Whether we like it or not, the affirmative action rulings that brought the University of Michigan to national political limelight not too long ago refuse to die. This time, the issue appears on the ballot in form of Proposition 2:
ANN ARBOR, Mich., Oct. 25 — Three years after the Supreme Court heard Jennifer Gratz’s challenge to the University of Michigan’s affirmative action policy, she is still fighting racial preferences, this time in a Michigan ballot initiative.
Leaflets at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor urging voters to oppose the ballot initiative.
“We have a horrible history when it comes to race in this country,” said Ms. Gratz, 29, a white applicant who was wait-listed 11 years ago at the state’s flagship campus here. “But that doesn’t make it right to give preference to the son of a black doctor at the expense of a poor student whose parents didn’t go to college.”
The ballot initiative, Proposition 2, which would amend Michigan’s Constitution to bar public institutions from considering race or sex in public education, employment or contracting, has drawn wide opposition from the state’s civic establishment, including business and labor, the Democratic governor and her Republican challenger. But polls show voters are split, with significant numbers undecided or refusing to say where they stand.
Passage would probably reinvigorate challenges to a variety of affirmative action programs in other states. In California, where a similar proposition passed in 1996, the number of black students at the elite public universities has dropped. This fall, 96 of 4,800 freshmen at the University of California, Los Angeles — 2 percent — are black, a 30-year low.
For the University of Michigan, the proposition would require broader changes than the Supreme Court did; it ruled in Ms. Gratz’s case and a companion case that while the consideration of race as part of the law school’s admissions policy was constitutional, a formula giving extra points to minority undergraduate applicants was not.
This issue seems to unite a lot of traditional foes together:
Opposition to the measure is led by One United Michigan, an unusually broad coalition that includes Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm, a Democrat, and her Republican challenger, Dick DeVos, as well as unions, churches, businesses and higher education and civil rights groups. It has raised and spent $3.3 million.
“We have the A.C.L.U. sitting with the Michigan Catholic Conference on the steering committee, which is something you don’t see very often,” said David Waymire, a coalition spokesman. “There isn’t a big Michigan voice on the other side. But it’s tough. Two years ago, the initial polling found more than two-thirds supported the proposition. The miracle is that we’ve gotten it into a winnable range.”
For those unfamiliar with the issue, University of Michigan, my alma mater, was center of debate on affirmative action. Even President Bush commented on the case, as mentioned in an entry (while reading the past entry, please note that I haven’t cemented by opinion on affirmative action in Malaysia at that time. In fact, read this too, where I was trying to take a pragmatic view). From the look of it, Michigan is still the center of debate.
The last time the battle was fought, the result was a draw at best. Wikipedia has a write up on the issue at Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger. Bollinger was the President of the University. He’s currently the President of Columbia University. While at Michigan, he was very popular with the students.
7 replies on “[938] Of University of Michigan is Michigan’s midterm election issue”
Those universities don’t subtract the SAT score. Instead, the paper translates effect of AA, on average, into SAT score. The SAT scores itself are still unaltered.
However, the paper itself says it doesn’t take point-based system like that of Michigan into account. So, I’m unsure how study is true as far as UofM is concerned.
To keep it clear, I’m not defending AA at other schools. Again, I’m in principle oppose AA.
Talking about legacies category, again, I’m not an expert so, I won’t pretend to know. But I venture that it’s probably explained on Wikipedia.
However, from Michigan’s POV, it’s AA is to promote diversity. Here’s an explanation by UofM’s lawsuit page:
But as I’ve said before, I’m support UofM’s policies because it encourage diversity. Like what said at the lawsuit page, diversity is part of the education experience offered at Michigan. I absolute agree to that after having the luxury of going through the system. Diversity is one of Michigan’s strength. That would move Michigan away from one of its niche that makes UofM and Ann Arbor so special. If that’s taken away from Michigan, then there’s one less reason to go to Michigan. I’d rather go to USC or NYU or any other school that is as good as Michigan but close to population center, where all the fun is, which great weather!
In order to keep Michigan great, it’s important to continue its current policies.
Talking about fee, well, too, many research projects I suppose. Heh. :p
Touching how on US university are organized, from a layperson knowledge, there’s really no real system since they’re decentralized though in general, what the Australian article is right. There are schools, private and public. Community College is part of the school though that kind of colleges could only produce lower type of degree like diploma and stuff. I’m not an expert in the US education system, so, you might not want to take my word for it.
