Thursday
January 8, 2009
Advertisement
News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
Nov. 28, 2006
Retreat on Affirmative Action?
The morning after Michigan voters approved a measure to bar affirmative action in public colleges and universities, University of Michigan officials refused to talk about how the university might carry out the ban. Instead, at a speech that afternoon on the Ann Arbor campus, President Mary Sue Coleman said that the university was seriously considering going to court to block Proposition 2, as the measure is known.
Related stories
- The Immigrant Factor, Feb. 1, 2007
- Delay of Affirmative Action Ban Rejected, Jan. 2, 2007
- Short-Term Reprieve for Affirmative Action, Dec. 20, 2006
- Proxies for Race, Dec. 6, 2006
- New Challenge to Affirmative Action, Nov. 14, 2006
“I believe there are serious questions as to whether this initiative is lawful, particularly as it pertains to higher education,” Coleman said. “I have asked our attorneys for their full and undivided support in defending diversity at the University of Michigan. I will immediately begin exploring legal action concerning this initiative.” Coleman’s speech drew praise from minority students and many educators who support affirmative action. It was also harshly attacked by many others in the state, who said it was wrong for a public university to try to defy the 58 percent of the state’s voters who had expressed their opposition to affirmative action.
A few weeks later, with the clock ticking toward the December 22 date when Proposition 2 takes effect, the university is taking a very different line. No lawsuits have been filed, and the university now is talking about carrying out the measure. In an e-mail message to students and faculty members last week, Coleman invited ideas on how to promote diversity within the new constraints of Proposition 2.
Officially, the university says that nothing has changed. In her speech right after the vote, Coleman said that the university would not violate state law, and in her more recent e-mail, she said that the university is continuing to explore its legal options.
But both critics and defenders of affirmative action see a significant shift, in that the university that once wouldn’t talk about carrying out Proposition 2 is now doing just that.
“That [post-election] speech was clearly just for posturing,” said Sharon L. Browne, a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which opposes affirmative action and has pledged to defend any legal challenge the university brings.
Agreeing with the Pacific Legal Foundation that the university has changed its stance is a group that pretty much never agrees with the Pacific Legal Foundation: the By Any Means Necessary Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. “What the university is doing now is really lame. Coleman gave a good speech, but now they aren’t doing anything,” said Donna Stern, a spokeswoman for the group, which has filed its own suit to block Proposition 2. “What they are now saying is completely inadequate.”
Julie Peterson, a spokeswoman for Michigan, said that the university’s critics are misreading what is going on, and that the new effort to come up with ideas for carrying out Proposition 2 is “not instead of, but parallel to” any possible legal action. “Our commitment to diversity is as strong as ever,” she said.
Even though Proposition 2 applied to all public colleges in the state, the University of Michigan’s handling of the issue remains key. Because the university’s admissions are by far the most competitive in the state and because of the university’s role in defending affirmative action from previous legal challenges, its stance is attracting more attention that that of any other university.
At the crux of the debate is whether the university has good legal options to oppose Proposition 2. The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, as the measure is formally known, faced a series of legal challenges before it ended up on the November ballot. The most serious challenges came from groups charging that citizens were deceived about the measure and signed the petitions to place it on the ballot without understanding what they were doing. In the end, those criticisms were set aside and the measure was placed on the ballot.
A decade ago, when California voters approved a similar measure, it was challenged in federal court, but those challenges were turned back and the affirmative action ban remained in place. As a result of that experience, some legal experts — including some who back affirmative action and supported the university’s successful defense of affirmative action before the U.S. Supreme Court — questioned privately whether a legal challenge could succeed. At the point that Coleman raised the possibility of a suit, she did not detail the grounds, and she has not done so since.
By Any Means Necessary argues that the university could preserve its admissions policies if it argued that any system without affirmative action would yield immediate discrimination against black and some other minority students. This would require the university to shift from an argument based on the educational value of diversity (an argument that the U.S. Supreme Court accepted) to an argument “based on equality,” Stern said.
