http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/10/national/main2349878.shtml (AP) The University of Michigan announced Wednesday it will comply with a new voter-approved ban on affirmative action and immediately stop considering race and gender in admissions. The move came in the middle of the admissions process for next fall's first-year incoming class. The university has already begun sending out acceptance and rejection letters. The state constitutional amendment approved by the voters in November bans the use of race and gender preferences in public university admissions and government hiring and contracting. After it passed, the university put its admission process on hold and asked the courts that it be given until this summer to comply with the ban, saying it would be too disruptive to change its policies now. But a federal appeals court said no. "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," said Teresa A. Sullivan, executive vice president of academic affairs. The university will continue its legal challenge of the measure in the meantime, Sullivan said. "This is a big step forward, there's no doubt about it. It's good news," said Terence Pell, president of the Center for Individual Rights, a group that sued to force immediate compliance with the ban. "It's a watershed moment." The university said it would use other criteria that are not explicitly race- or gender-based to achieve diversity. Those include geographic diversity, the level of education completed by students' parents, and whether students attended a disadvantaged school. ©MMVI, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. will be interesting to see how the masses respond to this.
Banning decisions based on gender might have the unintended consequence of making UMich similar to UNC in that it'll eventually be 60-70% female. As far as race goes, they can easily use income as a proxy for race and wind up with similar racial demographics, without the controversy to go with it.
I bet it is not the female percentage that will be 70% at UM. However, I bet the percent of Asians at UM will increase significantly. UM is one of the top public universities in the country and many Asians want to attend UM if given a chance. when California implemented the same policy the percent of Asians increased to 42% at UCLA and CAL and the percent of whites decreased significantly.
I doubt it, they will just use geography/economics in order to try to maintain a diverse student body (which you can't really use to adjust males/females, bc gender distribution is uniform in this regard).
Well, whites will just start getting their degrees at U. of Phoenix and leverage their social networks and "soft skills" into the same jobs and salaries that Asian get with UCLA and Berkeley degrees. Or you'll just see a lot more job listings with the words "or equivalent experience" after the degree requirements. Or you'll see more whites getting internships in high school (whereas I couldn't get a minimum-wage retail job until Senior spring) and then getting entry-level administrative or acctg clerk jobs right after high school that I was still getting rejected for midway through college.
What does that matter? The call against affirmative action isn't due to the large number of those admitted but the criteria by which they're admitted. The same principle should follow for legacies.
I would think that legacy admissions at a state school could be legally challenged, but then again I'm not exactly well-versed in the subject. I do wonder why it hasn't become an issue though. In both this case and that of affirmative action, I'd still expect little change in student demographics save for more females and perhaps more Asians. In the end, the applicants who filed suit would probably still get rejected under any new program that's applied. Just makes it more difficult for the admissions officers.
I'm glad Michigan is working to end racism in college admission offices. I feel the worst for Asians, the group who has worked so hard to advance themselves, yet gets no privileges -- instead they get penalized for their race. Amazing what hard work gets you, huh? Others should take note.
Yes, one poster said there is still a legacy system which makes admittance more elitist since AA is now banned and you asked for proof of the numbers. That's where you said otherwise.
Any mentions of the legacy admissions process (which btw is a tiny % of admitted applicants) is meant to distract from the issue. If the pro-racism in the admissions office crowd actually had a defensible position, then they wouldn't have to bring up legacies. But they do. Telling... Can someone please inform me why it is more noble to admit a black than an Asian American with identical or superior qualifications?
because higher educational attainment is heavily dependent on the individual's childhood environment. and since the government and society have a compelling interest to ensure a diverse and representative population in education as well as careers, affirmative action of some sort is the only way its doable. taking economic factors just dont ensure a representative black population in education. and legacy admission was brought up because the end of affirmative action was concluded to be the achievement of meritocracy which isn't the case given other non merit based admission factors such as legacies.
