Grutter
v. Bollinger
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Grutter v Bollinger)
Jump to: navigation, search
Grutter v. Bollinger
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 1, 2003
Decided June 23, 2003
Holding
University of Michigan Law School
admissions program that gave bonus points for certain racial minorities did not
violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice: William Rehnquist
Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia,
Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen
Breyer
Case opinions
Majority by: O'Connor
Joined by: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Concurrence by: Ginsburg
Joined by: Breyer
Dissent by: Scalia
Joined by: Thomas
Dissent by: Thomas
Joined by: Scalia
Dissent by: Rehnquist
Joined by: Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
Dissent by: Kennedy
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), is a case in which the United States
Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University
of Michigan Law School. The 5-4 decision was announced on June 23, 2003.
Contents [hide]
1 The case
2 Lower courts
3 The Supreme Court's decision
4 Dissent
5 See also
6 External links
Jew filed suit
[edit] The case
The case originated in 1996 when Barbara
Grutter, a white Michigan
resident with a 3.8 GPA and 161 LSAT score, was rejected by the University of
Michigan Law School. She filed suit in December 1997, alleging that the
university had discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation of
the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She said she was
rejected because the Law School used race as the "predominant" factor, giving
applicants belonging to underrepresented minority groups (African Americans,
Hispanics, and Native Americans) a significantly greater chance of admission
than White and Asian American applicants with similar credentials. She argued
that the university had no compelling interest to justify that use of race.
The named defendant in the case was Lee Bollinger, the president of the
university, who fought for the university's status quo, which was to give
minorities an advantage, with the purpose of achieving racial diversity in the
student body.
[edit] Lower courts
In March 2001, U.S. District Court Judge Bernard A. Friedman ruled that the
admissions policies were unconstitutional because they "clearly consider" race
and are "practically indistinguishable from a quota system." In May 2002, the
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, citing the Bakke decision
and allowing the use of race to further the "compelling interest" of diversity.
The case was subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court agreed to
hear the case, the first time the Court had heard a case on affirmative action
in education since the landmark Bakke decision of 25 years prior.
On April 1, 2003 the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Grutter. The
Court allowed the recordings of the arguments to be released to the public the
same day, only the second time the Court has allowed same-day release of oral
arguments. The first time was Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), the case that
decided the 2000 presidential election.
[edit] The Supreme Court's decision
In the court's ruling, Justice O'Connor's majority opinion held that the United
States Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of
race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the
educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." The court held that
the law school's interest in obtaining a "critical mass" of minority students
was indeed a "tailored use." O'Connor noted that sometime in the future, perhaps
twenty-five years hence, racial affirmative action would no longer be necessary
in order to promote diversity. It implied that affirmative action should not be
allowed permanent status and that eventually a "colorblind" policy should be
implemented. The opinion read, "Race-conscious admissions policies must be
limited in time. The Court takes the Law School at its word that it would like
nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula and will terminate
its use of racial preferences as soon as practicable. The Court expects that 25
years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to
further the interest approved today." The phrase "25 years from now" was echoed
by Justice Thomas in his dissent.
The decision largely upheld the position
asserted in Justice Powell's concurrence in Regents of the University of
California v. Bakke,
which allowed race to be a consideration in admissions policy, but held that
quotas were illegal.
Public universities and other public institutions of higher education across the
nation are now allowed to use race as a plus factor in determining whether a
student should be admitted. While race may not be the only factor,
the decision allows admissions bodies to take race into consideration along with
other individualized factors in reviewing a student's application.
O'Connor's opinion settles the question for the time being as to whether
"diversity" in higher education is a compelling governmental interest. As long
as the program is "narrowly tailored" to achieve that end, it seems likely that
the Court will find it constitutional.
In the majority were Justices O'Connor, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.
Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas dissented. Much of the dissent
concerned a disbelief in the validity of the law school's claim that the system
was necessary to create a "critical mass" of minority students and provide a
diverse educational environment.