“The university hasn’t been arguing that black students are intellectually equal. It was saying ‘we need to let some black students in for diversity,’ ” said Stern. “The university will not admit that standardized tests that it uses are biased. Every admissions officer in the country knows that they are biased,” she added.
As to the argument that the university shouldn’t legally challenge a measure approved by such a large share of the voters, Stern attributed the 58 percent margin to “white men voting to preserve white privilege” and said “if it had been left to the electorate in Alabama and Missisippi on whether to eliminate Jim Crow, we woudn’t have eliminated Jim Crow.”
Browne of the Pacific Legal Foundation scoffed at the idea that any legal challenge would get very far. Proposition 2 is “the mirror image” of California’s measure, Browne said. She noted that the University of Michigan’s win at the Supreme Court in 2003 did not require affirmative action, but said that colleges could decide to use it. Since there is no federal obligation, she said, states are free “to provide more protection” against the use of any racial distinctions, should states want to do so.
Coleman’s communication to her campus last week was toned down considerably from her earlier comments on the legal picture. A university statement said that Michigan might seek “clarification from the courts on how to interpret the impact of the amendment on U-M’s core operations” and that the next legal steps have not been determined.
The emphasis of Coleman’s message was that there are many ways to promote diversity, regardless of Proposition 2, and that the university’s commitment to diversity need not be diminished. She invited people to submit any reasonable idea — rough or detailed, predictable or unconventional. She predicted that the institution would find ways to make Michigan a place that “reflects the richness of the world.”
Aside from a broad challenge to Proposition 2, the university has also talked about seeking a stay of some sort, so that the admissions cycle taking place during this academic year could be consistent. Michigan uses a rolling admissions system, so not only will the university be reviewing applications before and after Proposition 2 takes effect, but it will be admitting or rejecting applicants before and after. In her post-election speech, Coleman said: “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.”
Peterson, the spokeswoman, confirmed that some admissions decisions have already gone out, and said she couldn’t say what would change on December 22, pending the outcome of any legal decisions the university makes.
Browne said that the Pacific Legal Foundation would oppose not only a broad challenge to Proposition 2, but any request for a delay, even to keep this year’s admissions cycle. “There’s no reason why, in 45 days, the university couldn’t have implemented a new admissions system,” she said.
As for the fairness of admitting some students under one system and others under another, for the same year, Browne said: “Being admitted based on your qualifications without regard to race seems to be a very fair admissions policy.”
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
Comments
The vote was wrong
Schools with low standards and no demand from prospective students do not need affirmative action. Many of them have ended the practice.
The University of Michigan needs affirmative action to fulfill its mission to provide a balanced student body to the other students admitted.
The value of a decision by the voters on this subject is overrated.
The administration of each school should be free to determine when affirmative action will end for their school.
If Rap music were the measure of the need, it would have perpetual existence.
William Sumner Scott, J.D.
Judicial Equality Foundation, Inc.
William Sumner Scott, J.D., at 8:15 am EST on November 28, 2006
George Wallace: “I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.”
Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick: “We will affirm to the world that affirmative action will be here today, it will be here tomorrow, and there will be affirmative action in the state forever.”
Mary Sue Coleman: “Diversity matters at Michigan. It matters today, and it will matter tomorrow.”
Birds of a feather....
Birdwatcher, at 8:20 am EST on November 28, 2006
cooler heads prevailed
See, folks, cooler heads prevailed. The public figures made their speeches. Then they talked to their lawyers, and figured out where they really stood.
Now we can get back to legacy admits and admitting kids with obviously padded resumes and grade inflation.
Larry, at 9:05 am EST on November 28, 2006
What does Affirmative Action accomplish?
