June 19, 2007

Now and Then: Minorities and Michigan

The percentage of African American, Hispanic and Native American students admitted to the University of Michigan Law School for next fall fell from 39.6 percent for those students whose applications were considered before enactment of a state law banning race-based preferences in December to 5.5 percent thereafter. While critics of affirmative action read the numbers as proof of the unfair impact of preferences based on race, advocates for affirmative action said the numbers were early indicators of just how damaging the law will be.

Looking for a job?

See all new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 2,671
Administrative: 2,018
Executive: 150
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

“We believe this is the first clear evidence of how disastrous Proposal 2 will be,” said George Washington, lead lawyer for By Any Means Necessary, a Detroit-based group that has sued to overturn Proposal 2, a ballot initiative approved by 58 percent of Michigan voters last fall barring public colleges from using affirmative action in admissions. “As in California and in Texas, it shows up first in the law schools — and most dramatically.”

“I think the numbers speak for themselves,” added Maya Simmons, a third-year Michigan law student and immediate past chair of the Black Law Students Alliance there. “What we feared most is what the results of Prop 2 are.”

The overall picture for underrepresented minority admissions at Michigan Law School this year does not differ dramatically from the year before: 192 of 869, or 22.1 percent, of minority applicants gained acceptance in the 2006 cycle, while 183 of 915 minority applicants, or 20 percent, were admitted for fall 2007.

But it’s the timing of the admissions decisions that’s striking: Out of 396 completed applications from minority students considered on or before December 28, the day before the law took effect, 157 were accepted. From December 29 on, just 26 minority student applications were accepted — despite the fact that admissions officers considered 476 applications, a greater number of minority student applications than those considered before the law’s enactment. (Michigan’s law school has a rolling admissions policy).

In comparison, the acceptance rate for all students, including white and Asian American students and members of underrepresented minority groups, rose from 19.5 percent before December 29 to 22.8 percent after the law went into effect. (The total percentages of Michigan law applicants of all races admitted throughout the entire admissions cycle stayed relatively constant from the 2006 to 2007 cycles, at about 20 to 21 percent).

“I am shocked and appalled that for some reason this appears to be a surprise,” said ReNee S. Dunman, president of the American Association for Affirmative Action. “This is a repeat of the aftermath of Proposition 209 [ending affirmative action in college admissions] in California in ‘96,” she said, pointing to the seven years it took for minority enrollments to rebound there post-Proposition 209. “Have we learned nothing?”

Or, as Michael A. Olivas, a professor at the University of Houston who teaches higher education and immigration law, wrote in an e-mail in response to the statistics Monday: “DUHHHH.”

Yet, the director of admissions at the University of Michigan Law School said Monday that rhetoric regarding an impending or even preordained disaster is misplaced, with the disparities in minority admissions from fall to spring reflecting concentrated efforts on the part of admissions staff and volunteers to encourage top candidates to apply early.

“There were differences, but it’s not going to be as stark as these numbers suggest,” said Sarah C. Zearfoss, assistant dean and director of admissions. “Starting in about August, we started recruiting people, including minorities, asking the strongest candidates we could find ... to apply early, so a huge percentage of those 400 applicants from the pre-Prop 2 were very, very strong minority applicants.”

“[By Any Means Necessary] says what this means is we won’t be able to admit anyone who’s a minority under Prop 2 and it’s catastrophic,” Zearfoss said. “That’s not what it means. What it means is a lot of the people in the 157 group [of minorities admitted by late December] are people who might have been in the 26 group [of minority students admitted after that] too.”

“That’s not going to be 100 percent of it; some of the people I admitted pre-Prop 2 were people I wouldn’t have been able to admit after,” Zearfoss continued. “Realistically, Prop 2 is going to have some effect on the overall number of minorities that we admit, but there’s a couple reasons why it’s pretty hard to know exactly what kind of effect and whether it’s reasonable to think the proportion will be more like the post-Prop 2 activity this year or more like the overall percentage this year. I think that it’s going to be more like the overall percentage.”

“Maybe some of the better-qualified people applied early, but not that many,” Washington of By Any Means Necessary replied Monday. “Half of the class applied after the deadline or at least their applications were considered after that, and you’re getting 5 percent acceptance rates. If you have anything remotely like that for a full year, you will see disastrous consequences.”

