 |
 |
DESPITE M.C.R.I., UM SEEKING WAYS TO MAINTAIN DIVERSITY The University of Michigan sparked the effort to eliminate affirmative action when it did not admit Jennifer Gratz, and now UM President Mary Sue Coleman said the university will search out all legal means to not let the new ban on affirmative action block its goals of a diverse student body. Ms. Gratz chaired the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative that won a dramatic victory with 58 percent support on Tuesday to change Michigan's Constitution to outlaw the use of affirmative action on the basis of race and sex in university admissions. A spokesperson for the MCRI said Ms. Coleman's "arrogance speaks loud and clear." The proposal is part of the Constitution (or will be, 10 days after certification) and her first duty is to prepare to follow the law, Doug Tietz said. Ms. Coleman was not the only opponent of the proposal expressing dismay with the outcome. Mark Bernstein, chair of the Civil Rights Commission, said the proposal stoked the fires of "racial miscommunication. They have worked to divide rather than unite Michigan." And the Michigan Roundtable for Diversity and Inclusion said that "much work remains to be done" to help people understand the obstacles that women and racial minorities have faced. "The vote is nothing short of a moral failure," the group said. Governor Jennifer Granholm also said the state will also look into what actions it can take to maintain diversity. The final unofficial results show the proposal winning with 2.1 million votes compared to 1.5 million opposed. It was defeated in just three counties: Ingham, Washtenaw and Wayne. In a lengthy statement released Wednesday, Ms. Coleman said she has directed the university's general counsel to examine every avenue to ensure the university can continue to ensure a diverse student body. She questioned the legality of the proposal, especially as it applies to higher education. Under Michigan's Constitution, universities have overall autonomy in their operations. Referring to the 10-year history of Proposition 209 in California that also barred affirmative action, Ms. Coleman said the effort there "was an experiment that we cannot, and will not, allow to take seed here at Michigan. I will not stand by while the very heart and soul of this great university is threatened. We are Michigan and we are diversity." And she added that if November 7 was the day Proposal 2006-2 passed then Wednesday had to be the day "we pledge to remain united in our fight for diversity." The university would find a way to be free of the handcuffs of the proposal to continue to make the university accessible to the greatest range of students, she said. To do otherwise would be to take the school "down the road of mediocrity." At a minimum, Ms. Coleman said she hoped the university could continue its admission decisions under its current guidelines - guidelines established following two 2003 U.S. Supreme Court rulings that held the university's undergraduate admissions policy was unconstitutional but not the policy used for its law school - since it would be unfair to make admission decisions under two sets of admissions criteria. But Mr. Tietz said if Ms. Coleman wants to demonstrate a commitment to diversity she should go into school districts where minority students struggle and encourage them to study harder. "She's looking for ways to get around and to use race preferences," he said. Mr. Tietz also acknowledged that the proposal probably would be subject to lawsuits, but that would not in itself be bad. The growth of free speech often depends on lawsuits, he said.