I have a unique perspective on Affirmative Action in that I have worked at an Historically Black College for over two decades, and I am white. I came on-board during the 1980’s desegregation plan for higher education, which mostly targeted historically white institutions. This was a ramped-up effort to make Affirmative Action work at the higher education level. The question is, did it work? The answer is vague, at best. We now have more master’s and Ph.D. holding African Americans than ever before, but we also are building more prisons than schools and filling them with African Americans.I believe that we must rethink affirmative action and take away the component that allows for preferred treatment for one race based only on that person color. Studies have shown that the correlation between the ability to do college level work is more socio-economic than racially based. In a perfect world we would put everyone on the same playing field; however, just as in athletics, academics has its superstars and those who belong on the band. Perhaps it is time for higher education to begin to look at the hard facts. Those who can, will; those who can’t will have to work to achieve their status. I do not believe that universities should lower their admissions standards for any social or racial class of people. There are good junior colleges and technical colleges out there which are well equiped to handle remediation and developmental coursework. Universities should then make it easy for those who prove themselves elsewhere to transfer, regardless of race or social background. Then and only then does affirmative action begin to make sense.
Martin, at 9:42 am EST on November 28, 2006
There’s no retreat on Affirmative Action at private universities that have embraced campus diversity as a recruiting tool for both faculty and students. Major univerisites roll out the red carpet to wine and dine top athletes and coaches, and private universities are doing the same thing regarding recruitment of Black and Latin students and faculty.
California public universities have experienced a significant decline in the number of Black students since Prop 209 passed ten years ago, while the number of Black students at USC, Stanford, Pepperdine and other private schools in the state has increased. If Ward Connerly is successful in his goal to eliminate Affirmative Action at all public universities, will private universities be the shining examples of diversity while the public schools look like the the University of Mississippi circa. 1950.
Black students and faculty do have a choice of schools where they will study and work. Is it a bad thing for a major university to say “we don’t have many black students/faculty; we want more; you’re qualified; here’s what we have to offer you if you come to our school?
Robert, at 10:25 am EST on November 28, 2006
Who’s school is it?
“...The value of a decision by the voters on this subject is overrated.
The administration of each school should be free to determine when affirmative action will end for their school....”
The above statement is precisely the attitude which explains why funding for higher end is in such jeopardy. I, as taxpayer, believe that institutions which I support should in some fashion follow the rules that I lay down. Silly me, I just can’t seem to grasp the concept that crank bureaucrats have a devine right to pick my pocket and be answerable to no one!
If you want to play by your own rules, take your institution private and we’ll part on friendly terms. If not, grow up and accept the people’s decision.
John Luiten, at 10:45 am EST on November 28, 2006
The tide has turned
Just as it did in the 1950s, when the racist system of “separate but equal” lost legal and, more important, public support. It’s now happened to the more insidious, but equally noxious, notion of affirmative action. The people of Michigan, like the people of California, have simply said that they don’t want for people to be treated differently on the basis of race. The opposition voices that defiantly say “no, we won’t change our system!” sound exactly like the southern segregationists.
Prof. Challenger, at 11:00 am EST on November 28, 2006
The most frustrating thing about this situation is that not only did Michigan voters ban affirmative action (a flawed but necessary system designed to right the wrongs started by providing shoddy education to students in poor districts), they also shot down a proposition designed to improve school funding systems in an attempt to level the playing field and provide quality education to all K-12 districts.
I would have no problem with the elimination of affirmative action if the state was making a commitment to providing equal education to all of its students, but until the kids in Detroit are getting the same quality education as the kids in Ann Arbor, we are doing nothing but perpetuating a cycle.
Michigan native, at 11:41 am EST on November 28, 2006
The beat goes on........ and on.......
Since California voted overwhelmingly ten years ago to ban the use of racial or ethnic preferences in university admissions, the total cumulative number of black students at ALL campuses of the UC system and the California State University system has increased.
So too has the graduation rate. Why?
Because black students like white ones now attend those universities whose entrance standards more closely correspond to their own levels of academic preparation, intellectual focus and mental rigor.
And that’s a good thing.
