<p>What does everyone think? The polls seem very close. I have seen (against v. for) 42-39, 50-38, 41-42 among other....however I read that usually a proposal needs about 60% in the polls because support declines as you near the election date.</p>
<p>I also feel that those who are against it feel more strongly than those who are for it, and may very well have a better turn-out at the polls.</p>
<p>Why you should vote YES on proposal 2.</p>
<p>It will pass. Extremely little doubt in my mind. Michigan is a blue state, but a lot of Dems will vote yes on Prop 2.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why you should vote YES on proposal 2.</p>
[/quote]
</a></p>
<p>That argument really doesn't address the reasons that U-M and other organizations practice affirmative action. It also says nothing about gender or hiring.</p>
<p>Anyway, I believe it will pass. I'd love to be wrong.</p>
<p>hoedown - I agree. I wonder how it is that we have reached the point where binary thinking reigns. The debate should be about how to do diversity well - meaning that some will be unhappy on both sides of the aisle - admission standards may need to be tightened a bit along with accountability - but at the same time given the bleak realities of our nation's history and the contributions of minorities to the State of Michigan, a thumb or two on the scale should obtain. I can't help but think that radical positions on both sides have driven us to this point. The problem is that one cannot vote (on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being no affirmative action and 5 being an outright quota) for a 2 or 3 here. So it looks like we will have a 1.</p>
<p>mam1959,</p>
<p>I think you are largely right. Your comment about greed in the other thread has some merit, but honestly I think U-M (and other schools) are less greedy than believed. The perception of bias and discrimination caused by AA is greater than reality. </p>
<p>People make an awful lot of hay out of anecdotes. They also get a lot of mileage out of their desire to believe that they would have sailed into the class if it hadn't been for some less-qualified minority taking their place. But those things aren't true. Of course, they have little real information to go on, because this isn't talked about much. To some extent you can forgive their false conclusions, but I wish they weren't so ready to believe them.</p>
<p>I also marvel at the attention paid to AA when there is relatively little outrage over the favoritism shown athletes or legacies, and limited ire over the number of nonresidents admitted to Michigan. </p>
<p>For various reasons, race is a hot-button issue for people, and their emotions about it have led some of them to believe things about affirmative action programs that are not true. I would agree that there are some flaws with how AA is practiced, and some of those have helped lead us to this unappealing contentious point. But at the same time, much about the evils of AA has been overstated.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I also marvel at the attention paid to AA when there is relatively little outrage over the favoritism shown athletes or legacies, and limited ire over the number of nonresidents admitted to Michigan.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Um, athletes actually have talents. They provide a tangible service to the university community and they worked damn hard to get where they are. They don't receive preferential treatment because they were born a "desirable" skin color. And ask A2Wolves how the whole legacy thing worked out for him; not nearly the same benefit as AA.</p>
<p>There are those who believe that minorities also have something valuable to contribute to the overall educational environment of the school.</p>
<p>This was the gist of the numerous amicus briefs filed.</p>
<p>I am aware that you and others don't agree with them.</p>
<p>Here is my plan:</p>
<p>If race is truly a disadvantage for an applicant, then the applicant in question will also be economically disadvantaged.</p>
<p>Give boosts to poor people. Not black/Hispanic/native Americans.</p>
<p>Problem solved.</p>
<p>But I do hate it when people who don't get in and complain like its simply their race that got them denied. Chances are, if you are THAT borderline that a minority took your place (there aren't a lot of minorities, hence the name), then you probably should just go to another university. Umich doesn't want you. :)</p>
<p>This should definitely be a lot more about class than it is about race. People from the lower class bring just as much "diversity" as people from a different race and probably, on average, have a harder time getting a good k-12 education.</p>
<p>I really do feel that affirmative action is racist. A black student in one of these other threads mentioned that he didn't support the notion that students should be selected just so the school can get "the black perspective." But I feel that's exactly what they're doing. I feel like the administration wants blacks on campus so that tour guides can point them out to prospective students whose parents will say, "Oh, a black male, how exotic..." When a black student is in my class, I view his academic credibility with cynicism right off the bat. Racist? Maybe. Justified? Yes, because they let minorities in on lower standards (which is absolutely a proven fact. If on average his SAT scores are 200 points lower than the average white students, dont I have the right to view his academic record with skepticism? Im not saying hes inherently dumber, just less qualified.) The University is doing a disservice to these students. Give them preference based on class (something that undeniably affects opportunities in life), not race.</p>