Michigan universities can use race as a factor in admissions after federal appeals court ruling
In a ruling that could affect how state universities accept students, Michigan's ban on using race as a factor in college admissions was struck down in a federal appeals court Friday, according to a report in the Associated Press.
Proposal 2 was passed by voters in 2006, forcing the University of Michigan and other public colleges and universities to change their admissions policies by removing race from what they'd consider.
According to the report, a federal court in Detroit upheld Proposal 2 in 2008, ruling that no single race can benefit from the measure. The ruling also said that gender considerations can't be banned in college admissions.
To read the full report, click here.
Kyle Feldscher covers K-12 education for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached at kylefeldscher@annarbor.com or you can follow him on Twitter.
Comments
Wolf's Bane
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 7:09 p.m.
What really counts at UM's admissions are the following: 1. Money, if your mommy or daddy (preferably) are powerful and active Alumni, step forward. 2. Money, if you are brilliant (or very athletic) and could potentially over UM an opportunity to capitalize on it, step forward. 3. Money for your race from the state and feds: If your a minority, woman, poorer demographic, but have excellent scores and academic record, step forward. 4. Money. Out of state admissions trump in state admissions because of money. 5. For profit education is not what its cracked up to be.
DonBee
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 9 p.m.
There are two more rounds to go, the full appeals court and the supreme court. To say that this is over turned now is premature. I will reserve comment until the supreme court weights in.
TKA2
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 8:13 p.m.
"When great changes occur in history, when great principles are invovled, as a rule the majority are wrong." Eugene Debs. The list of examples from our short history are to well know and to long to bother listing! And one of the many reasons all three branches of our government are what make this country great! And by the way our the good ole US of A is a Republic (recite the Pledge of Allegiance silently to self...), not strictly speaking a Democracy...ask you "representative" in our "representative" form of government. As for the issue at hand, local tax money for schools, parents paying for test prep, consultants for applications and more are an equal footing vs. a poor kid of any race/color educated in underfunded (i.e. most) school, without any outside help/assistance/coaching/training and maybe working part time to boot? Get real. I'd much rather have my daughter at UM side by side with a smart hard working kid that found their own way and has with a 27 ACT vs. a kid that ramped up to a 31 ACT on their fourth try after 4 years of tutors and 3 kaplan classes.
Basic Bob
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 11:49 a.m.
Well, I struggled to understand what you're saying, but I completely agree! The rich-enough white people who defend the status quo in the name of the Democratic party and fairness are facing an uphill battle. Embrace your minority brothers, soon there will be no majority. Hopefully you have taught your children to get along with people of all races and cultures, because this will be a necessary skill for most people.
Macabre Sunset
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 8:26 p.m.
If only that were the reality of the argument...
Will Warner
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 6:30 p.m.
For the record, universities claim that compensating today's minorities for discrimination in the past is NOT the reason they need to consider race in admissions (because that justification was rejected by courts some years ago). Race-conscious admissions are undertake, they claim, not for the benefit of the people who receive preferential treatment, but to produce diversity within the institution, for, without it, no one gets a good education. That is the contention that must be addressed.
Macabre Sunset
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 7:35 p.m.
Too bad there is no diversity of thought within this institution. Their policies are as shallow as they are.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 6:13 p.m.
For all of you who see this decision as fostering racism: Racism. 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination. 3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. Source: <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism" rel='nofollow'>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism</a> Universities using race as a factor in determining admissions clearly is none of the above. If you think (2) applies--WRONG. Read more carefully. Under (2), the government policy must be an effort to foster (1). Clearly, the intent of using race in admissions decisions is the opposite. Good Night and Good Luck
Steve
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 8:55 p.m.
Free logic lesson: 'or' means only one of the two definitions must to be true. 2. a policy...based upon...such a doctrine Check. Making choices 'based upon' on race is indeed racist, even if only partially. The question however isn't if the policy is racist but rather if there can be a form of racism that results in a net good for society. Don't get hung up on political correctness. This is the internet after all.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 12:13 a.m.