The previous use of racist double standards in admissions to highly competitive public U.C. campuses like Berkeley and UCLA meant several things:
1) black students found themselves woefully unprepared for the academic competition at those places and dropped out or else graduated in appallingly tiny percentages.
2) black students who were there as students, to learn primarily from their professors (what a concept!) were often told that “they” were really there to teach their non-black classmates this or that, as if critical thinking skills, cognitive abilities or writing talents were linked to skin color!
3) non-black students noticed how poorly black students did if they were admitted under different standards; hence unwittingly that sort of odious and racist affirmative action policies perpetuated the very racist stereotypes they were designed to eliminate!
Leave it to dishonest, diversity zealots like UofM President Mary Sue Coleman to pretend it ain’t so.
The voters in three solid, predominantly “blue” states (California, Washington, and Michigan) have voted against the perpetuation of the racist sham and dishonest hustle that affirmative action degenerated into.
Those who find this fact still so hard to grasp, keep wailing and whining all you like.
As they say out west, “the dogs may bark, but the wagons roll on.”
Giddyup!
Chuck, at 11:45 am EST on November 28, 2006
1. Does the whole idea of propositions work? 2. This is nothing like the 50s. To believe that is purely a dogmatic point of view. 3. What has years of affirmative action accomplished? 4. Options for getting a college education are arguably better than they’ve ever been. U of M is only one of many. 5. The traditional method of applying for and getting into college, SAT scores, GPA, etc. may be flawed, but affirmative action doesn’t fix it. 6. Affirmative action doesn’t fix any problems having to do with equality or opportunity. Those problems need to be addressed far earlier than college.
drdon, at 11:45 am EST on November 28, 2006
Don’t kid yourself
“I just can’t seem to grasp the concept that crank bureaucrats have a devine right to pick my pocket and be answerable to no one!”
John, who are you kidding. The government picks our pockets constantly and uses the money without our input. Try to remember that the US is a Republic. That means we trust our represtentatives to be informed and make the right choices. Do you think if we put Federal Affirmative Action Laws on the ballot they would remain in place. Not likely, but fortunately our representatives know it is still needed and that the minority voices of our country have rights that need protected as well as the majority.
DS Vaughan, Depressed in Michigan, at 12:30 pm EST on November 28, 2006
athletics v. band
I object strenuously to the assertion above that “just as in athletics, academics has its superstars and those who belong on the band.” The notion that the band is for losers while the winners play football is, shall we say, a mite prehistoric. It is undoubtedly harder to make the University of Michigan Marching Band than the University of Michigan Football Team. The band is composed of extremely skilled musicians who have dedicated years of their lives to mastering their instruments. The football team members, well, they can hit, run and throw, big deal. I, for one, would far prefer my children to play in the band than on a varsity team of any kind.
DBL, at 12:45 pm EST on November 28, 2006
Robert asks whether it is a bad thing for a major university to say:"we don’t have many black students/faculty; we want more; you’re qualified;”
I do have a problem with the “we want more” at a public university. The moment we accept that, we also condone “we want less whites; we want less Jews; we want more rich; we want more atheists; we want less Chinese; we want less (or more) Arabs; etc.” And until everyone qualified is accepted, the “you’re qualified” is insufficient. It’s the relative qualifications that should matter.
Wolf, at 1:28 pm EST on November 28, 2006
Athletes and Affirmative Action?
Would the California and Michigan anti affirmative action measures passed if they also required football and basketball players to meet the same admission policies as non athletes, and to tie the number of athletic scholarship to graduation rates?
harry, at 1:31 pm EST on November 28, 2006
Retreat on “Affirmative Action”
With regard to the term “affirmative action", the following should be noted.
The debate is not about something called about “affirmative action", it is about granting preferences on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, sex, or national origin.
During the run-up to the vote on California’s Proposition 209 in Nevember of 1996, the Roper Polling Organization asked 1,000 university professors chosen at random from the 9 University of California campuses to define “affirmative action".
