The University of Michigan tries to retain its commitment to diversity
By Ryan Werder, University of Michigan – Ann Arbor
Wednesday January 24, 2007
The Election Day defeat of affirmative action in Michigan was only the first round of the political and legal fight over affirmative action in higher education. Just one day after 58 percent of Michigan voters chose to ban affirmative action, the University of Michigan administration responded with words of defiance.
Initially, the most outspoken defender of affirmative action was University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman. Addressing the crowd of thousands gathered on U-M’s large brick plaza on Nov. 8, Coleman spoke with a passion previously suppressed by the University’s obligation to political neutrality. “[W]e will not be deterred in the all-important work of creating a diverse, welcoming campus,” Coleman emphasized. She then went further: "[U-M] will find ways to overcome the handcuffs that Proposal 2 attempts to place on our reach for greater diversity.
Her speech provoked national outrage. Conservative Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman said that Coleman’s speech “exudes contempt” for the will of the Michigan voters. Thomas Bray of the right-wing New York Sun called it “breathtakingly arrogant.” Back in Ann Arbor, the conservative biweekly Michigan Review’s editor-in-chief lamented the dissolution of his faith in the university’s administration while derisively labeling the thousands gathered to witness Coleman’s rallying call as a “diversity cult.”
But, despite the rekindled hope of the “cultists,” little action was seen for weeks after Coleman’s speech. The only legal maneuvering, despite assurances that the University legal team was considering multiple possibilities, was conducted by the radical pro-affirmative action group By Any Means Necessary (BAMN). BAMN filed a lawsuit against the University of Michigan, Wayne State University, and Michigan State University, as well as Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm (who opposed Proposal 2, but is legally bound to implement it.) The suit claimed that Prop 2 violated the Fourteenth Amendment (often referred to as the “equal protection clause”) and the Civil Rights Act.
On November 21, with affirmative action proponents losing patience over the lack of follow-through on Coleman’s speech, the entire U-M community received an email from President Coleman and Provost Teresa Sullivan. The email hailed the creation of a “university-wide task force” dubbed Diversity Blueprints which would work to find creative solutions to maintaining diversity on campus in the face of Proposal 2. The administration encouraged students to send any and all ideas to a newly created email address. The task force membership, announced one month later, includes an eclectic mix of current students, alumni, faculty, and staff. Suggestions, even by non-Blueprint members, are still being accepted through the group’s email account. The recommendations of the Diversity Blueprints task force will be presented to Coleman by Feb. 15.
Ever since Prop 2 passed the University has made clear that their immediate—and most achievable—legal ambition was to receive an injunction against the affirmative action ban until this year’s admission cycle is completed. Doing so would ensure a uniform standard for all applicants rather than a double standard beginning with the enactment of Proposal 2 on Dec. 23, 2006. (The University of Michigan has rolling admissions, so much of the freshman class has already been admitted.)
That slight hope was realized on Dec. 19 when a federal district court granted the stay the University sought. Unfortunately for the elated affirmative action defenders, the victory was to be short-lived. Only ten days later, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the earlier ruling. Since this effectively ended the University’s chances of a uniform policy throughout the admissions cycle—a result acknowledged as less than ideal by even strong Proposal 2 advocate Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox —the University halted admissions decisions until Jan. 10 to weigh their options. Since then, Michigan has been forced to reopen its admissions office and consider applicants under an imposed second standard.
The current mood on campus among activists is still defiant, though the Sixth Circuit roadblock is a difficult setback. Even more discouraging was the Jan. 19 decision by the United States Supreme Court not to even hear the appeal. Some students are responding by getting even more creative than the traditional grassroots organizing. A group of students going by the acronym AHEAD (Achieving Higher Education Access and Diversity) is lobbying on the federal level for affirmative action protections. They will be visiting a number of congressional offices during the first weekend in February.
Regardless of the seemingly legal dead end, the fight for the continuation of affirmative action in Michigan higher education appears likely to continue. Currently, another law suit is making its way through state courts, Gov. Granholm is preparing a commissioned report on the likely impact of Proposal 2, Diversity Blueprints is brainstorming new strategies, and the many dedicated students are refusing to give up.
The saga of post-Proposal 2 Michigan is poised to play on well into the future. For those fighting for the preservation of diversity in Michigan’s public universities, though, the coming months will still certainly be trying ones.
--------
Comments
most higher levels of jobs and education is given to aquaintences of those who already hold high positions. if those persons who speak out against afirmative action want to do the right things then get rid of these practices. I’ll bet those politicians who hold offices were helped by someone they knew in office already. If we get rid of these practices then maybe you won’t need affirmative action. I’f most Americans were color blind, or gender blind, then we would not need these programs. Because of affirmative action business, politics, education and so many other positions ,and people in those positions look like all americans. People forget why this law was adapted in the first place. When you have politicians that don’t believe in anything but money and power, they do or say whatever to get that money and power. They remind me of Nazi Germany. When Hitler found out that most of the doctors and lawyers were of jewish descent he became enraged. But he neglected to realize that because of the anti-semitic climate of Germany, most jewish people could only get these jobs. So when greedy politicians start preaching about “unfair” programs, they should tell the whole story and the reasoning behind them. Until there is no discrimination in hiring and politics, we won’t need affirmative action. When they start telling half truths about why these programs are needed, they endorse these hate mongers. They play on american basic need, to have an even playing field in life. They forget to tell people that the system is inherently partial to those in power or have money. They divide us and create more little Hitlers.
— mary j wolfolk - Jan 26, 02:24 PM - #You forget that affirmative action does not help all races. It just helps minorities, and therefore does not create equality. You should only have to hire people qualified. If anything it should be amended to say that if no minority can meet qualifications than they will not be hired.
— chris - Apr 21, 09:31 PM - #The first system of Affirmative Action in America was called “Slavery”. People of Black Color largely owe their presence in America to this program, which was also controversial in it’s day. The current system of Affirmative Action is an extension of this idea, having the same justification and purpose. Slavery was supported by Africans who sold slaves, not by the slaves themselves. The benefit of true education can only be seen when it the product of a free people.
— Chaucer - Aug 6, 07:52 PM - #Hi, videos!
— Ahmed - Mar 1, 12:36 PM - #