I just don’t get what the big deal is with U of M’s admissions policy
From CNN:
Calling it “fundamentally flawed,” President Bush announced Wednesday his opposition to an affirmative action program at the University of Michigan that targets minority students.
“I strongly support diversity of all kinds, including racial diversity in higher education,” Bush said at the White House. “But the method used by the University of Michigan to achieve this important goal is fundamentally flawed.”
Bush called it a “quota system” that rejects or accepts students “based solely on race.”
If the President’s characterization was true, it would be bad policy for University of Michigan, but look at the little thing that is causing the problem (from the linked article).:
ADMISSIONS CRITERIA
Here is a look at the point system listed under “Other Factors” (maximum of 40 points) used by University of Michigan admissions for its College of Literature, Science and the Arts, as presented in the case of Gratz v. Bollinger:Geography
10 points - Michigan Resident
6 points - underrepresented Michigan county
2 points - underrepresented stateAlumni
4 points - “legacy” (parents, step-parents)
1 point - other (grandparents, siblings, spouses)Essay
1 point - outstanding essay (since 1999, 3 points)Personal achievement
1 point - state
3 points - regional
5 points - nationalLeadership and service
1 point - state
3 points - regional
5 points - nationalMiscellaneous
20 points - socio-economic disadvantage
20 points - underrepresented racial-ethnic minority identification or education
5 points - men in nursing
20 points - scholarship athlete
20 points - provost’s discretionSource: Center for Individual Rights
I am assuming this line is what is causing the big, scary quota problem:
20 points - underrepresented racial-ethnic minority identification or education
Of course scholarship athletes also get the twenty points. There is also the frighteningly vague “provost’s discretion”.
Why isn’t anyone complaining about people getting into college for the “sole reason” of their ability to run fast or catch a ball?
Why isn’t someone grilling the provost to see what he or she is being so discreet about?
Why is there so much time and energy being spent on such a piddling little nit-picky issue?
BTW, here is a link to UMICH’s point system from a 1999 Michigan Review article that is bitching about this big, scary quota system.
Notice that you don’t get more points for being a member of a minority than you do for having good grades. So how can the president say that people are being admitted to UMICH via a “quota system” that rejects or accepts students “based solely on race.” That characterization is patently false.
Chicago correspondent Marc (who pointed me to the CNN link) weighs in with this:
Minorities are turned away, scared away and loopholed away from polling places all across this country. Black people are pulled over solely on the basis of their skin color. But one ‘majority’ person can’t make it into U of M and suddenly we’re on a Civil Rights crusade. Like I said, I don’t believe in quotas either, but I think the impetus behind this is anything but altruistic.
Marc is correct, this protest is nothing but a bunch of (dare I say “racist”) BS, and it shows that many Republicans in general and the Bush administration in particular have a big old tin-ear when it comes to issues of race.
If President Bush was complaining just as loudly about Athletic Favoritism or the vagaries of Provost Discretion, I’d have a little more respect for his and the plaintiff’s argument, but by singling out this one line-item, I can’t help but think that there is a little bit of the old Southern Strategy type angling going on behind the scenes.
No, you don’t get it.
College athletes are a good thing. They deserve a chance to stumble half-heartedly through their college years, helping the university to draw in big bucks from sports fans. Academically qualified kids don’t inspire people to donate money to a school, so no 20 point lead for them.
“Provost’s discretion” means Someone Who Is Someone can call up and make a deal with the university…I give you a building, you let little Susie in and we ignore those icky SAT scores. That’s in the same league as “legacy” students. You think the Bushleaguer and his cronies are going to make a move against that kind of behavior? Not.
In fact, I’m sure they’re hoping like heck that no one notices that the only “privileged” group of applicants they’re moving against are the ones that oppression of will result please their extreme voter base. (There’s something wrong with that sentence, I know.)
Anyhow, there’s no Constitutional protection for athletes or legacy students because no one is trying to oppress them, so unless someone with deep pockets decides to take on that system, no one is likely to care about them getting preferential treatment.
Comment by Anne | 1/16/2003
Too bad I seem to be missing the line that said 20 points for good grades. The most i’m seeing is 10 if you are nationally recognized for personal achievement, leadership and service, which mite be kinda hard to do while your in highschool. I know no one in my class of 300+ was nationally recognized.
Basically if two equal, unrecognized students with the same yearly income and from same part of town apply to UofM, the person with the underrepresented racial-ethnic minority identification or education will be accepted before the white guy? Is that really fair for the white guy because he’s not from the underrepresented racial-ethnic minority identification or education group? So much for all people being created equally.
Comment by Tom | 1/18/2003
Let the world roll on. I don’t give a rat’s butt. Let the Castro’s, Hussein’s, Kim’s, Pol Pot’s Stalin’s, or Hitler’s take over what they want..when they want. From what I’ve seen thenpeople are not worth saving.