The case was heard in conjunction with Gratz v. Bollinger, in which the Court
struck down the University of Michigan's more rigid, point-based undergraduate
admission policy, which was essentially deemed a quota system. The case
generated a record number of amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs from
institutional supporters of race preferences. A lawyer who filed an amicus
curiae brief on behalf of members and former members of the Pennsylvania
legislature, State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia said that O'Connor's
majority decision in Grutter v. Bollinger was a "ringing affirmation of the goal
of an inclusive society."
[edit] Dissent
Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, has caused debate regarding the length
of time the racial admissions policy will be lawful, with the following
statement in Justice Thomas's opinion (concurring in that racial preferences
would be unlawful in 25 years, dissenting in that they should be unlawful now):
I therefore can understand the imposition of a 25-year time limit only as a
holding that the deference the Court pays to the Law School's educational
judgments and refusal to change its admissions policies will itself expire. At
that point these policies will clearly have failed to "'eliminate the
[perceived] need for any racial or ethnic'" discrimination because the academic
credentials gap will still be there. [citation omitted] The Court defines this
time limit in terms of narrow tailoring, [internal citation omitted] but I
believe this arises from its refusal to define rigorously the broad state
interest vindicated today. [internal citation omitted]. With these observations,
I join the last sentence of Part III of the opinion of the Court.
For the immediate future, however, the majority has placed its imprimatur on a
practice that can only weaken the principle of equality embodied in the
Declaration of Independence and the Equal Protection Clause. "Our Constitution
is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens." Plessy
v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 559, 41 L. Ed. 256, 16 S. Ct. 1138 (1896) (Harlan,
J., dissenting). It has been nearly 140 years since Frederick Douglass asked the
intellectual ancestors of the Law School to "[d]o nothing with us!" and the
Nation adopted the Fourteenth Amendment. Now we must wait another 25 years to
see this principle of equality vindicated. I therefore respectfully dissent from
the remainder of the Court's opinion and the judgment.
Justice Scalia also issued a critique of O'Connor's logic as effectively
neutering the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection guarantees.
Michigan
(Ann Arbor):
Racial
Engineers (07/27/00 - Washington Times)
|
"But she didn't get in. The school first put her on the waiting list, then rejected her. She was stunned. She was also skeptical because she believed her academic record was better than that of persons she knew had been accepted.
"Although she didn't know it at the time, others were also suspicious of Michigan admissions practices. Working with professors at the school who had obtained admissions records through Freedom of Information Act requests, lawyers with the Washington-based Center for Individual Rights (CIR) discovered that the school was actually running a segregated admissions system: If minorities — African-Americans, Hispanics and others — obtained certain scores, they were automatically accepted. If members of disfavored ethnic groups [whites and others] achieved the same scores, they enjoyed no such guarantee.
"In 1997, CIR filed a class-action lawsuit against the school on behalf of Miss Gratz and others who had suffered from Michigan's racial manipulations, charging the school with illegal discrimination.
"This month General Motors filed an amicus brief defending the school's use of racial bias to set aside admissions openings for preferred races and ethnic groups —African-Americans, Hispanics and others — at the expense of people like Miss Gratz. It's not the easiest practice in the world to defend, and GM carefully doesn't try. ... Instead General Motors lays out an antiseptic vision of social engineering wiped clean of the casualties associated with it. "In General Motors' view," the company said in a press release and in the brief filed in federal district court in Michigan, "only a well-educated, highly-diverse workforce, comprised of people who have learned to work productively and creatively with individuals from a multitude of races and ethnic, religious, and cultural histories, can maintain America's global competitiveness in the increasingly diverse and interconnected world economy." [Emphasis added.]
"General Motors' argument seems to be that unless U of M classrooms, dorms and athletic locker rooms achieve some percentage — quota — of racial or religious minorities, education (read: "consciousness raising") can't happen. "Proscribing the consideration of race and ethnicity in admissions," complains the company, would "dramatically reduce" diversity and deprive students of the "acquisition of cross-cultural skills."
"So it is. A minority applicant starts with an extra 20 points (out of a possible 150) just for the color of his skin. Twenty points, says the school's 2000 admissions guidelines, "will be awarded to an applicant who . . . is a member of a federally recognized underrepresented race or ethnicity, which is also underrepresented on the UM Ann Arbor campus." To put that figure in perspective, the difference between having a 3.0 grade point average (gpa) and a 4.0 gpa or between a 2.0 gpa and a 3.0 gpa is also 20 points. Likewise, getting the highest scores in standardized college placement tests is worth only 12 points.
