Tuesday, August 6, 2019
The State of Affirmative Action in Michigan Essay Example for Free
The State of Affirmative Action in Michigan Essay The term affirmative action refers to positive steps taken for the purpose of giving members of minority groups (including women) increased representation in the workplace, education, and in business opportunities. The term was first used in Executive Order (EO) 11246 issued by then President Lyndon Johnson in 1965 to ensure that federal contractors were not discriminating against minority groups pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).            However, it took another five years before the Secretary of Labor came out with Order #4 which contained the implementing guidelines for EO # 11246. In 1972, Revised Order #4 was issued by the Secretary of Labor to amend Order #4 and fully implement EO 11246. In order to carry out the revised order, directives were issued by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to bring colleges and universities under its coverage. Because the revised order already included women among the minority groups that should be â€Å"fully utilized,†the different institutions in the country, including colleges and universities, were required to set their â€Å"goals†and â€Å"timetables†for such full utilization of the so-called â€Å"protected classes†which by then included women (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Controversy followed the implementation of the revised order not only because of the inclusion of women under the minority groups but particularly when it came to the interpretation of the terms â€Å"goals†and â€Å"timetables.†Some quarters insisted that â€Å"goals†and â€Å"timetables†meant â€Å"quotas†which required institutions to employ gender and/or racial preferences in their employee selection. Others believed otherwise. They argued that a correct interpretation of EO 11246 would show that affirmative action did not actually mean using racial or gender preferences in the selection processes but merely increasing representation. In an essay entitled â€Å"Preferential Hiring,†Judith Jarvis Thomson supported the idea of preferences as a way of compensating for the discrimination that minorities suffered in the past. Thomas Nagel, on the other hand, in his â€Å"Equal Treatment and Compensatory Justice,†claimed that preferences could be a manner of achieving social good without necessarily being unfair and unjust to anybody. Their arguments were immediately contradicted by Lisa Newton who argued that if schools give preference to women and minorities, the â€Å"reverse discrimination [that inevitably results] violates the public equality which defines citizenship†(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). As the debate raged on how to go about giving more teaching posts to women and members of the minority groups, some colleges and universities took the initiative of increasing the presence of minority students in their student population. Unfortunately, one problem became immediately apparent: not enough minority students could obtain sufficient test scores or high school grades that would enable them to gain eligibility for college admission. To overcome the problem, some colleges and universities decided to change their criteria for admissions if only to accommodate minority students and achieve a better representation ratio in the process. This practice resulted to some white applicants being bumped off despite getting higher test scores than some minority students who were admitted. Consequently, charges of reverse discrimination were raised in many campuses nationwide, culminating to cases being filed in court (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). The University of Michigan was not spared from this chaotic situation. One such case was filed by Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher on October 14, 1977. They took the university to court for allegedly granting illegal preference to minority students in the undergraduate admissions. The case, which was ruled later by the District Court as a â€Å"class action lawsuit†in December of 1998, was initially scheduled for trial in May 1999 but was later postponed at a later date. The Center for Individual Rights represented the plaintiffs (York). The case filed by Gratz and Hamacher stemmed from their failure to obtain admission to the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA). Gratz applied in 1995 while Hamacher filed his application in 1997. According to the complaint, although the college considered Hamacher as â€Å"within the qualified range†and Gratz as â€Å"well qualified,†they were denied admission in favor of minority students. Gratz and Hamacher claimed that the university used racial preference in its undergraduate admissions and violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (York). On October 16, 2000, twenty Fortune 500 companies which included 3M, Abbott Laboratories, Microsoft Corporation, and The Procter Gamble Company filed a joint amicus brief supporting the University of Michigan. In their brief, they stated that ethnic and racial diversity in institutions like the University of Michigan is vital not only in their efforts to put together a diverse workforce but also in their desire to hire workers from all backgrounds who have obtained their education in diverse environments. On January 15, 2003, President Bush made known his opinion on the case. According to his statement which was released by the Office of the Press Secretary, although he was supportive of racial diversity in colleges and universities, he did not approve of the method employed by the University of Michigan. He not only described its method as flawed but pronounced it a â€Å"quota system that unfairly rewards or penalizes perspective students, based solely on their race.