Tendaji,
Thanks for your hard work. Yes it has been difficult but we have to
strive as hard as we can to hold back the tide of racism and yes of
facism. This attack on affirmative action tied in with the outright lies
about Iraq, the Patriot Act, rewriting the laws of interrogation and on
and on, is truly scary. We have no other choice but to fight it!!!
In solidarity,
Ozzie
-----Original Message-----
From: Retention & Graduation Issues Concerning Minorities in Higher
Education [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Rudy Redmond
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 8:43 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Fwd: FW: CEO study released TODAY
>>> "Ganges, Tendaji" <[log in to unmask]> 10/16/2006 6:12 PM >>>
Folks -
The Center for Equal Opportunity (the oddly named Washington-based
group that brought the suits against UM-Ann Arbor and continues to
attack Affirmative Action) has mounted a "just-before-the Michigan
Election" campaign to sway voters to support their legal eradication
of Affirmative Action in Michigan. The CEO has used a distortion of
the data it acquired through the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) to
paint a picture that UM-AA is using racial discrimination.
I've been wa-a-a-ay busy on the speaking circuit these past several
weeks attempting to get the story out...giving talks to and talking
part in debates at churches, UAW halls, community groups, colleges and
universities, state government candidate forums, cable television
programs and to anyone or any group that invites me to speak. (Yes, I
work cheap!) As such, I've not been at the keyboard very much lately.
Nevertheless, these last 22 days before the election on November 7th
is our last opportunity to wage and WIN this battle against those who
have twisted this issue into one of fear and race-baiting. It is
simply and truly an intentionally divisive attempt to fool folks into
voting against what they believe is an enemy - Affirmative Action --
in the heated environment of a state weakened by high unemployment and
raging poverty. The people of Michigan are ill informed, angry and
vulnerable...and looking for someone and something to blame for the
plight they face. The CEO, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative and
others are spreading fear and confusion as a means to twist people
into voting against one of the very tools that is addressing
inequities in our society.
The CEO "study" (see attachment and it is also pasted in below)
attempts to paint a picture of "racial discrimination" at the
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor by distorting the data it has
acquired.
The last statement made at the bottom of the pasted in UM-AA response
to the press release says it all...
"It is no coincidence that CEO has released this report in the weeks
leading up to a ballot proposal that would outlaw public affirmative
action in the state of Michigan. This is a politicized attempt by CEO
to narrow the focus of the debate to college admissions at a single
institution, rather than acknowledging the broader potential impact on
state employment and contracting, K-12 schools and public universities
and community colleges, potentially affecting financial aid, outreach,
pre-college and other programs that consider race, gender and national
origin."
We have our work cut out for us, folks. We can't lose this battle. The
entire country is at stake. The attack on Affirmative Action has been
purposefully directed at the state of Michigan and, in particular, at
the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor. To lose this front will simply
empower them to open up attacks at numerous other states and promote a
nasty "cooling effect" on initiatives in numerous other states. As
with any nasty virus, this one replicates readily and spreads itself
without much help. It thrives on our doing nothing. Left untreated,
this illness will spread unchecked throughout the country...and not
until we are all sick and dying will we recognize it for what it is -
A KILLER!!!
Those in Michigan - please do your part: help get the vote out; help
inform others of the danger we are facing as a society; and tell
everyone to:
VOTE NO on Proposition 2!
This message must be carried to everyone - across party affiliations,
all ages, all ethnicities, without regard to gender or class...this
one is critical to EVERYBODY!!!
Tendaji
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Email: [log in to unmask]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
________________________________
________________________________
From: Julie Peterson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 4:17 PM
Importance: High
The Center for Equal Opportunity filed a set of FOIA requests several
months ago for detailed files on undergraduate, law school and medical
school admissions. Today CEO released its "study" showing "severe
discrimination" in our admissions practices. Although the study is
embargoed until tomorrow, I received many calls today from journalists
and they sent me a copy of the press release, attached.
Lester Monts, Maya Kobersy, Ted Spencer, Glenna Schweitzer and others
helped me develop the following response which I sent to those
reporters who inquired. We can expect stories tomorrow in the
Chronicle, Detroit Free Press and Crain's, among others. A version of
this statement (with a slightly altered order) will go on our main
website this afternoon. Feel free to link to it from your own
websites if appropriate.
U-M response:
CEO has conducted a flawed and shallow analysis that is missing
crucial pieces of information considered in our admissions process.
This is the same type of flawed analysis put forth during the Supreme
Court cases, and statistical experts have repeatedly rejected it as
unsound and misleading.
In expert witness testimony in the lawsuits, Stephen Raudenbush, a U-M
education professor and statistical expert, wrote that the type of
analysis conducted by CEO failed to account for many important factors
in the admissions process, and therefore was "unsound" and
"misleading" and led to "nonsensical results."