@tdw: Your link was to the definition of discrimination. Yes, a policy that takes race into account discriminates. Just as does one that takes into account whether the prospective student was an athlete. Just as does one that takes into account whether the prospective student played a musical instrument. Just as does one that takes into account the prospective student's SAT scores. Just as does one that takes into account whether the prospective student was involved in scouting. Just as does one that takes into account whether the prospective student's parents or grandparents attended the UofM. All of these--and more--figure in to admission decisions. @MIck: What achievement? Does and "A" mean the same thing from school to school to school? And, last I heard, SAT/ACT score are terrible predictors of student success at the U and at most other institutions. The factors above (and many others) are an effort to gauge whether the resource being allocated (which is what an admissions slot is) is being allocated wisely. Good Night and Good Luck
Mick52
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 7:23 p.m.
Using your example then, we can conclude that if UM only relied on qualifications and because of that some people of any race was "under represented" that would not be racist either. Correct? As long as admissions are based solely on achievement there is no racism. I think race has and never had any bearing on admissions at U of M until they used admissions to balance diversity. More likely the high cost and high standards are just as responsible. EMU has no diversity issues. Many races are prominently represented there. I have always felt UM approach to achieving diversity is wrong. Rather than allowing admissions based on race, why not recruit like the athletic dept does? That said, in answer to the question "Is the U of M a racist institution?" my answer is: Why isn't Martin Luther King Day an official holiday? It is just about everywhere else.
tdw
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 7:02 p.m.
Ed what about this one ? would it apply ? ( hope the link works ) <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination" rel='nofollow'>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discrimination</a>
mojo
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 5:32 p.m.
So U of M is going to "profile" ?
Wolf's Bane
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 5:28 p.m.
So much for the will of the people. Guess we no longer matter?
nowayjose
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 5:26 p.m.
That's just sad. Admissions should be solely based on scholastic performance and nothing else. Race should never define a person or their worthyness for acceptance. What lesson is it teaching those students of a different race that get accepted? You earned this because we need a certain number of your race here?
Milton Shift
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 8:57 a.m.
Mick52, you nailed it.
Mick52
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 7:09 p.m.
I agree with you both but from a different perspective. When you are young and your parents tell you that if you work hard and get good grades to get into the college of your choice, it is devastating to be denied that by race alone. Scott raises the race card. I deny racism is as rampant as it has been but what bothers me is that poor neighborhoods seemed to be populated by blacks by a vast majority. Those public schools suffer for funding and thus so do the students. But I think it completely wrong by trying to level this out by college admissions. That to me is far too late. My preference for affirmative action is to assure that all K-12 children have equal opportunity in education. AA should be applied at K-12, not at post K-12 education. Seems to me to be much too late. Level the playing field as early as possible, not when adulthood begins.
scott
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 6:01 p.m.
I find this ignorant because the path for a black person on average is ridiculously against their favor. You could easily make the point that the white student with the same "qualifications" had a huge head start and managed to squander it while the black student had a lot against them and ended up even with the white student.
Will Warner
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 5:05 p.m.
May we ever know the limits of the 14th Amendment?
Top Cat
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 4:43 p.m.
I would not count on this Appeals Court ruling to stand. Fortunately most judges still read and understand the 14th Amendment and have a respect for the democratic process.
Mick52
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 7:02 p.m.
I think it will depend on how the Supreme court evaluates the temporary approval noted in Grutter v Bollinger.
Roadman
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 4:32 p.m.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Proposal 2 ballot initiative that passed violated the rights of minority students under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Under the Supremacy Clause the power of the federal constitution "trumps" legislative enactments and constitutional provisions that conflict with it. Just like Southern states had to dismantle Jim Crow because racially-based legislation violated the Fourteenth Amendment despite those state's legislators embracing racially-based state enactments.
SonnyDog09
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 4:06 p.m.
I love it when judges don't believe in democracy. Proposal 2 passed with 57.9% voting for it. What part of "We the people..." don't they understand?
Jake C
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 10:22 p.m.
If 57.9% of voters asked you to jump off a cliff, would you do it just because a majority asked you to?
genetracy
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 9:50 p.m.
I did not vote for Obama. Because I do not like the fact he won the election, can I sue to have the election overturned becasue I feel "oppressed"?
Wolf's Bane
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 5:30 p.m.
Pathetic. At least put it to another vote before we just cast aside due process and the rule of law!?! I hope the ACLU steps in...
Lovaduck
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 4:42 p.m.