Thirty seven percent of those surveyed thought affirmative action meant granting preferences to women and certain racial and ethnic groups, while 43% thought it meant promoting equal opportunities for all individuals without regard to their race, sex or ethnicity. Another 14% disagreed with both statements.
In early 1996, Judge Robert Puglia ruled on the ACLU’s demand to insert the phrase “affirmative acion” into Prop. 209’s ballot language. Judge Puglia correctly rejected their demand, writing, the term is “fluid and means different things to different people.”
Following 209’s victory at the polls, the ACLU went judge shopping and found Judge Thelton Henderson who issued a temporary restraining order, (TRO) halting 209’s immplementation. He claimed 209 was “probably un-constitutional.”
Ward Connerly and 209’s authors asked the Ninth District Appeals Court to rule on Henderson’s TRO, and a three-judge panel from the most liberal appeals court in the country ruled 3-0 in favor of Prop. 209.
The ACLU then asked for a ruling from all of the Ninth’s judges and they voted 14 to 4 also in favor of Proposition 209.
The ACLU then went to the U. S. Supreme Court, who refused to hear the case, letting stand the decision of the lower court.
So if the race preference crowd wants to continue to fight the will of the people, let them proceed. What is unfortunate is that U. of Michigan president Mary Sue Coleman intends to use public funds to fight the will of Michigan’s voters when they voted to halt the use of race, gender and ethnic preferences.
Raymond Batz, at 2:10 pm EST on November 28, 2006
Re: DS Vaughan Depressed in Michigan
No, his criticism is correct. Nobody is suggesting that people elected to positions of power have ... power. The point is that they face re-election. If the people don’t like the way they rule their power will be stripped away, or the funding that is the source of that power will dry up, as the case may be.
Samwise, at 5:00 pm EST on November 28, 2006
Another Aspect of Michigan’s Proposal 2
A crucial aspect of Michigan’s Proposal 2 is the implication for an end to preferential treatment in award of contracts for state, county or municipal contracts. This means that the consideration given by the City of Detroit, for example, in the award of portions of contracts to minority based companies and women owned businesses must stop. The appropriate city ordnances had encouraged these companies to participate equitably in public contracts. Has anyone yet figured out the full effects of Proposal 2 on the affected businesses, who invariably are the largest employers of minority employees?
Joe, at 6:00 pm EST on November 28, 2006
judge shopping ?
Mr. Batz, How did the ACLU go “judge shopping.” I sure how that you are not getting this stuff on a website? Moreover, as you know, under 28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1), a grant of an injunction may be immediately appealed, so even if they could shop for judges, it wouldn’t make a difference.
Whatever the case, the constitution is a very undemocratic document. The “will” of the people doesn’t mean to much. First of all “the people” really can’t understand the issues. They don’t have access to higher education, and they rarely read Supreme Court opinions. It isn’t because they don’t want to. They just can’t. Secondly, the Constitution allows the executive to “veto” the legislature, even if the legislature has a majority. It is very hard to impeach a president, even if a majority think he is doing a bad job. Individuals can be acquitted of crimes even if many people think they are guilty. On top of that, I am told that individuals that are convicted of crimes can have their convictions reversed if the trial was defective, no matter how many people want to see the defendant dead.
Larry, at 1:45 am EST on November 29, 2006
Affirmative action for white kids
So does this mean the end of legacy preferences, development admits, Title IX minor prep sports advantages, profs’ brats breaks, famous kids booster seat policies, and higher bar setting for Asian-American applicants?Or does the AA bell ring only when we are talking about Black and Hispanic kids?
Patrick Mattimore, Teacher, at 1:50 am EST on November 29, 2006
Patrick, most white men, including myself, don’t benefit from any of the above, with the possible exception of the higher standards for asians, which by the way WOULD be ended by the Michigan legislation as I understand things.
There are any number of advantages that one applicant has over another, but that’s life in America, and anyone who works hard can achieve great things here.
