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.