The purpose of courts is to correct the possible tyranny of the majority. We have majority rule, but minority RIGHTS must be protected.
grye
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 4:41 p.m.
Justice is about just us making the decisions.
glacialerratic
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 4:06 p.m.
And who were the plaintiffs? Quick with a poll but slow with the facts. What this town needs is a decent newspaper.
Roadman
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 3:46 p.m.
The Allan Bakke vs. Board of Regents case before the United States Supreme Court in 1978 established the parameters of what a university could consider in the admissions process. Racial quotas were struck down but race as a factor was approved. The reality of most law and medical school programs is that they are so competitive that the pool of admitted students accepted solely by their academic record and entrance exam scores excludes many who are competent to complete a program and the minority applicants who are admitted on racial factors are actually very intelligent ans capable students who would ordinarily face exclusion from admission due to deficiencies in their academic record or entrance exam scores. In some California university graduate programs, such as engineering or science, the number and percentage of Asian and Asian-American students admitted on academic and standardized scores alone would be prohibitive if racial and other non-academic factors did not come into play in the applicant consideration process.
Mick52
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 7 p.m.
Bakke? You need to fast forward to Grutter and Gratz. Most important in Gratz was Justice O'Connor's statement that this should be temporary. She put a 25 year period upon which this should not be necessary. I think when the country elects an African American President we could presume that day has come and race should not be a factor. Using race is racist.
ThaKillaBee
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 3:36 p.m.
But U of M, for one, has always stated they don't use race in their decisions. From their website: "The University of Michigan is committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all persons and does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability, religion, height, weight, or veteran status in employment, educational programs and activities, and admissions." I know most places generally have the same policy. I never understood why this ban/un-ban meant anything since they all claimed to have never used race anyway.
Mick52
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 6:53 p.m.
They post it but they do not follow it. Easy to say but apparently not so easy to practice.
Joe
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 3:35 p.m.
The average white family has around ten times the net financial worth of the average black family, and yet people are arguing that using race in admissions is racist. It reveals a fundamental ignorance of the meaning of the word "racist." Ignoring racial disparities is racist. Maintaining the status quo is racist. White people in America have inherited, economically and tangibly, the benefits of segregation and slavery. It is up to this generation to right some of those wrongs, and Affirmative Action is just a small step in the right direction. We need to be talking about addressing inequalities in all stages of a person's life, not just when they get to college.
Matt Cooper
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 7:20 p.m.
"It's hard to take you seriously, Matt, because you assume white people are inherently racist." Secondly, since you don't know me from Adam, please don't presume to tell me what I assume. The history of racism in this country is documented fact, and whether your eyes are open enough to see it or not, it still goes on to this very day. The only time whites cry about anything to do with racism is when they are suddenly on the other side of it. Bury your head in the sand if you so choose, but it won't change those facts.
Wolf's Bane
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 3:53 p.m.
They're more white folks living in poverty than black folks. Just keeping it honest.
Milton Shift
Sat, Jul 2, 2011 : 3:02 a.m.
Ignatz nails it. The problem with affirmative action is it uses averages. There are many poor and disadvantaged young white males and plenty of wealthy blacks and women. Decisions should be made off an individual's circumstances. Help out the poor and talented minorities, women, white men, based on their background, not their color or their genitals. I thought this was the original idea behind progressive values, but apparently this has been lost.
Macabre Sunset
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 9:14 p.m.
It's hard to take you seriously, Matt, because you assume white people are inherently racist. If you see the world that way, then of course you're going to want to fight back. Your quotes on the death penalty are absurd. White people make up 56% of those executed for murder in the United States since 1976 (Death Penalty Information Center). This despite the fact that black people currently commit 52% of all murders, according to the FBI. But black people only make up 42% of those on death row (DPIC). I think you need to open your mind a little. Just a little.
Matt Cooper
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 8:33 p.m.
If you really want to do something about racism, why not start with identifying the racism against blacks, chinese, japanese, Indians and other races. Try reading books like "In The Spirit Of Crazy Horse". Try making positive hanges for the good of ALL instead of just crying about how poorly white people are treated when the facts of our history clearly say otherwise.
Matt Cooper
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 8:30 p.m.