†He further said that the university’s practice of granting minority students extra points (20 out of the needed 100 points for admission) is unconstitutional since under the system being observed in Michigan, a student gets only 12 points for obtaining a perfect score in SAT (York). In response, university president Mary Sue Coleman explained the university’s admission criteria which, according to her, were simply misunderstood by the president. She said that the university only allocated 12 points for the SAT score because the high school grades were given more value. Race and socioeconomic status were also among the factors considered, explaining that only one of these factors could get 20 points for a student. Another 16 points could be obtained by a student coming from the upper peninsula of Michigan, in consideration of geographic diversity. She continued on to state that other factors included in the criteria were â€Å"leadership, service, and life experiences†(York). On December 13, 2000, Honorable Patrick Duggan of the District Court of Michigan, ruled that the admissions policies adopted by the university during the years in question was indeed unconstitutional. However, he granted no remedy to the complainants. On June 23, 2003, the United States Supreme Court, after reviewing the case, ruled that the university policy violated the Equal Protection Clause because its use of race was â€Å"not narrowly tailored to achieve [its] asserted interest in diversity†(York). After the Supreme Court came out with its ruling, Ward Connerly, a black who formerly served as regent of the University of California immediately announced his intention to place a voter’s initiative on the ballot. Connerly also spearheaded the campaigns for the earlier ballot initiatives that ended minority preferences in the states of California (1997) and Washington (1998). He convinced Jennifer Gratz to spearhead the effort. Gratz organized the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative and by January 2005 was able to come up with more than 500,000 signatures. That number exceeded the 317,757 signatures needed to get the initiative on the ballot in 2006. After much controversy involving accusations of fraud, proposition 2 was finally placed on the ballot with election scheduled for November 7, 2006 (Vu). Proposition 2 won by a majority of 58% of the votes cast. As a result of that victory, 45 days after the election proposition 2 would take effect to bar affirmative action in employment, public education, and contracting. A CNN exit poll showed that in a state whose population is 14% black and 81% white, one out of every seven black voters and about 67% of the white voters signified their intention to put an end to affirmative action in Michigan. Opponents of the initiative, however, immediately filed a federal lawsuit which challenged the constitutionality of the measure. For her part, University of Michigan president Mary Sue Coleman expressed her intention to continue the fight for a diversified campus. Her exact words were: â€Å"I believe there are serious questions as to whether this initiative is lawful, particularly as it pertains to higher education. I have asked our attorneys for their full and undivided support in defending diversity at the University of Michigan†(Lewin). Unfortunately, on December 29, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided against any delay in the implementation of Proposition 2. The result was a considerable drop in the admissions of minority students at the University of Michigan.     Works Cited Cinti, Dylan. â€Å"Leveling the Playing Field.†The Communicator. 11 September 2007.            14 March 2008. http://the-communicator.org/index.php/site/article/leveling_the_playing_field/  Lewin, Tamar. â€Å"Michigan Rejects Affirmative Action, and Backers Sue.†The New York            Times. 9 November 2006. 14 March 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/us/politics/09michigan.html?_r=2oref=slogin). oref=slogin Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. â€Å"Affirmative Action.†4 March 2005. 14 March 2008.            http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/ Vu, Pauline. â€Å"Affirmative action in Michigan ballot.†Stateline.org. 29 August 2006.            14 March 2008. http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=137542 York, Grace. â€Å"Affirmative Action In College Admission: Gratz and Hamacher/Grutter v.            The Regents of the University of Michigan.†The University of Michigan Documents            Center. 18 January 2008. 14 March 2008. http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/affirm.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.