“The numbers are obviously disappointing but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the long term effects will be ‘disastrous,’ ” Christal Phillips, a third-year law student and political action chair for Michigan’s Black Law Students Alliance last year, wrote in an e-mail. “I have complete faith that the admissions office is doing the best that they can to admit as many qualified and talented minority students who deserve to be here.”

This year’s admissions statistics are, however, ripe for scrutiny on at least two different levels: On the one hand, the lower proportion of minority acceptances this spring relative to last — 5.5 percent this year as opposed to about 25 percent in spring 2006 — raises flags among affirmative action advocates that Proposal 2 signals the “resegregation” of Michigan’s public colleges.

And, on the other, the high proportion of minority acceptances by late December (with 157 of 396, or about 40 percent, of minority applicants admitted during that time frame this year, compared to 67 of 262, or 25.6 percent the year before) has fueled criticisms from affirmative action opponents that the admissions staff gave greater weight to race in this fall’s admissions cycle in anticipation of Proposal 2’s passage in November — a criticism Zearfoss flatly denies as false.

“Comparing the rates immediately before Proposal 2 was passed with the rates immediately after Proposal 2 was passed may not be fair,” said Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, which opposes affirmative action. “The numbers in the fall last year may be skewed by the fact that the University of Michigan Law School was weighing race even more heavily than it had in years past in an effort to get in under the wire, before Proposal 2 was passed.”

“However, putting that aside, I would expect that the percentage of students who were getting racially discriminatory preferences in their favor would go down when those preferences stopped.” That doesn’t mean that those students won’t go on to lower-tier law schools or even to become successful lawyers, Clegg said — referencing research by Richard Sander, of the University of California at Los Angeles, finding that by admitting poorly qualified black applicants who would perform better at less prestigious institutions, top law schools actually do them a disservice.

“That’s the point, Clegg said, “that kind of discrimination should stop. And ... when that discrimination would stop, of course there are going to be lower admit rates to the University of Michigan.”

— Elizabeth Redden

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

U-M sped up preferences in the lag-time

This 39% to 5.5% comparison is irresponsible journalism (especially by other media outlets that reprint IHE’s more detailed article snippets without any analysis).

The measurement comes from two periods WITHIN THE SAME ADMISSIONS YEAR, so its not comparing similar cycles. Indeed, no other measurement historically has ever been taken at the same times, and U-M admitted (in a contradictory way that probably couldn’t be used in court because it is so double-spoken) that it “sped up” preferences between the election on Nov 8, and the Dec 23 (by court delay Jan 10) implementation waiting period that all Michigan laws or amendments face before going to into effect.

This means that your “margin of difference” is inflated by both increased pre-Proposal 2 minority admissions and depressed post-Proposal 2 minority admissions. The real number to look at is year end comparison to year end comparison, next year.

Chetly Zarko, at 4:25 am EDT on June 28, 2007

Now & Then: Minorities and Michigan (response)

With Laws as “Far Reaching” and “Significant” as “Affirmative Action", I would want to keep 2-4 year election cycles out of it. If you change your mind and make adjustments and readjustments on a 2-4 year cycle, the result can and may well be “bouncing around like a political Footbal". The laws were adjusted and came into being by the “Judicial” Branch, and by packing a court you can (and may) overturn such rulings, but it would be slower and less convulsive. It would appear to be “Anti Majority", but with issues of this importance, I think it might be best to have more power invested in the “Judiciary", just so that we get somewhere in a planned fashion, instead of following the 2-4 year cycle of Legislators. If a “Constitutional Ammendment” could be passed, by the required majorities, that would trump the Judicial Rulings concerned. Balance of Power.

Richard Lundquist, BA (and a cracker), at 6:40 pm EDT on March 27, 2008

As a 12 year old that attends college I know a lot about affirmative action. This policy has helped minorities for decades and it WAS NOT prefential treatment towards minorities.The dean of U of M has constantly said she was fully committed to use diversity but clearly she lied to nation.

As minories we need to stand for whats right.

jantae, Jackson state university, at 12:50 pm EDT on March 28, 2008

I believe that the elimination and ignoring of proposal 2 is an absolutely ridiculous concept. The voters have called for a ban on affimative action in public schools and that is what shall be enforced. You say this will have tragic effects? How so? Not as many minorities who are underqualified will take spots away from hardworking caucasians and asian students, that should be a great step forward and is in no way tragic. Those who DESERVE to be there should be the students accepted. You continuously throw that word “deserve” around and are applying it to exactly those underqualified students that DO NOT deserve to attend the school based on their academic merit. In what way is it not reverse racism to AWARD points to minorities soely based on race? This is no better than the old “Jim Crow” laws or segregation, the only differece is that the target is now the majority.