In response to a Freedom of Information request from the CEO, the
University of Michigan supplied data files with information about
undergraduate, medical school and law school admissions. These files
included grade-point averages and standardized test scores, along with
partial information about race, gender, alumni legacy status,
residency, and high school or undergraduate institution. We were not
able to give complete information for privacy reasons because in some
cases that information would have allowed the recipient to identify an
individual student and his or her grades.
CEO's analysis does not take into account many important factors
considered in admissions, including the rigor of the student's high
school or undergraduate curriculum, extracurricular activities,
essays, teacher and counselor recommendations, and socioeconomic
status. CEO attempts to reduce human beings to a couple of simplistic
numbers. No top university admits students solely on the basis of
grades and test scores. We consider many factors in order to admit a
group of students who have diverse talents, who are highly motivated
and who have the potential to succeed at Michigan and make a
contribution to the learning environment.
Following the Supreme Court rulings in 2003, we revised our admissions
application and we now have a great deal more information about
students than we did in the past. Admissions decisions are made on an
individualized basis. Both the applicant pool and minority enrollment
vary widely from year to year. It is just plain wrong to imply that
race somehow carries a greater amount of weight than it has in the
past, or than the Supreme Court allowed.
Every student admitted to the University of Michigan is academically
qualified. U-M's graduation rates are higher than all other
universities in the state and among the highest in the country.
Graduation rates have been rising steadily over the past few years and
even more rapidly for minority students - an indication that our
admissions process is effective.
It is no coincidence that CEO has released this report in the weeks
leading up to a ballot proposal that would outlaw public affirmative
action in the state of Michigan. This is a politicized attempt by CEO
to narrow the focus of the debate to college admissions at a single
institution, rather than acknowledging the broader potential impact on
state employment and contracting, K-12 schools and public universities
and community colleges, potentially affecting financial aid, outreach,
pre-college and other programs that consider race, gender and national
origin.
---Julie A. Peterson
Associate Vice President for Media Relations and Public Affairs
University of Michigan
1022 Fleming Administration Building
Ann Arbor, MI 49109-1340
Phone: (734) 936-5190
Fax: (734) 615-2081
Pager: (800) 296-5155
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Center for Equal Opportunity www.ceousa.org
<http://www.ceousa.org/>
CEO
PRESS RELEASE
Embargoed for release: October 17, 2006
CONTACT: Roger Clegg
(703) 421-5443
(703) 405-1225
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
New Studies Document Racial Preferences in Undergrad, Law, and Med
School Admissions
(Sterling, VA) Three studies released today by the Center for Equal
Opportunity document evidence of severe
discrimination based on race and ethnicity in undergraduate, law, and
medical school admissions at the University of
Michigan.
The studies are based on data supplied by the University itself,
pursuant to freedom-of-information requests filed by CEO and the
Michigan Association of Scholars. The studies were prepared by Dr.
Althea Nagai, a research fellow at CEO, and can be viewed on the
organization's website, www.ceousa.org. Highlights of the studies are
attached.
CEO president Roger Clegg will answer questions about the studies when
they are formally released at a press conference on Tuesday, October
17, at 10:00 a.m. ET in Detroit at the Hilton Garden Inn (351 Gratiot
Avenue).
CEO chairman Linda Chavez will discuss the study at another press
conference on Thursday, October 19, at 2:00 p.m. ET at the University
of Michigan student union (Pond Room) in Ann Arbor.
Ms. Chavez will also discuss the issue at Grand Valley State
University (Allendale campus) on Wednesday at 3:00 p.m. ET. Mr. Clegg
plans to discuss the study in Ann Arbor at debates on Wednesday at 5
p.m. and Thursday at 12:15 p.m., at the University of Michigan and Ave
Maria law schools, respectively; and at the University of Detroit
Mercy School of Law on Thursday at a 4:30 p.m. debate there.
Linda Chavez said: "Racial discrimination in university admissions is
always appalling. But what is really remarkable is that the weight
given to race by the University of Michigan in its undergraduate
admissions is actually heavier now than under the system that was
struck down by the Supreme Court in 2003. If the old system was too
heavy-handed to pass legal muster, then how can the new system be
defended? The Supreme Court has obviously had no effect on stopping
UM's discrimination."
Roger Clegg agreed. "It is clear that, left to their own devices,
universities will not end the racial discrimination that Justice
O'Connor said she expected to end in 25 years. Fortunately, in
Michigan, the voters will have the opportunity in a few weeks to 'Vote
yes on 2' and require that taxpayer-supported, public institutions
like UM treat all Michiganders without regard to their skin color or
what country their ancestors came from."
The Center for Equal Opportunity is a nonprofit research and
educational organization that studies issues related to civil rights,
bilingual education, and immigration and assimilation nationwide.