"Alas, for Miss Gratz, she flunked Michigan's skin color test and had to go to school elsewhere in Michigan. When General Motors takes a break from its social engineering, perhaps it could take a few minutes to explain to her why it's a good thing she didn't get that chance.
(Excerpted from the Washington Times
editorial 07/27/00 by Kenneth D. Smith, editor of the Washington Times editorial
page.)
[link
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/ed-column-2000727184052.htm ]
Jennifer Gratz – Executive Director
champion
|
Therefore, in
1997 Gratz filed suit against the UM based on its two-track admissions
grid system, which assigned higher points to some applicants because of their
racial background. Gratz v. Bollinger challenged racial preferences in student
admissions at UM’s College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LS&A).
On June 23, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the preference programs in
place for the past decade at the University of Michigan's undergraduate college
of LS&A. This was the first successful Supreme Court challenge of a college
racial preference program in more than 25 years. The Court ended the wholesale
use of mechanical racial preferences in admissions but in a separate, companion
case against UM’s Law School the Court inexplicably allowed the continued use of
race in admissions.
As executive director of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, Gratz spearheaded
the effort that secured a record 500,000+ signatures to amend the Michigan
constitution. As a result of Gratz’s leadership, Michigan voters will have the
opportunity in November 2006 to decide whether to end race and gender
preferences once and for all.
The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative does not propose to and will not end all
forms of affirmative action. Instead the Initiative will make it unlawful for
public employers, public contractors, and public education to discriminate or
grant preferential treatment on the basis of race, ethnicity, skin color, sex,
or national origin.
Since she filed her suit, Jennifer has
graduated from the University of Michigan - Dearborn with a degree in
mathematics and worked in the computer software industry before moving back to
Michigan to lead the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.
Students Mobilize to Defeat
Anti-Israel Resolution at University of
Michigan |
|
March 16, 2005 | |
On March 15th, the University of Michigan Student Assembly soundly voted down (25-11) a proposal to create a committee to investigate the university's investments in companies doing business with Israel. Kudos go to Alana Kuhn and Jessie Risch, co-chairs of the American Movement for Israel, as well as UM Hillel student Governing Board President Monica Woll, Governing Board rep Michelle Gorman and Andrew Yahkind, who mobilized the campus to stand with Israel and against the unfair, inaccurate misinformation being disseminated by the anti-Israel activists. The 7:30pm meeting had to be moved twice to accommodate the crowd of students who wanted to show support for their side. They finally ended up filling the 500 seat ballroom, with many students standing in the back and aisles as well. The meeting lasted until 1am with students from both sides taking turns to passionately voice their opinions. According to Alexis Frankel, program director for the Univ. of Michigan Hillel, the student daily paper, The Michigan Daily, may have inadvertently motivated increased attendance by pro-Israel students by predicting in a large front page article the day of the vote that the anti-Israel proposal would likely pass. Students who normally don't get involved in such issues were so concerned to read of the "likely" success of the proposal that they showed up in huge numbers, demonstrating their pro-Israel support by wearing blue sticky tape all over their shirts and pants, on their foreheads or as armbands. Many students also sported blue streamers in their hair and T-shirts made by the American Movement for Israel (AMI) that said, "It's not JUST a committee." Frankel noted, "The shirts made by AMI were homemade and spray painted with the slogan in blue....it had a great grassroots look which really strengthened the visual impact of their message." The pro-resolution supporters wore black shirts with the Palestinian flag that said: "Divest from Israeli Apartheid." According to Frankel, "The Israeli Student Organization was also present and one of their members, Arik Cheshin, who served in the territories with the IDF (Israel Defense Forces), spoke passionately to the assembly about Israelis' commitment to peace and about the one-sided wording of the resolution that neither placed accusations of human rights abuses in their proper context (such as the reason roadblocks are erected in the first place), nor made any mention of the vast suffering inflicted on Israeli civilians by Palestinian groups." UM Hillel is the umbrella group for over 33 Jewish student groups on the University of Michigan campus, including AMI and the Israeli Student Organization. Hillel staff offered logistical and moral support to the students throughout their organizing efforts. "While we were there to offer students support in whatever capacity they needed, it was the students themselves who took the initiative and lead in organizing this tremendous response. It was very empowering for them and inspiring for us as staff to witness" said Frankel. Frankel commented that the successful defeat of the anti-Israel proposal was also greatly aided by the fact that many of the student representatives in the assembly came to the debate already well informed about Israel, and so were not easily swayed by inaccurate, misleading anti-Israel propaganda. Student body president Jason Mironov spoke eloquently against the resolution and MSA rep. Stu Wagner was also key in organizing opposition to the resolution. This underscores the importance of pro-Israel activists getting involved in student government so that fair, informed people are in positions of power to vote on important issues.
