Some glaring errors in the article:
1. This isn't so much a beef with the article, but with Williams' statement. Public universities, as instruments of the state, do not have the option of admitting whomever they want and in doing so ignoring "arbitrary laws" of the state. Imagine the uproar if UMich decided that they wanted to admit only white people.
2. It seems you have failed to understand Michigan's policy, not President Bush. You are correct, the undergraduate admissions criteria is based on a points system, the merits of which are still up for debate. However, one of the pliantiffs in the case was a law school applicant. UMich's law school uses a system that establishes target percentages for minority students. That, my friends, is a quota, and depending on how you interpret the Bakke case, may be construed as in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
The article does provide a fairly accurate picture of Vanderbilt's stance, which I hold to be quite hypocritical. If UMich had similar admissions practices to Vanderbilt, there would be no case for the plaintiffs. However, since this is the second time UMich has been brought to court over their admissions practices, I almost have to wonder if they are truly dedicated to providing a diverse, but fair college environment. For the most part, Vandy does a good job of balancing the two. It then amazes me that the same university can support a process that seems to disregard what many consider to be basic fairness.
In April, UMich will lose their case, at least on the law school process. Honestly, it could be the best thing that ever happened to them. Maybe the third time will be the charm, and they will enact admissions processes similar to Vandy that ensure both a diverse student body and fair treatment of said students.
This is just to explain a little bit about the differences between affirmative action policies and quotas. Quotas are fixed numerical allocation, and are illegal, unless court ordered as a temporary remedy for a well-documented, proven pattern of racially motivated discrimination. Instead, University of Michigan has set percentage "goals" for the school. They do not set limits, up or down, to the minority population. Take the following example: If only 10 African American students had applied to the university, but had grades so far below the average that the 20 points they got for being a minority did not put them ahead of any white students, U of M would not let them in. In a quota system, the African American students would be allowed in because they would have set a "fixed numerical allocation" of students, even though their grades did not allow them admission. The difference between quotas and goals rests in the idea that the minority students who are admitted are qualified anyway, whereas within a quota system they are not necessarily so.
To sum up, the affirmative action policies at U of M do not have quotas, but rather goals that they are attempting to achieve by awarding minority students points.
I am not trying to argue the credibility of the U of M's admissions policies, but rather outline the "glaring truths in the article."
Sorry for the confusion in the article, it is difficult explaining everything with such limited space.
anonymous983
posted 2/26/03 @ 8:26 PM CST
1. This isn't so much a beef with the article, but with Williams' statement. Public universities, as instruments of the state, do not have the option of admitting whomever they want and in doing so ignoring "arbitrary laws" of the state. Imagine the uproar if UMich decided that they wanted to admit only white people.
2. It seems you have failed to understand Michigan's policy, not President Bush. You are correct, the undergraduate admissions criteria is based on a points system, the merits of which are still up for debate. However, one of the pliantiffs in the case was a law school applicant. UMich's law school uses a system that establishes target percentages for minority students. That, my friends, is a quota, and depending on how you interpret the Bakke case, may be construed as in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.
The article does provide a fairly accurate picture of Vanderbilt's stance, which I hold to be quite hypocritical. If UMich had similar admissions practices to Vanderbilt, there would be no case for the plaintiffs. However, since this is the second time UMich has been brought to court over their admissions practices, I almost have to wonder if they are truly dedicated to providing a diverse, but fair college environment. For the most part, Vandy does a good job of balancing the two. It then amazes me that the same university can support a process that seems to disregard what many consider to be basic fairness.
In April, UMich will lose their case, at least on the law school process. Honestly, it could be the best thing that ever happened to them. Maybe the third time will be the charm, and they will enact admissions processes similar to Vandy that ensure both a diverse student body and fair treatment of said students.
Steve McGuire
steve.mcguire@vanderbilt.edu