--30-
14 Pidgeon Hill Drive, Suite 500 * Sterling, VA 20165 * (703) 421-5443
* www.ceousa.org <http://www.ceousa.org/>
Highlights of Center for Equal Opportunity Studies on
Racial and Ethnic Admissions Discrimination at the University of
Michigan
General
Severe discrimination favoring African American applicants over white
and Asian applicants was found at all three schools in all four years
for which data were received (1999, 2003, 2004, and 2005, the most
recent year for which data were available). Hispanics were also
favored, but by less; frequently whites were given preferences over
Asians, although to a still smaller extent. In all three studies, the
data received from the university were analyzed to calculate: (1) the
gaps in academic qualifications among admitted students; (2) the
number of nonblack students who were rejected even though they had
better academic qualifications than the median black admittee; (3) the
odds ratios for the three minority groups relative to whites; and (4)
the probabilities of admission for students of different races but
with the same academic credentials (test scores and grades) and
background (in particular, in-state applicants with no parental
alumni/ae). For the undergraduate and medical school students, the
subsequent academic performance of students after admission to UM was
analyzed (the law school did not provide the data needed for such an
analysis).
Undergraduate Admissions
In the most recent year (2005), the median black admittee's SAT score
was 1160, versus 1260 for Hispanics, 1350 for whites, and 1400 for
Asians. High school GPAs were 3.4 for the median black, 3.6 for
Hispanics, 3.8 for Asians, and 3.9 for whites.
In the four years analyzed, UM rejected over 8000 Hispanics, Asians,
and whites who had higher SAT or ACT scores and GPAs than the median
black admittee--including nearly 2700 students in 2005 alone.
The black-to-white odds ratio for 2005 was 70 to 1 among students
taking the SAT, and 63 to 1 for students taking the ACT. (To put this
in perspective, the odds ratio for nonsmokers versus smokers dying
from lung cancer is only 14 to 1.)
In terms of probability of admissions in 2005, black and Hispanic
students with a 1240 SAT and a 3.2 high school GPA, for instance, had
a 9 out of 10 chance of admissions, while whites and Asians in this
group had only a 1 out of 10 chance.
These disparities are reflected in subsequent academic performance at
the University of Michigan, where blacks and
Hispanics earn lower grades, and are less likely to be in the honors
program and more likely to be on academic probation, than whites and
Asians.
It is noteworthy that race and ethnicity are apparently more heavily
weighted in admissions now than in the system declared
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Law School Admissions
Black admittees had lower LSAT scores and undergraduate GPAs than the
other three ethnic groups. Whites and Asians had the highest LSATs and
grades (whites' grades were slightly higher than Asians'); Hispanics'
were higher than blacks but lower than whites' and Asians'.
During the four years for which we received data, 4415 Hispanic,
Asian, and white students who earned higher undergraduate GPAs and
scored higher on their LSATs than the median black admittee were
nonetheless rejected.
The odds ratio favoring black applicants over whites was 18 to 1 in
2005, the most recent year for which data were available.
In terms of the probabilities of admission that year, an in-state male
candidate, with no parents having attended the law school and with an
LSAT score and GPA equal to the black admittee median of that year,
would have had a 7 out of 10 chance of admission if black, but only a
3 out of 10 chance if Hispanic, and a 1 out of 10 chance if white or
Asian.
Medical School Admissions
Black admittees had substantially lower MCAT scores and undergraduate
science GPAs compared to other groups; Hispanic admittees' scores and
grades were higher; and whites' and Asians' the highest (with Asian
GPAs slightly higher than whites').
During the four years for which we received data, 11,647 Hispanic,
Asian, and white students (or nearly 3000 students each year) who
earned higher undergraduate grades and scored higher on the MCAT than
the median black admittee were nonetheless rejected.
The odds ratio favoring black applicants over whites was 21 to 1 in
2005.
Likewise, differences in probabilities of admission in 2005 were
dramatic. For instance, students with an MCAT total of 41 and an
undergraduate science GPA of 3.6 have these probabilities of
admission: 74 percent if black and 43 percent if Hispanic, but only 12
percent if white and 6 percent if Asian. For those with a 42 MCAT and
3.7 GPA: 85 percent if black and 59 percent if Hispanic, but only 21
percent if white and 11 percent if Asian. Finally, for those with a 43
MCAT and at 3.8 GPA, black applicants have a 9 out of 10 chance of
admission (91 percent) and Hispanics a 3 out of 4 chance (73 percent),
but whites have only a 1 out of 3 chance (33 percent) and Asians only
a 1 out of 5 chance (19 percent).
Gaps in USMLE Step 1 scores--this is a licensing exam taken after the
first two years of medical school--parallel racial/ethnic differences
in entering qualifications. White and Asian median scores are
substantially higher than 75th percentile black scores.
|