|
The University has enrolled a record number of
students on its Ann Arbor campus for the sixth consecutive year,
according to figures released Nov. 12. Total enrollment for fall 2002 is 38,972,
up 1.9 percent from 38,248 a year ago.
"The growing demand for admission to the University and the growth in enrollments are a reflection of our academic strength, the breadth of programs we offer, and the importance of our mission," says Paul N. Courant, provost and executive vice president for academic affairs, and professor of economics and of public policy.
"Students tend to find a college education more appealing and more essential when job prospects are less abundant. Equally important are the University's contributions to the state's economy through research and the production of educated graduates. Accordingly, we are teaching more students and conducting more research than ever before."
Student enrollment grew markedly in the School of Nursing, School of Information, School of Social Work, College of Engineering, Ford School of Public Policy, and Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning. The School of Nursing has made a sustained effort to enroll greater numbers of students in part to address a growing shortage of nurses in southeast Michigan and nationwide.
Since 1996, the University's undergraduate enrollment has grown by 882 students to 24,472 for fall 2002. Graduate and professional enrollment has grown over that time period by 1,565 students, to 14,500.
Once again, the University received a record number of applications for its freshman class. A total of 25,108 students applied for admission in summer or fall 2002, up from 24,141 last year. The first-year student enrollment of 5,187 reflected a planned decrease in the freshman class in order to create a stable undergraduate student body for the 200203 school year.
Courant says some factors behind the growing number of applications include demographic trends in Michigan and nationally; the greater appeal of top-tier public universities during difficult economic times; and the ease of submitting electronic applications. This was the first complete admissions cycle during which students could submit online applications to U-M.
In the total student body, which includes undergraduate, graduate and professional students, underrepresented minorities made up 13.6 percent, up from 13 percent last year. By racial group, enrollment percentages were: African American, 8.1 percent (up from 7.9 percent); Hispanic American, 4.7 percent (up from 4.4 percent); Native American, 0.8 percent (up from 0.7 percent); Asian American, 12.9 percent (up from 12.7 percent); and white, 66.7 percent (up from 66.5 percent). Nearly 7 percent of students listed other racial categories or did not indicate their race (down from 8 percent in 2001).
"We are pleased that racial and ethnic representation remains strong among our student body. Our progress and sustainability in this arena is a reflection of the value the University places on diversity as an important part of its mission," says Lester Monts, senior vice provost for academic affairs and senior counselor to the president for the arts, diversity and undergraduate affairs. "The many programs and outreach initiatives we have in place to recruit and retain students of color continue to provide students with a myriad of opportunities to succeed.
"In addition to their place in campus demographics, students of color are making enormous contributions to the cultural life of the campus, and that is something from which we all benefit, yet cannot statistically measure," he says.
Enrollment percentages for the various racial groups are calculated using an adjusted enrollment of 33,440, which represents U.S. residents enrolled in degree-granting programs on the Ann Arbor campus.
International student enrollment increased at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, despite delays encountered by some international students in getting their visas processed. A total of 4,261 international students were enrolled for fall 2002, up 268 (6.7 percent) from last year.
"The increases we're seeing in international student enrollment are part of a continuing trend," says Earl Lewis, vice provost and dean of the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies. "It is widely recognized that the best graduate education available in the world is at the top research universities in the United States. We're seeing an especially strong enrollment of students from Asia, as those rapidly developing economies continue to produce large numbers of well-qualified and ambitious students."