Chris, at 2:50 pm EDT on March 30, 2008

Democracy’s troubles.

Among other things, the decline in minority admissions at Michigan’s law school resulting from a popular initiative to repeal affirmative action, shows a problematic aspect of democracy. 58% of voters chose to strike a blow AGAINST social justice by outlawing affirmative action considerations. These voters were driven by the rhetoric generated by the political right and its concatenation of think tanks, talk radio stars, and other propaganda sources (Fox News) that have long touted the “unfairness” of affirmative action. Michigan’s voters swallowed this predigested message and voted accordingly. So, what’s next for democracy in America?

Scott, Ast. Prof., at 7:30 am EDT on June 19, 2007

“social jjustice”

If we want to discuss “social justice,” what about all those rejected from schools since they just happen to have the wrong skin tone. Perhaps these students should have their own separate but equal law school.

Conflating racial discrimination with “social justice” gives Newspeak a bad name. Those wishing to twist the English language can do better.

Bob

Robert Weissberg, Professor at Uniiversity of Illinois-Urbana, at 9:00 am EDT on June 19, 2007

Say good-bye to public elites

I’d like to think that no matter one’s race or ethnicity that if they are determined to succeed in the field of law, or any other discipline for that matter, then there is no disservice done to them in relation to the “ranking” of a program. A disservice is done when someone gets into a top program so they can wear the sweatshirt. Why is it a disservice to challenge people to strive for something more? Yes, some lower-ranked programs do this compared to some top-ranked programs, and vice versa, but these “underachieving” students may actually want to stretch their neurons a bit more than people are giving them credit for.

The declining numbers are pointing to a re-establishment of elitist institutions that date back to the founding of this country. Private DRUs are going to have the upper-hand on the highly intellectual more so than before because of their ability to recruit students from all corners of the globe because they have what Fortune 500 companies and top professions want: a diverse learning and social environment. These environments allow students to be more adaptable and flexible, which is similar to the working environment they’ll be hired in. Given the bans on affirmative action and percent plan admissions policies, public elite DRUs are going to end up second tier institutions because they cannot provide an adequate diversity climate like those contained at private DRUs and thus lose many bright students to the Haravards and Stanfords of the world.

Just my.02

WCB, University in the News, at 9:30 am EDT on June 19, 2007

Facts are troublesome

” .. 58% of voters chose to strike a blow AGAINST social justice by outlawing affirmative action .. driven by the rhetoric generated by the political right and .. propaganda sources (Fox News) ..”

Sigh. It gets tiring, posting the same fact, over and over again.

In the same election, the Democrat incumbent governor was soundly re-elected with 57%. Mind explaining that? (And please use a style book, too.)

Polling is more art than science. People will tell you one thing — and do another.

Buzz, at 10:10 am EDT on June 19, 2007

rejection not about skin color

To the professor’s comment that there is injustice to those students who could not get in because of skin color-law school classes are limited in size. I would think that most people could not get in simply because they can only take so many students. I would guess that just about everyone who applies to Michigan is probably qualified, remembering that many factors should go into compiling a law school class of students. The university is (or was) right in trying to develop leaders who represent and will represent all areas, facets, peoples of our diverse society. It’s unfortunate that students of color have been reduced so dramatically and it will manifest itself (again) on these communities who need educated lawyers and leaders to emerge from them and represent them.

Andy, at 11:45 am EDT on June 19, 2007

For Whom the Bell Tolls..........

The sharp decline in admissions numbers for blacks and Hispanics at the U of Michigan Law School is a painful and telling reminder of the extent to which racial double standards were deployed at Ann Arbor.

The pious chest-pounding and cluck-clucking by defenders of racial and ethnic double standards should not deter anyone from recognizing what a tawdry, illegal and divisive disaster affirmative action had become.

We should expect more such pathetic lamentations and endless whining when the Supreme Court soon announces — in the Seattle/Louisville litigation — that using a child’s skin color or ethnicity in making school assignments is also unconstitutional.