Maybe Clinton can make a cum back. At least he kept the country amused.
Comment by Ret. Army E8 | 1/19/2003
Anne and Rob, atleast the athletes deserve recognition for the talent they possess and the good players they have made of themselves - it is achievement whether academically good or not. As for the race-based points, a person doesn’t have to achieve anything, all one has to do is to be born with a certain skin color to get 20 points. Do you see the difference now?
Comment by Shanti | 1/20/2003
I never said the two were the same, but if that’s your argument, why then should someone get points just because they are poor, or because maybe their parents donated some money and made the provost happy, but not because they are a part of an under-represented racial minority? All are worth twenty points.
I never claimed the Michigan system was a fantastic way to determine who gets into the school. My point is/was that Michigan’s system is not a quota system that admits students based solely on race, and the President was wrong to describe it as such.
And the overall theme in the post questions why the President would get personally involved in attempting to influence the judicial branch over a matter that appears so trivial. Surely there are larger matters for him to attend to.
In my estimation, President Bush’s statement seemed like pure political pandering to an unsavory group of voters that the GOP depends on to help them win elections and who may have been annoyed with the Administration’s treatment of Trent Lott.
For the record, I am white guy who supports affirmative action and I do not have a problem with race being used as a factor in determining college admissions. Remember that the “all men are created equal” statement from the Declaration of Independence that Tom alludes to in his comments did not apply to non-white and non-male people. This nation still has the despicable scar of slavery on it soul. It is my personal experience that more than a few individuals in this country still do discriminate based on skin-color (among other things), and until the day that racism no longer exists, I will continue to support affirmative action.
Comment by Rob Humenik | 1/20/2003
And, if two nursing candidates are completely equal in terms of every aspect except sex, the male candidate will get picked over the female candidate because the field is dominated by women. But, engineering (which is just slightly more gender-balanced than nursing) doesn’t give a female candidate preference over a male candidate. But, Bush doesn’t seem bothered by that.
Comment by Cinnamon | 1/21/2003
I am an Asian girl too - we are traditionally over represented in the colleges, since we are hard-working, though we have zero political clout, haven’t oppressed anyone and are a minority.
Why should I be penalized for not having “hard socio-economic” conditions or for not being black/Native American/Hispanic?
Cinnamon, your argument makes sense everything being equal - but in what universe does getting a perfect SAT score (12points) means a lot less than being born with the right skin color(20 points)? What is more important for academic excellence? skin color or academic aptitude?
Comment by Shanti | 1/21/2003
Rob:
Supposed private injustice is no excuse for public injustice. And furthermore, your stance ignores the fact that middle-class blacks typically benefit the most from affirmative action programs, not those who remain in poverty.
You failed to justify the Michigan program which, since it is based on points, is ripe for manipulation and is thus a defacto quota. Do you honestly believe that Michigan wouldn’t up the points given for being a racial minority if their representation fell below a certain level? Ask yourself, why didn’t they set it at 10 points? Why didn’t they set it at 4 points, no more than a legacy? Well, that’s because 20 points was the appropriate level to insure their targets for minority enrollment.
Bush was right. This program is unfair and functions as a quota.
Comment by Owen Courrèges | 1/22/2003
I’d like to respond to Marc’s comment that:
“Minorities are turned away, scared away and loopholed away from polling places all across this country. Black people are pulled over solely on the basis of their skin color. But one ‘majority’ person can’t make it into U of M and suddenly we’re on a Civil Rights crusade.”
Firstly if you look at the lawsuit it’s 2 women (women were also denied the right to vote if you remember that)
Secondly the whole idea of equality is that we’re all subject to the same set of rules regardless of our race/culture. To say these people have no right to file a civil rights “crusade” only says to me that you are apart of the problem you’re complaining about.
Comment by Chris | 2/4/2003
I am a benefactor of this controversial point system because my family is poor. I was nationaly recognized for both personal acomplishments and leadership. It was because of a book called Who’s Who in American High School and the fact that I was involved in 4-H. 1/3 of the people i knew in high school were in Who’s Who and went on the same 2 national 4-H confrences that I did. I am a white female who scored 21 on her ACTs, had a GPA of 3.2 in High school and wasnt from Michigan.
So what if a persons skin is a different color- dont hate them because of it. Its about a persons achivements and what they accomplished in thier lives. Dont say that its unfair that they get to go to the college and others dont. Do you really think that an unmotivated person is going to apply to go to college in the first place?
I think that its sad that our president can be convicted of a felony, had an SAT score in the 84 percentile. Notwithstanding the unlikely possibility that he wrote a Pulitzer prize-winning essay, SAT scores in the top 16% would not have gained him admission to Yale on his own merit. I think he had some “special help” on getting into college.
Comment by Amanda | 5/6/2004