We do, however, have a constitutional amendment banning discrimination based on race.
Sam, at 9:55 am EST on November 29, 2006
To Harry
I must say that my comment concerning football and the band was not well represented. I did not mean that band members were losers any more than I intended to infer that students who chose to attend junior or technical colleges are dumb. It was more of a performance analogy, most band members can not perform well as football players, but do quite well as band members. Some students do quite well as junior college or small college students, but would struggle at schools like U of Michigan. Understand better now?
Martin, at 10:25 am EST on November 29, 2006
Affirmative action for white kids
Sam, Most blacks and Latinos don’t benefit at our nation’s competitive universities since very few members of those groups go to competitive schools. The point I was making is that there are many affirmative actions being taken that do benefit groups other than blacks and Latinos. Take legacy admits for example which are overwhelmingly white. Sons and daughters of alumni are given preferences in admissions at many state schools and practically all elite private schools. At Notre Dame, for example, approximately 1 out of 4 students is a legacy. My larger point is that if you want to do away with traditional affirmative action admits fine. Just make sure that we level the playing field by getting rid of all the types of covert affirmative action that no one is talking about.
Patrick Mattimore, teacher, at 6:45 pm EST on November 29, 2006
Advertisement
Jobs Related to Retreat on Affirmative Action?
or search for jobs directly.
Director, Graduate Program Information Assurance (111862)
Northeastern University
Northeastern University, founded in 1898 and located in Boston, is a private research university that is a leader in ... see job
Chair, Department of Psychology/Sociology
College of Notre Dame of Maryland
College of Notre Dame of Maryland is experiencing a time of growth and renewal and is seeking new faculty and departmental ... see job
Power Plant Technician Program Coordinator
Fairmont State University/Pierpont Community and Technical College
Fairmont State University and Pierpont Community & Technical College, with a 120-acre main campus in Fairmont, WV, is part of ... see job
Agricultural Inspector
NC State University
Join the Pack! A community with nearly 8,000 faculty and staff, and 30,000 students. NC State is one of the largest employers ... see job
Visiting Assistant Professor of Art History
Oberlin College
The Department of Art at Oberlin College seeks a full-time, one-year faculty position in the College of Arts and Sciences. see job
Program Director, Mining Technology Program (Gillette College)
Northern Wyoming Community College District
Job Purpose: The Mining Technology Program Director will be responsible for supervising the day-to-day operations of NWCCD’s ... see job
Vice President for Development and Alumni Relations
Saint Joseph’s University — PA
SJU seeks a vice president for development and alumni relations to lead a successful program to even greater levels of ... see job
Assistant/Associate Professor of Computer Science
Lebanese American University
School of Arts and Sciences Discipline: Computer Science Department : Computer Sc & Math Campus: Beirut Vacancy date: Spring ... see job
Agricultural Air Quality Modeling Postdoctoral Researcher
NC State University
Join the Pack! A community with nearly 8,000 faculty and staff, and 30,000 students. NC State is one of the largest employers ... see job
Professor and Head
Mississippi State University
Head of the Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology at Mississippi State University. This is a 12 month ... see job
Home
| Sign up | Log in
| About us
| Work for Us
| Press Releases
| Rights and permissions
| Contact us
| Advertise
| Partners
| RSS 
| Podcasts
| Links
| Privacy
| My Account
© Copyright 2009 Inside Higher Ed
Alice-in-Wonderland?
” .. Stern attributed the 58 percent margin to “white men voting to preserve white privilege” ..”
Of course — that the nearly same margin which rejected a white male billionaire’s son to retain a white female Harvard Law graduate for Michigan governor shows what a ‘red state’ U-M is in.
Gimme a break. Even Mary Sue Coleman appears to understand now. Affirmative action began in the Nixon Administration — where’s the end-point? When there are 10 Oprahs? And 20 Bill Cosby-types?
Bart, at 7:45 am EST on November 28, 2006