Since we\’re on the subject of the American tertiary system, can you explain a bit on how the unis there are organised?
I read an interesting article from an Aussie paper, that the Californian system divides unis into 3 tiers:
1. UC and its campuses are admits the highest performing students and recruit the best academics, but also charge the highest fees. This tier is designed to compete with other heavy-hitters on the world level
2. State unis
3. Community colleges
Also, I what\’s the difference between a public and private uni there? I know University of Michigan is a public uni, and all of the Ivy Leagues are private. Is the former funded by the state, and the latter by individuals? If so, why does UC and your alma mater still charge their students with such high fees?
I\’m also very interested in how the US runs its AA programs. John was right, here\’s the breakdown of AA asisstance in terms of addition or subtraction of SAT scores for uni admissions from wikipedia:
* Blacks: +230
* Hispanics: +185
* Asians: -50
* Recruited athletes: +200
* Legacies (children of alumni): +160
Asian-Americans are actually penalised under the system! I really don\’t get this. I didn\’t know AA can actually subtract points from students. Shouldn\’t the Asian-American\’s SAT point be unaltered when considered, ala a white American\’s application?
And I am amazed that the US tertiary system can come up with something such as the \’Legacies\’ system of AA. No wonder George W Bush got into Yale with a reported SAT of 1300/1600. And if that\’s not bad enough, why are the students under the Legacies category accorded so much points?
Interesting tertiary system the US has. Would be interested in your explanation of these issues.
I’m not sure about the other eight schools but I’ve never heard Michigan capping anybody. Entrance is based on a transparent formula. If you passed the mark according to that formula, you’ll gain admission. I’d imagine the volume of new intake is dependent on the capacity of the U of M.
Actually if I’m not mistaken, Asian Americans get a bum rap in AA (at least for education) because they are actually over-represented in many institutions, especially the Ivy League ones.
Sigma, under the current AA, at least the policies of U of M, all American minorities benefit. It\’s never about Black exclusively although the Black is the loudest group defending it. That includes Chinese American and other Asian American. If it matters at all, it is the top scoring Asian Americans that benefit the most from this policies.
While I disagree AA in principle, in case of U of M, I am leaning toward the majority opinion at the school.
Reason: I appreciate diversity. The diverse background of the University is one of the few things that makes me love and appreciate my time there. The diverse environment of the U is an asset. That what makes Michigan a top tier U in the world. If the AA had not brought in diversity, I would oppose the AA outright. To me, this AA is more about diversity and providing the internationalist atmosphere to open, hence, allowing the U to provide an eye-opener experience as part of the education that the U provides, rather than solely about social re-engineering.
In fact, I would strongly support AA for Republicans too! They are effectively an extinct species over there and there are too many lefties in Ann Arbor that sometimes, even I felt ideologically threatened despite being a green! :)
This is where AA at Michigan is different from those of Malaysia. In Malaysia, it is purely about social engineering. Even worse, it threatens diversity.
I will still go with my race-blind affirmative action stand on this issue, as well as Malaysia’s.
To me, like what Gratz said, it makes no sense if a rich black student were given priority over a poor white student. Race-based affirmative action policies seems to me like gross race generalisation. It’s like saying ALL black students are less capable or poorer compared to white kids.
That’s why I’ve never agreed with the US’s black affirmative action policies.
Is it so hard to base every AA program solely on one’s socioeconomic condition? Like parent’s income, personal income, etc.
On the issue of black enrolment only making up 2% of UCLA’s intake, I say, so what? As I see it, as long as the state, through UCLA, ensures that it practices a meritocratic accpetance policy, then it would have given all students an equal opportunity at uni entry. I thought the job of a uni was to educate the students who had competed and won the opportunity to be educated in them, instead of acting as some sort of racial social engineering mechanism?
Now I’m no Ivy League material :P, but what about a lot of the Asian-Americans in the US then? If I’m not mistaken they only constitute about 5-10% of the American population, right? But aren’t they over-represented in a lot of American unis? So if we subscribe to the US’s race-based AA policy, does that mean that Asian-Americans shouldn’t be allowed to ‘take up’ so many tertiary education places? And some should be given to the white Americans instead?
My thoughts on this anyways. Cheers :D