Community High School

Leveling the Playing Field

Last January 10, after an unsuccessful attempt to postpone the implementation of Proposal 2, the University of Michigan resumed its admissions process without affirmative action based on race, sex, skin color, ethnicity or national origin. On December 29, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed a short-term delay in the execution of Proposal 2. Teresea A. Sullivan, U of M provost and executive vice president for academic affairs, reacted bitterly: “[T]he U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit lifted the stay while a related appeal continues, and that process could take several months or more to resolve…We cannot sustain any further delay in our admissions process without harming our ability to enroll a class of students for the 2007-08 academic year.”

The impact of Proposal 2 on U of M admissions is clear, if not yet alarming.  On June 4, 2007, The Michigan Daily, U of M’s student newspaper, released admissions figures for the period after Proposal 2 was enacted.  According to the Daily, 175 more minority applicants applied in 2007 than 2006, yet 111 fewer were admitted.  Though the total number of admitted applicants stood 15% higher, minority admissions dropped 7.4%.  The Daily claimed that Proposal 2 “drastically affected” admissions of under-represented minorities.  However, as William B. Allen, board chairman of Toward A Fair Michigan, a group that advocated for Proposal 2, pointed out, “No one can speak credibly about the ‘impact of the constitutional amendment’ on the basis of so short a time horizon as we have had.”

But a great deal has happened in this “short time horizon”.  After Proposal 2 passed, the U of M was forced to eliminate scholarships with race and gender as a qualification. At the U of M Law School, the ramifications of Proposal 2 appear to be more severe. According to a June 17 Lansing State Journal article, after December 28, 2006, when Proposal 2 took effect, law school minority admissions dropped from 36% to 5.5%.  By Any Means Necessary, an anti-Proposal 2 group, said the proposal has had a “catastrophic” effect on minority enrollment. The assistant dean of the law school, Sarah Zearfoss, responded that the change in admissions couldn’t be solely attributed to Proposal 2: “It’s really hard to predict what this means,” she said in the article, and went on to discuss the strong pool of minority applicants.

Is Affirmative Action with racial and gender preference necessary at U of M?

Proposal 2’s passage did not silence the affirmative action debate.

“[Prop 2] was a gigantic step backwards for civil rights in Michigan,” said Michael Steinberg, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Michigan, which advocated against the MCRI.  “Affirmative action is critical to higher education for two reasons,” said Steinberg. “One, it helps to level the playing field for students of color who for centuries have faced discrimination.  Two, it enhances racial diversity at universities which improves the educational environment for all students.” Steinberg and the ACLU are concerned that the passage of Proposal 2 will stigmatize the U of M to prospective minority applicants.  “It’s particularly bad for nationally competitive schools like U of M which traditionally had a reputation of being diverse.  Without affirmative action students of color and white students desiring diversity are less likely to come.”

However, Lucier, director of recruitment, said in the June 4 Michigan Daily piece: “We did have a number of recruitment events this year where we encouraged minority applicants to apply and apply early.” Perhaps as a result, according to a UM News Service bulletin, applications from all students overall, including underrepresented minorities, remained consistently strong up until the February 1st deadline. 

Steinberg is unconvinced.  He mentioned another Proposal 2 that passed in 2004, which was interpreted to prohibit U of M from providing same-sex couples with benefits.  “Between those two [proposals] it’s making it more difficult for institutions like U of M to be top-notch universities in the country.”
U of M’s Assistant General Counsel Maya Kobersy agrees with Steinberg: “Prior to [Prop 2], the goal of affirmative action in our admissions processes was to engender a student community simultaneously noted for its academic excellence and its diversity.” Although affirmative action is now outlawed, Kobersy, never saw anything unlawful or unreasonable about the University’s policy: “Before, during, and after affirmative action, only students who are fully qualified to succeed at Michigan are admitted to Michigan.  The assertion that affirmative action allowed the admission of ‘under-qualified students’ is specious, at best.”

In support of the MCRI, Professor Howard Schwartz, says, “By definition, a policy of racial preference will admit students who are less academically qualified than those who are admitted solely on the basis of their academic qualifications.” Schwartz heads the Michigan Association of Scholars (MAS), which openly advocated for the MCRI. Schwartz stated that, on average, black students admitted to the U of M under affirmative action had standardized test scores about one standard deviation lower than their white and Asian counterparts.

“I see no good reason to refuse to accept the university’s own statement to the court that, ‘but for preference,’ certain minority applicants would not have qualified for admission to the law school,” said Professor Allen, in reference to the 2000 U of M affirmative action Supreme Court case Grutter vs. Bollinger.  Allen, whose group Towards A Fair Michigan promotes “affirming equal rights for all” as well as “provid[ing] a civic forum for a fair and open exchange of views on the question of affirmative action,” is confident that “voter approval of the constitutional amendment reflects the judgment of a large majority of the voters that fundamental ideas of equality and fairness should be placed above theories of social adjustment.”

That adjustment is essential, according to Harold Core.  Core is the spokesperson for the Michigan Department of Civil Rights (MDCR).  The MDCR is openly opposed to Proposal 2 because, according to Core, “Our state is focused on [increasing] diversity and opportunities.  For Michigan to take advantage of economic growth, it should take advantage of its own diversity and learn to interact with different cultures.” Core insists that affirmative action with racial and gender preferences does not admit under-qualified students.  That is “simply untrue,” Core said.  “What would motivate a school to admit under-qualified students?  Affirmative action admitted qualified students from a diverse background.” Core thinks the crusade of Professor Allen and other Proposal 2 endorsers is pointless: “All William B. Allen accomplished was coming up with further divisiveness in Michigan.”

