nameless faceless masses of rabble.</p>
<p>Naive: "Neither Granholm or Devos supported the proposal because they are public figures that need to uphold what they determine is best for society." Yeah, that's how it works.</p>
<p>Looks to this Michigander like both candidates for governor thought supporting the proposal would lose more votes for them it would gain for them. In other words, the people who opposed it seemed to far more rabid than those supporting it (I saw tons of signs opposing it, none--zero--supporting it), so it would be reasonable to assume they would be more likely to let a candidate's position on Prop 2 influence their vote. Devos was already saddled with the pampered rich-boy image...he didn't want to compound it with appearing to be against the downtrodden. But the proposal passed with such a large margin that in hindsight it's tough to see how supporting Prop 2 would have hurt him.</p>
<p>thank you for bringing some rationality to this disucssion anhydrosis and tourguide. And seriously MJB, you're ignorant and racist. ;)</p>
<p>I don't know why I'm getting so worked up about an old wooden ship used in the Civil War.</p>
<p>"Diversity is valuable, no way around that."</p>
<p>Valuable in what way?</p>
<p>"What I'm saying is that individual voters vote for their own self interests, (a la James Madison's "tyranny of the majority")"</p>
<p>Aren't over half the potential voters women or minorities that would benefit from saying no on proposal 2?</p>
<p>Diversity is important. But it's diversity of opinion that matters. Not diversity of alleles that code for different skin colors.</p>
<p>I was pretty neutral on where I stood about Mary Sue before this. Now I just think she's ignorant. How can you be the president of a MAJOR university and still believe that treating races in completely different fashions is a good idea? Again, white man's burden. WE MUST HELP THE DISENFRANCHISED. Her and her name really need to get out of the 50s.</p>
<p>hoedown - the proponents of MCRI did not initiate a "legal action". They put a ballot initiative on the ballot to amend the State Constitution. Whatever the flaws in that process are, it is not a lawsuit to settle a grievance by a particular party and rather indeed is the essence of democracy.</p>
<p>And look, I have no issue with the University litigating to delay because frankly this hitting in the middle of the admissions year will wreak havoc on their admissions process. But to merely rant and rave about the inequities of it all (ironic with a non-discrimination provision) is not leadership - the University is now really going to have to compete incredibly hard for a small pool of certain kinds of students, and they better be prepared to do it. </p>
<p>The delusional tone struck by the University was troubling. California's Prop 209 was referred to as an "experiment". Heck, it is no experiment - it is in the California constitution - likely not to come out. And the results of that, while not positive for UCLA and Cal, have been positive for other schools. A balanced look at what will happen is in order.</p>
<p>I meant legal as in having to do with the law. guess I should have said "Lawful" or "statutory" action. What I meant is that they used a process that is set down in Michigan statute. </p>
<p>FWIW, I also would have liked to see the U-M response (in the form of MSC's speech) have a different tone to it. One of the most troubling things (to me) was a failure to acknowledge that many people (even people on campus, in the U-M community) felt that Prop 2 was a good thing. I would have liked to see her reference the fact that U-M feels diversity is important for empirical and logical reasons, not just moral ones, and that it is these things in combination that led to the Supreme Court decision and that compel U-M to pursue this further. </p>
<p>And not in response to mam, but to others: can we have a little less name-calling in this thread? Can we not be better than that?</p>
<p>Hoedown - you are correot as to the name calling issue and the notion that the University could have struck a far better tone. </p>
<p>I for one am perplexed as to why they argue the abstract. Even the most hard headed would concede, for example, that while diversity may or may not be important to the medical school education experience itself, it is not a desireable thing to have a situation where people are not going back into their communities to practice medicine or provide health care. The problem with this is that this justification is not recognized by the courts, but still, it is frankly much more grabbing than a somewhat difficult to value notion of diversity, and expressing it would make others understand that the issue isn't so University centric but larger social issue.</p>
<p>Yes, you are both right. The name calling of a fellow CCer and good ol' Mary Sue were perhaps a bit undeserved. My sincere apologies.</p>