The Israeli Student Organization
IACEB Newsletter: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 (5765)
www.fliegler.org/iaceb/20050316.html
Published on: 3/16/2005 Last Visited: 6/26/2005
According to Alexis Frankel,
program director for the Univ. of Mich.
...
Frankel noted, "The shirts made by AMI were homemade and spray painted with the
slogan in blue....visually it had a great grassroots look." The pro-resolution
supporters wore black shirts with the Palestinian flag that said: "Divest from
Israeli Apartheid."
According to Frankel, "The
Israeli
Student
Organization was there and one of
their members who served in the territories in the
IDF spoke passionately to the
assembly about Israelis' commitment to peace and about the one-sided wording of
the resolution that was completely devoid of context and made no mention of
suffering on the Israeli side or the reasons for some measures such as
roadblocks." UM
Hillel
is the umbrella group for AMI and the
Israeli Student
Organization and offered
logistical and moral support to the students in their organizing efforts.
Hillel staff members were there until 1am along with the students to offer
support and monitor the proceedings.
Frankel commented that the successful defeat of the divestment proposal was also
greatly aided by the fact that many of the representatives in the
Michigan Student Assembly came to the debate
already being well informed about Israel, and so were not easily swayed by
inaccurate, misleading anti-Israel propaganda.
Students seek to halt pro-Palestinian conference
By The Associated Press
10.10.02
Editor's note: Attorney Deborah Schlussel said Oct. 10 that earlier that day Circuit Judge Melinda Morris denied her request for a temporary order barring the conference. Morris ruled the two Jewish students who filed the lawsuit lacked standing, or qualification, to seek to block the event, Schlussel said. She said she was deciding whether to appeal Morris' ruling.
ANN ARBOR, Mich. — Saying a conference at the University of Michigan promoting divestment in Israel is a danger to students' safety, a lawyer was expected to seek a restraining order to halt the event.
Deborah Schlussel represents two students who sued the university over the conference earlier this week.
She was expected to ask Washtenaw Circuit Judge Melinda Morris to hold a hearing tomorrow to halt the conference.
People scheduled to speak this weekend at the Second National Student Conference on the Palestinian Solidarity Movement advocate violence and are not protected by constitutional guarantees of free speech, Schlussel told the Detroit Free Press.
Schlussel filed a lawsuit — on behalf of the leaders of the Michigan Student Zionists — on Oct. 8 against the school's president and Board of Regents trying to halt the event.
Students Allied for Freedom and Equality is hosting the conference, which runs Oct. 12 through Oct. 14. The group is calling on universities nationwide to divest any interests they have with companies doing business with Israel, saying that Israel treats Arabs the same way apartheid South Africa treated blacks.
According to the suit, the speaker drawing the most concern is Sami Al-Arian, who is facing dismissal by the University of South Florida after appearing on Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor" shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. On the show, he was questioned about alleged links to terrorists and asked about a speech a decade ago in which he advocated "death to Israel."
USF has filed a lawsuit asking a Florida court to determine whether firing Al-Arian would violate his free-speech rights.
Meanwhile, Fadi Kiblawi, co-founder of SAFE and a Michigan senior from St. Louis, said the Michigan lawsuit is a "laughable attempt to stifle debate, which strikes at the core of American values and First Amendment rights."
Marvin Krislov, the university's general counsel, said yesterday there was no legal basis for the lawsuit.
"An attempt to impose a gag order violates the most fundamental precepts of the First Amendment," he said. "The University of Michigan has carefully and thoughtfully considered the concerns expressed about this conference, and we have elected to stand by the principles of openness, tolerance and robust debate that are central to our educational mission."
SAFE spokesman Eric Reichenberger has said the group is not anti-Semitic and that it has some Jewish members.
Other speakers include Adam Shapiro, a New York City Jew who spent a night in Yasser Arafat's headquarters in April to support the Palestinian leader when the compound was under siege by Israeli forces.
Reichenberger said 250 people have registered for the conference, and SAFE expects more to attend.