"The problem, Matt, is that we all start off equal from birth." Yes, we're all born equal...provided we have white skin, that is. Ignoring the racism in this country, and choosing to stay ignorant by burying our heads in the sand won't magically make the problem go away. The fact of the matter, in spite of all the revisionist history, is that whites have been running roughshod over every dark-skinned person in it's path for over 600 years.
Matt Cooper
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 8:26 p.m.
Are you really so uninformed as to believe that racism from whites to blacks doesn't exis anymoret in this country? If so how do you explain why the death penalty is levied against black defendants some 15 times more often than against whites? How do you explain why proportionately more blacks are in prison than whites for the exact same crimes? Can you tell me how many whites have been pulled over, ticketed and/or arrested as the victims of "racial profiling"? Can you explain why the public school system in New York city spends approximately 4 times as much on primarily white schools as it does on primarily black schools?
Macabre Sunset
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 7:32 p.m.
The problem, Matt, is that we all start off equal from birth. My people have faced endless discrimination as well, though we have white skin so we're lumped in with everyone else you don't like. If you discriminate against people, they will be harmed. Their children less so, their grandchildren even less so. Creating new harm to try and balance out the old harm is absolutely impossible and only serves to perpetuate racism.
Matt Cooper
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 6:47 p.m.
Yes, Terry. Every word you say is 100% correct. But only if one chooses to totally ignore the history of race relations in this country and maintain racist ignorance of the fact that Blacks and other dark skinned races have, and still are, oppressed by White America. Other than that, you're spot on.
Matt Cooper
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 6:41 p.m.
Yes, you've inhereted a lot, haven't you. A lot more than a good work ethic I'd say, and from society, not just your parents. I am amazed at the close-minded, self-centered and ignorant arguments being made here. White American society has discriminated against all brown skinned races for over 600 years and now that whites are being denied the same opportunities they have denied other races for centuries, all the sudden "Waaaaaahhhhh!! It's so unfair!!! We shouldn't use race as a qualifier!! Waaaahhh!!"
Matt Cooper
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 6:38 p.m.
You inhereted the right to walk around at night free fomr the fear of being lynched simply because of the color of your skin. Free from being refused even an elementary school education simply for the color of your skin. Free from being told you can only come in through the back door. Free from being forced to drink only from water fountains designated for people with the same skin tone you have. Free from being told you cannot marry outside your race. Free from being forced into involuntary servitude simply for the color of your skin.
scott
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 5:58 p.m.
I 100% agree with Joe, if you think you didn't inherit anything from your parents I can assure you that just being white is a huge advantage to get through school without being harassed and being able to focus on education. I see black kids get picked on regularly in school and white kids don't for the same actions.
Ignatz
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 5:02 p.m.
Plenty of the so-called under privileged races have more wealth than a lot of the so-called privileged ones.
Terry
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 4:57 p.m.
Joe, I feel confident in saying that anybody going to college is not the son/daughter or grandson/granddaughter of a slave. I would go as fas as saying they are not even the great grandson/granddaughter of a slave. Most black children couldn't even trace back far enough to find slavery in their family history. You make a comment stating black families are at a disadvantage because of segregation and slavery, but there have been generations between the people you are referencing and the child who is going to college today. Coming from challenging roots does not affect your ability to excel academically. It is merely an excuse to not assert yourself. A hard working student should not be passed over simply because of the color of their skin. Sound familiar, sounds a lot like racism to me.
grye
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 4:40 p.m.
Joe: Feel free to give everything you have to a minority family to amend for the bad things your family has done. I have inherited nothing other than hard work ethics from my parents. What I receive in life will be due to my capabilities and the desire to succeed. Everyone has that chance. Many choose to not try. Today opportunities abound if one wants to pursue them.
ScioReader
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 4:33 p.m.
You cannot address population issues by unfairly treating individuals. Each decision should be based on an individual's qualifications, not the history of the population from which he/she applied.
tdw
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 4:04 p.m.
Joe would you please how my parents " inherited " anything ? Seeing as they both grew up dirt poor on farms
Ignatz
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 3:25 p.m.
Soooooooo, using race in a decision is no longer racist?
Macabre Sunset
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 7:29 p.m.
No, it's still racist, and we still feel it's wrong. Only the courts still allow it.
Joe
Fri, Jul 1, 2011 : 3:28 p.m.
Sooooo, maintaining a racist status quo is no longer racist?