Chuck, at 11:45 am EDT on June 19, 2007

For Whom the Bell Tolls......

We should expect more such pathetic lamentations and endless whinings when the Supreme Court soon announces — in the Seattle/Louisville litigation — that using a child’s skin color or ethnicity in making school assignments is also unconstitutional.

Chuck, at 12:05 pm EDT on June 19, 2007

“remembering that many factors should go into compiling a law school class of students. The university is (or was) right in trying to develop leaders who represent and will represent all areas, facets, peoples of our diverse society.”

Law School admissions (all law school admissions) are based overwhelmingly on LSAT and GPA. Something along the lines of a Rhodes Scholarship will be a serious factor, but not many other personal accomplishments except at the very margins of a decision. If Michigan wanted to develop leaders and look at all facets in a student’s application, I wish it well in its quest, but it’s just bull for it to say that extracurricular or personal aspects played remotely as big factor in admissions.

You do well in college, take a logic test, and then take a three-hour test at the end of each semester for each class you take in law school. During your time in school you’ll be called on maybe 3 to 4 times per semester by your professor to answer a question, and will spend the rest of the time typing notes into your laptop. As someone who’s fresh out of the process, for a school like Michigan to say they were developing leadership in all of this is just being self-deluding.

Michigan sought people who would represent a certain race. When you’re seeking people who will represent certain races, you’ll get people who will represent certain races, if it wanted all areas, facets, peoples of our diverse society — they’re welcome to aim for that while they’re at it and there’s nothing in the affirmative action ban that would stop them.

AD, at 1:45 pm EDT on June 19, 2007

Affirm. Action — Hurting minorities one entitlement at a time.

Hello All,

Arguments which state that ethnicity or the weak social construct of race are needed categories to ensure the much ballyhooed and rarely defined term “diversity” are simply negative, backwards and unfortunately racist in and of themselves. Top-tier academic institutions need diversity of thought and experiences, matched by academic excellence. There are plenty of students who are from a variety of socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds that fit that description and who will be admitted on merit. There is no entitlement to admissions – academic merit, determination to succeed and the ability to condense life experience into a successful application is all that is necessary to gain admissions to a good school.

Now that U. Mich has had its admissions policy corrected, I would hope to see greater persistence rates and higher bar passage rates. Now it that does not occur, I would hope that the school would audit itself and its faculty.

Cheers,

Mr. I.Traveler

Indie Traveler, at 2:00 pm EDT on June 19, 2007

Checked your math?

” .. I would guess that just about everyone who applies to Michigan is probably qualified ..”

A rather broad assumption, I believe. From —

http://www.law.umich.edu/prospectivestudents/admissions/faq.htm

” .. the University of Michigan Law School is very selective .. The median LSAT score for the 2006 entering class is 168 (97th percentile) and the 25th and 75th percentiles for the class are 166 and 170 ..”

I have to stop make jokes about those kinds of people ..

Buzz, at 4:00 pm EDT on June 19, 2007

A few observations:

Scott: If democracy is a problem, what alternative are you advocating? Keep in mind that if you suggest a dictatorship, you probably won’t get to be the dictator and, therefore you probably won’t get your desired outcome. How about a representative government with a constitution and a bill of individual rights? Sounds good to me.

“Social justice” is such a Humpty Dumpty term — “it means just what [the user] choose[s] it to mean — neither more nor less.”

If you read the article, the difference between minority admissions for last year to this year are statically insignificant — 22.1% to 20%, once you take into consideration the front loading that U of M did on the minority admissions.

Those in favor of favoring “under represented minorities” do not need to worry to much — U of M is off the charts left, anti-white male and the administration will do whatever is necessary to admit the minorities it wants. U of M is not going to let Proposal 2 interfere with what they see as their mission.

DCM, at 9:30 pm EDT on June 19, 2007

Scalia said it best...

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Scalia pointed out that Michigan had no real interest in “creating leaders,” “representing diverse viewpoints,” or anything else of the sort. The law school’s only detectable interest here has always been simply to maintain an elite law school. The Law School, if it chose, could have admitted many more minority students without lessening its admissions standards by lowering those standards across the board — for ALL students, white and black. Lowering its standards, however, would have reduced its ranking. So the Law School instead wanted to maintain high admissions standards for whites, while making it much easier for minorities to gain admission.