Core also promotes affirmative action with racial and gender preference because of what it brings to the classroom and U of M’s atmosphere: “Affirmative action allows diverse people to achieve and interact with diverse people.  Not having quality interactions with people of different backgrounds breeds mistrust.”

Professor Schwartz doesn’t think that affirmative action creates a stimulating classroom dialogue.  “The idea that people of a certain race have a certain point of view just because of their race is false and pernicious, as is the idea that minority students cannot succeed on the basis of their own talents and efforts, but need an artificial advantage,” said Schwartz.  “Ideas like that have to be combated, because otherwise people might believe them.”

The Racial Climate

“Michigan is the most segregated state in the nation,” said Core.  He believes the passage of Proposal 2 is indicative of “racial mistrust and misunderstanding.” Proposal 2 passed with nearly 60% of the votes in November 2006 and according to Core, the figure says something about the racial climate in Michigan: “Rather than having a good public debate on what affirmative action is, it turned into an ‘us versus them’ argument.  There wasn’t a real discussion on what’s [fair] and is there a benefit to diversity.”

Professor Allen and his group Towards A Fair Michigan are doing their part in trying to bridge the gap between the two parties.  Through their open discussions, TAFM hopes to advance and defend equal opportunity– and not alienate people in the process.  TAFM representatives wrote under the heading “About Us” on their website: “Toward A Fair Michigan dedicates itself to opening, spreading, and sustaining public discussion of the effects of, the alternatives to, the justifications for, and the ill consequences of affirmative action preferences.”

Allen, however, believes Proposal 2 is progress in Michigan.  In direct opposition to Core, Allen said, “Even in a climate of heightened racial consciousness [in Michigan], individuals may nevertheless consult the ‘better angels of their natures’ when reflecting upon what is good policy and what is bad policy.”

Allen is proud that his group TAFM contributed to the “equal opportunity” dialogue.  Remarking on his faith in Michigan voters, he said, “People are almost always better than their most casual ideas would suggest.”

The Future of Affirmative Action, at U of M and in America

On August 29, 2007 the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati rejected an appeal of Proposal 2.  According to an article in the Associated Press, although the three-judge panel acknowledged that Prop 2 “found its way on the ballot through methods that undermine the integrity and fairness of our democratic process,”– which included, according to U.S. District Judge Arthur Tarnow of Detroit, “commit[ing] voter fraud in obtaining signatures in support of the petition”– they said the opportunity to keep Proposal 2 off the ballot “has long since passed.”

Steinberg and the Michigan ACLU are taking a different approach in an effort to reverse the November decision.  ACLU Michigan is currently working with the NAACP and the National ACLU to challenge the constitutionality of Proposal 2.  According to Steinberg, they hope to have an oral argument ready for the judges by November.

In the meantime, U of M is coping with the loss of affirmative action with racial and gender preference.  On November 9, 2006, Jennifer Granholm commissioned the Michigan Department of Civil Rights to assess the potential impact of Proposal 2.  In their report, the MDCR warned: “Michigan’s public educational institutions will face a huge challenge in maintaining diversity under Proposal 2.”

U of M is doing its best.

On March 15, 2007, the University Diversity Blueprint released its final report, in which it offered alternative methods of maintaining diversity without affirmative action.  Its plans include creating more competitive financial aid packages, “developing aggressive targeted outreach activities as a necessary component of the broad diversity pipeline,” and “be[ing] aware of the role of campus climate in the decision-making processes of prospective faculty, staff, and students.”

Core also thinks that outreach is crucial in maintaining diversity. “There is no preferential treatment created by outreach.”
According to General Counsel Kobersy, student opposition to Prop 2 is further encouraging U of M to take action. A poll found that 73% of U of M students who participated in the November 7, 2006 election voted against Prop 2.  “The students of the University of Michigan seem to be directly aware of the educational value of a diverse learning environment,” said Kobersy. “The overwhelming majority of student feedback has been expressed as a concern that the University do everything legally within its power to maintain diversity on campus.”

***

Ward Connerly, who helmed California’s successful Proposition 209, a 1996 ballot proposal virtually identical to Proposal 2, is now preparing similar affirmative-action amendments on the November 2008 presidential ballot in Arizona, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Colorado.  “This is going to be a Super Tuesday for equal rights,” Connerly said in an August 23rd article in Diverse Issues in Higher Education.  “I think it’s very clear that we are witnessing an end to an era.”

Professor Allen promotes Connerly’s ambitious goal: “In the long run it will be only a national ruling that will bring an end to the torturous conversations consistently forced back to race and gender and diverted from fundamental humanity.” After Michigan’s vote, Allen was elated. He hopes other states will follow suit.  “I am persuaded that the constitutional amendment received the endorsement it did only because the citizens in the end were able to engage a real discussion of the relative merits of the positions […] I do not know if other states will benefit from that serendipitous influence.”

Steinberg, who is hoping to reverse Proposal 2, thinks it’s ironic that Professor Allen, Connerly, and other affirmative action opponents say they are working for equal opportunity.  “Congress can’t just pass a law forbidding discrimination and expect the playing field to be leveled.”