Students in the university's pro-Israel groups plan rallies over the weekend to protest the conference.
To the University of Michigan community:
Today we received the decisions of the Supreme Court regarding our
admissions cases. This is a day of enormous pride for the University of
Michigan.
A majority of the Court has strongly reaffirmed the principle of diversity
articulated by Justice Powell in the Bakke decision. The Court said
that
it "endorses Justice Powell's view that student body diversity is a
compelling state interest." Universities can continue to use race as one
of many factors in an individualized admissions process.
From the outset, this has been a debate about the principles to which we
are dedicated at this great University, not merely about our policies.
These decisions are a wonderful victory for the University of Michigan,
for all of higher education, and for the hundreds of groups and thousands
of individuals who supported us.
The Court has provided two important signals. The first is a green light
to pursue racial and ethnic diversity in the college classroom. The
second is a pathway to get us there. The Law School policy clearly met
the Court's criteria for a holistic admissions process. We will modify our
undergraduate admissions process to follow today's guidance from the
Court. I am confident we can do that as we continue our commitment to a
richly diverse student body. We expect to have a revised undergraduate
admissions process in place this Autumn.
I believe these rulings will go down in history as landmark decisions of
the Court. And I am proud of the role of the University of Michigan in
this important debate. We argued for fair and equal access. Now, we will
do whatever it takes to recruit the finest, most diverse student body
possible, within the provisions of today's decisions.
We must look to the future and affirm our institutional commitment to
diversity in every aspect of our community: our student body, our
faculty, and our staff.
These decisions affect not only our own University, but universities,
public and private, throughout the nation. I pledge to you that the
University of Michigan will take the lead in creating new ways to infuse
our campuses with the myriad perspectives that fuel our strength.
We will make a dual promise to future generations of students and to our
alumni, who are so proud of their Michigan heritage: First, our
commitment to a diverse campus will continue. And second, every student
admitted to our University will continue to be eminently well qualified.
As we work to ascertain the ramifications of these decisions and to devise
means to work within them, I expect that members of our community will
engage in a full and robust debate of many related issues. I anticipate
this discussion will be civil and respectful of all points of view. Your
right to freedom of expression is paramount at the University of Michigan.
This is a hallmark of our educational system, and one of which I am most
proud.
In the coming days and weeks, we will continue to provide updated
information on our main University WWW site.
This is an historic day for our University. You may look to me for
leadership as we adapt to the new provisions of the law, and I will look
to all of you for inspiration.
With my best wishes,
Mary Sue Coleman
President
“Mary Sue Coleman is the highest paid leader of a public university. For the 2005-2006 school year, she made $724,604.00” Perhaps if this fact were advertised on a billboard it might help in getting her removed and having this outrageous salary drastically reduced for her successors. Other than pander to minorities and peddle the Marxist agenda what exactly does she do to earn her keep? The American people are under no obligation to allow people like her to attain positions of influence or authority…
Diversity Matters at Michigan
November 8, 2006
En Español>>
University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman addressed the University
community on the U-M Diag, one day after Michigan voters approved Proposal 2.
Here is the text of her remarks:
Diversity matters at Michigan, today more than any day in our history.
It matters today, and it will matter tomorrow. It will always matter because it
is what makes us the great university we are.
I am deeply disappointed that the voters of our state have rejected affirmative
action as a way to help build a community that is fair and equal for all.
But we will not be deterred in the all-important work of creating a diverse,
welcoming campus. We will not be deterred.
Universities are models for the civil exchange of ideas, and the debate over
Proposal 2 has been no exception. Still, it has been a particularly difficult
campaign, and I regret the pain and concern it has caused people on our campus.
But there has been a positive outgrowth of the debate about Proposal 2. It has
brought together so many different people to say: diversity matters at the
University of Michigan. Many, many people were passionate in delivering this
message, and I want to thank them for their hard work.
If November 7th was the day that Proposal 2 passed, then November 8th is the day
that we pledge to remain unified in our fight for diversity. Together, we must
continue to make this world-class university one that reflects the richness of
the world.
