The title should be other ways to pick and choose the law.

http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentin ... 478164.htm
Posted on Wed, Jan. 17, 2007email thisprint this
A new diversity at Michigan
McClatchy-Tribune News Service

(MCT)

The following editorial appeared in the Chicago Tribune on Sunday, Jan. 14:

Last week, the University of Michigan announced it has decided to obey the law. That normally wouldn't qualify as news, but this is no ordinary situation. After Michigan voters approved a November ballot initiative banning racial preferences in public university admissions, school President Mary Sue Coleman denounced the new policy, promising to "find ways to overcome the handcuffs that Proposal 2 attempts to place on our reach for greater diversity." It sounded like a vow to defy the law. But cooler heads have prevailed.

Though the university says it will pursue a legal challenge in the courts - one that has little apparent chance of succeeding - it says that for the time being, at least, it has no choice but to drop race and sex in deciding which applicants to accept.

"We will proceed cautiously by adjusting our admissions and financial aid policies such that race and gender will have no effect on the decision-making process," said Provost Teresa Sullivan. Administrators also say they will do what they should have done at the outset: put a new stress on using means of assuring a diverse student body that don't involve racial nose counts.

The battle didn't begin with this referendum. The university had long given some preference to blacks, Hispanics and American Indians. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the formula used for undergraduate admissions, which automatically awarded 20 points (out of 100 needed for acceptance) to minority applicants. At the same time, it upheld the law school's policy of using race as one "plus factor" among many in its effort to foster diversity.

The court struck a sensible balance, giving state schools reasonable latitude in assembling the student body they think will best advance their educational mission. But the decisions were not enough to satisfy most of Michigan's citizens. When presented with a state constitutional amendment forbidding any use of such preferences by government bodies in college admissions, employment and contracting, they approved it with 58 percent of the vote.

While that was unpopular with the school administration, it doesn't mean the Ann Arbor campus will be populated with nothing but rich, white preppies. Even before the ballot measure, the university took into account a variety of factors about each student.

Now, officials say they will continue to consider such non-racial criteria as geographic origin, low income, being the first in the family to attend college, and graduating from poor schools - as well as personal motivation, special talents and extracurricular activities. (After California banned racial preferences, it's worth noting, the number of students receiving financial aid at its most selective campuses actually rose.) The university is also free to undertake efforts to attract applicants from inner-city high schools that are historically underrepresented in higher education, which would include many that are predominantly black or Hispanic.

Diversity is a worthy goal for a university, but it comes in many forms. If Michigan uses the options still available to advance that mission, students of all races will benefit.