<p>I will also agree with your other point, Hoedown. IMO, Mary Sue's speech was quite alientating. I think she should definitely be taking a more moderate position. It seems like the university was promoting tolerance of opinion before this (having debates and informational workshops on the proposal, for instance), but now that she's lost, it seems like tolerance is out the window and only she can possibly be right.</p>
<p>"taking a more moderate position"...or taking the position of moderator. She could seize the opportunity to moderate (verb) the situation, assuring the taxpayers that she will comply with the letter and spirit of the law, while also assuring the other side that they will find other means to ensure diversity and/or maximize the effects of whatever diversity they have. And with less-competitive branch campuses near Detroit and Flint, it would seem like the U of M would be in a great position to leverage its branch campuses' locations to find a place for those who would have gotten into the Ann Arbor campus before Prop 2 but now can't.</p>
<p>The speech was very alienating. Something like 25% of the student vote was for Prop 2. Mary Sue sure created a welcoming community for those people.</p>
<p>I'd argue that percentage to be substancially higher. The stats reported in the daily as to student turnout only took into account student precincts. Many of those voters were registered by the college democrats, or by the Voice your Vote commission of MSA, which is more or less run by democrats. We know that conservative students tend to already be registered at thier home precincts. So, the student vote in favor of prop 2 was at LEAST 25%, but probably more around the 35% range...I doubt it was more than 45%.</p>
<p>Same deal for the Granholm-Devos numbers...Many Devos voters voted in thier home districts.</p>
<p>I was standing next to a bunch of students who were holding up Yes-on-2 posters and who muttering throughout some of her speech. I think that may have increased my dismay at her language.</p>
<p>One thing that has not come up here is the confusing language of the proposition itself. I voted -- NO -- but I had to read the proposal 3 times to be sure I was voting the way I intended. </p>
<p>In Michigan, just about anybody who is anybody was on public record opposing Prop 2. Regardless of what you believe about whether it is right or not to consider race in admissions, the end result is likely to be a less diverse campus - and that will be unfortunate for everyone. There are preferences for all kinds of things - athletes, legacy, development admits, state residency, oboe players, etc. These things have nothing to do with academic qualifications. We could eliminate consideration of all non-academic factors - and just go by SAT scores (a poor predictor of success) and GPA. Sounds boring.</p>
<p>Also, I wouldn't worry too much about the students with the Prop 2 signs on the Diag. They won their fight and were there, by choice. All the Prop 2 kids I saw were white males -- and they didn't look the least bit sad. The University needs to spend its energy making sure that the students of color feel welcome. Right now, a lot of them feel that the majority of citizens in Michigan don't think they belong at the University.</p>
<p>First of all, I'd hate to get into a fight with anyone so don't flame me for anything I'm about to type that you don't like. I voted yes on prop 2. Here's why, I would support Affirmative Action if it were based on socio-economic status instead of race and gender. I just don't see how anyone in the right mind could justify Affirmative Action as a fair policy. Look at UCLA/UC-Berkley, without Affirmative Action, they still have a very diverse student population and rank highly among all colleges in the US. Explain to me how the ban on Affirmative Action in California has affected UCLA/UC-Berkeley negatively in terms of diversity and education quality. </p>
<p>Everyone I know voted YES on Prop 2. Damn right, I'm glad that it passed.</p>
<p>Mr. 100%:</p>
<p>UCLA only has 96 african-americans (out of 4000 incoming freshman) in the class of 2010. That IS a need for concern.</p>
<p>If you're defiining "diversity" by diversity of opinion, however, then you very well could be right. Unfortuntately, there's really no tangible evidence that could prove that.</p>
<p>hdavid6: why do Affirmative Action supporters like you think only African Americans=diversity?</p>
<p>lol.</p>
<p>First of all, read the whole thread before you comment. It's pretty clear I'm not in favor of affirmative action.</p>
<p>Second of all, I do agree with you that diversity goes well beyond the color of your skin. Again, refer to every other comment I've made in this thread. That said, there really is no concrete way to measure the type of diversity that we both believe in. You really can't put a numerical value on the quality of a debate.</p>
<p>Third of all, having 96 african americans (many of them recruited ahtletes) in a freshman class of 4000 is a disturbing fact. Not because there's no diversity. But because it says something about either 1.) the poverty of blacks in California, 2.) the emphasis (or lackthereof) black families put on a college education, or 3.) the lack of opportunities available to blacks, because of poverty or otherwise.</p>