It’s really hard to see how the real interest at stake here — maintaining an elite school, rather than creating opportunities, training leaders, or representing all viewpoints, is one that a supposedly-color-blind constitution permits.

Robby, at 2:35 pm EDT on June 20, 2007

Racism

Wake up folks! America today is awash with racism and discrimination based on skin color, class, gender, etc., just as it has been from the founding of this nation. This is a fact, not fiction. We need to accept our past, and accept the impact that it has had on our American culture and structure. We cannot reinvent ourselves out of what our founders and our for bearers created to advantage some, while disadvantaging others solely based on race, class, gender, religion, etc. The discriminatory policies, customs, and habits of the past continue to permeate our American society to this day. It is part of our fabric and we cannot pretend it does not exist, or that the past has no impact on life in America today. We have done little in our progress to eliminate discrimination, to actually dismantle our exclusionary structures that permeate our society. Programs like affirmative action begin to undue some of the undeserved and unmerited benefits built into the fabric of our culture that cater to only a few at the expense of the many. Our nation is not supposed to be a monarchy or an oligarchy; it is supposed to be a mature democracy. Let’s grow up and start acting like one.

Rick, at 4:20 pm EDT on June 22, 2007

“We have done little in our progress to eliminate discrimination,”

I’d accept you’re arguing in good faith here if you’d add a specific year to that. To argue we have done little to eliminate discrimination when we used to live in a country where different races used separate water fountains, separate eating areas, separate theater seats, separate railway seats, where instead of getting a boost for jobs, minorities were barred from even applying from them — is just ridiculous.

It also brings up the question of why other groups who faced discrimination aren’t going to get a boost as well. Was it as severe as African Americans faced? No. But that fact is an argument that we shouldn’t give as big a boost to those groups. It’s not an argument that we shouldn’t give them any at all.

This is leaving aside the fact that this is a justification (past wrongs) for affirmative action that the Supreme declared unconstitutional 30 years ago—it’s supposed to be for the benefits of diversity. (Yeah, I know, but as long as were using these justifications for the program, that ought to be brought up once in a while.)

It’s also leaving aside the fact you have no way of knowing whether any of those being hindered by the program were descendants of people actually responsible for hindering other minorities in the past or if they even benefited from it. What have Asians done to hinder African Americans and why should they be hindered by this program?

“We cannot reinvent ourselves out of what our founders and our for bearers created to advantage some, while disadvantaging others solely based on race, class, gender, religion, etc.”

Jews and Catholics were once heavily discriminated against. Should Jews and Catholics get a boost today and, if not, why?

AD, at 8:45 pm EDT on June 22, 2007

Jobs Related to Now and Then: Minorities and Michigan

or search for jobs directly.

Student Records Business Analyst
University of Maine System

Fiscal-Year, Full-time, Exempt Position The Department of Administration Systems Development and Support at the University of ... see job

Coordinator, Nursing Admissions — 8NV045
Texas Woman’s University

COORDINATOR, NURSING ADMISSIONS: ($2685 per month)-Job Code: 8NV045 Department: Nursing Houston Campus Education: Bachelor’s ... see job

Director of Legal Analysis and Writing
University of La Verne

THE UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE, COLLEGE OF LAW invites applications for the position of Director of Legal Analysis and Writing ... see job

Associate Director
Temple University

This position is responsible for the planning and managing of all aspects of freshmen and international student recruitment, ... see job

Associate Director of Admissions, San Fernando Valley Campus
University of La Verne

Position #2929 – Associate Director of Admissions, San Fernando Valley Campus The University of La Verne has an opening for ... see job

Transfer Specialist/Developer – Title V
University of La Verne

Transfer Specialist/Developer – Title V Position #2938 The University of La Verne has an opening for a part-time (20 hours ... see job

Director-Communications (Enrollment Services)
Georgia Institute of Technology

DUTIES: Manage all informational and promotional materials for the units in Enrollment Services. Assist all units in ... see job

Admissions Coordinator (112051)
Northeastern University

Northeastern University, founded in 1898 and located in Boston, is a private research university that is a leader in ... see job

Asst/Assoc/Full Professor (Media Law)
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

A full-time faculty position in the field of Media Law. The ideal candidate will have notable expertise in media issues such ... see job

Law Faculty
University of La Verne

THE UNIVERSITY OF LA VERNE, COLLEGE OF LAW invites applications for one or more full-time, tenure-track positions beginning ... see job