University of Michigan officials are blaming a steep drop in the number of minority freshmen enrolling there mainly on their inability to consider race in awarding scholarships. A 2006 amendment to the state’s Constitution banned public colleges from using affirmative-action preferences. Although applications from black, Hispanic, and American Indian students rose by 3.7 percent, and the number offered admission rose by 8.2 percent, the number of such students actually enrolling this fall as freshmen dropped by 11.4 percent, or 69 students. Theodore L. Spencer, who is in charge of undergraduate admissions, said in a statement issued on Tuesday that being precluded from considering race and ethnicity in awarding financial aid leaves Michigan at a disadvantage in competing for minority students.
RSS
Follow The Ticker through your favorite RSS reader.
9 Responses to Michigan Blames Ban on Race-Conscious Aid Awards for Low Minority Yield
11132507 - October 14, 2009 at 3:39 pm
This answers the question, “If you do away with affirmative action, then what do you replace it with?” All because some white kid stamped her feet and held her breath because she didn’t get into the law school of her choice.
12052592 - October 14, 2009 at 3:44 pm
White “kid”?
gharbisonne - October 14, 2009 at 4:37 pm
It was a voter initiative passed by the citizens of Michigan that ended race-based scholarships in Michigan, not a lawsuit.Take it up with the people who don’t think their taxes should pay for scholarships their kids are barred from getting on account of their race.
johnfarley - October 14, 2009 at 4:53 pm
It is most unfortunate that the voters chose to micromanage the universities in this manner. People of color were underrepresented at Michigan relative to the state’s population before the initiative, and they are even more underrepresented now. Fortunately, the tide is turning on Ward Connerly and his campaign to destroy affirmative action – in the last round of elections, efforts of this type were unsuccessful in most of the states where they were attempted.It is also telling in Michigan that, as had been previously shown by other studies, the people most experienced with affirmative action were most supportive of it. Thus, in the university communities of Ann Arbor and East Lansing, where people could see how affirmative action in higher education actually worked, the majority of voters opposed the initiative that eliminated affirmative action in admissions and scholarships.
gharbisonne - October 14, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Oh, nonsense. People in university towns support AA because they tend to be leftists, and because their kids don’t generally have a problem getting into or affording college. The only place AA actually was on the ballot and lost was Colorado, where it lost narrowly in an election where there were so many initiatives on the ballot that many people just voted no on everything.People simply don’t support laws that give other people’s children unfair preferences over their own, no matter how skewed a description they’re given of those laws.
akaivy5194 - October 14, 2009 at 8:46 pm
I think an important and often ignored fact about AA is being overlooked here. The group that has historically and continues to benefit the most from AA is white women. So, gharbisonne, are you also stating that these people who don’t want to pay taxes for laws that support “unfair preferences” are okay with the “fair” preferences that are extended to white women as gender minorities?
rcowie - October 14, 2009 at 9:57 pm
If the aid is based on need, why should race or ethnicity have anything to do with an admitted student’s decision to attend?
megginson - October 15, 2009 at 7:38 am
The argument that folks voted down the Connerly amendment in Colorado because they were tired of ballot initiatives is simplistic and ignores the fact that four of the fourteen Colorado ballot initiatives passed. People obviously did not uniformly vote no on everything.In fact, the Colorado opposition to the amendment was much better organized and much more aggressive than had been the case in other states, and worked hard to make sure that everyone understood what the actual effects of passage would be, which were often much more muddled elsewhere. Also, whatever one thinks of the tactic, they also heavily publicized Connerly’s repeated refusal to disavow the support of the Ku Klux Klan in the Michigan effort, as well as his now-becoming-famous “God bless them” quote on Michigan television when pressed on the issue. For those who don’t know what that’s about, if you Google on “connerly klan” you can watch the clip yourself and make up your own mind about what you think of it.
teacherspaddle - October 15, 2009 at 9:02 am
Also consider: those 69 students, high-achieving students of color, will likely now go out of state, rather than stay in MI, build community ties through their university years, and help prevent brain drain.Also, for the students of color that remain, the loss of these 69 students is a BIG DEAL, and makes it harder to retain the students of color who choose to enroll. A minority population in a big place benefits by having a larger cohort group for support and mentorship.These stats provide (yet more) proof as to why cutting AA is misguided: applications are up, admissions are up (so we clearly have a qualified pool of applicants eager to go to UM) — but the message is clear: we don’t want to invest in you. These students can instead attend a school that will offer financial support AND send a message that diversity is valued….