I am standing here today to tell you that I will not allow this university to go
down the path of mediocrity. That is not Michigan. Diversity makes us strong,
and it is too critical to our mission, too critical to our excellence, and too
critical to our future to simply abandon.
This applies to our state as much as our university. Michigan’s public
universities and our public bodies must be more determined than ever to provide
opportunities for women and minorities, who make up the majority of our
citizenry.
Last week I received an email from Miranda Garcia, a Michigan graduate who
shared my concern about the dangers of Proposal 2, and how it jeopardizes the
fiber of our university.
“My four years in Ann Arbor,” she said, “were a life-changing experience. I met
students from every area of the country, from all different socioeconomic and
cultural backgrounds.”
She was blunt in saying her life-changing experience would not have been
possible without affirmative action.
I should add that Miranda lives in California, a state whose voters banned
affirmative action 10 years ago. It has been a horribly failed experiment that
has dramatically weakened the diversity of the state’s most selective
universities.
It is an experiment that we cannot, and will not, allow to take seed here at
Michigan.
I will not stand by while the very heart and soul of this great university is
threatened. We are Michigan and we are diversity.
I am joined on these steps by the executive officers and deans of our
university. We are united on this. You have my word as president that we will
fight for what we believe in, and that is holding open the doors of this
university to all people.
Today, I have directed our General Counsel to consider every legal option
available to us.
In the short term, we will seek confirmation from the courts to complete this
year’s admissions cycle under our current guidelines. We believe we have the
right, indeed the obligation, to complete this process using our existing
policies. It would be unfair and wrong for us to review students’ applications
using two sets of criteria, and we will ask the courts to affirm that we may
finish this process using the policies we currently have in place.
This is our first step, but only our first step.
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. I will immediately begin exploring legal action concerning this
initiative. But we will not limit our drive for diversity to the courts, because
our conviction extends well beyond the legal landscape.
It is a cause that will take our full focus and energy as an institution, and I
am ready to begin that work right now. We will find ways to overcome the
handcuffs that Proposal 2 attempts to place on our reach for greater diversity.
As Susan B. Anthony said in her crusade for equal rights, “Failure is
impossible.”
I know many in our community have been wondering what this election outcome
means for you in a directly personal way.
For our current students, I promise that we will honor all financial commitments
we have made to you. This is a contract we have with you, and the University of
Michigan honors its contracts.
Your scholarships, fellowships and grants will remain just that: yours. The
funds we awarded you are available today, and they will be there for you
tomorrow, because the University of Michigan embraces diversity.
Threat?
|
Let me be very clear about this: Your work is more important now than ever
before. I will do everything I can to support you in this work, because the
University of Michigan promotes diversity.
To the hundreds of thousands of Michigan alumni, I ask for your support in
recruiting the finest students for your alma mater. You more than anyone know
the benefits of an education at this great university.
I urge you to share that enthusiasm with prospective students, because the
University of Michigan wants diversity.
To high school principals, counselors and teachers throughout Michigan, please
know that our outreach efforts to your schools will continue. We believe this
outreach is on firm legal ground, and we will continue these programs because we
want your graduates at our university. Our high school partnerships are
critically important pipelines for drawing great students to Michigan, and those
programs will go on.
Those programs will go on because the University of Michigan believes in
diversity.
Finally, to high school students and their families, my message is simple: We
want you at the University of Michigan. We want your intellect, we want your
energy, and we want your ambition. We have one of the finest universities in the
world, and it is remarkable precisely because of our students, faculty and
staff. We want you to aspire to be part of this amazing community.
It is amazing because the University of Michigan is diversity.
We know that diversity makes us a better university—better for learning, for
teaching, and for conducting research. Affirmative action has been an effective
and important tool for creating this rich, invigorating environment.
We believe so strongly in affirmative action that we went before the United
States Supreme Court to defend its use, and we prevailed.
Today, I pledge that the University of Michigan will continue that fight.
Look around you. We are standing at the heart of our campus, where all the
divergent pathways of the Diag come together.
We still have much to do to bring together all the people of our university. All
walks of life must be present and welcome at the University of Michigan.
We should never forget a challenge issued by Henry Tappan, the university’s
first president, who said, “We must take the world as full as it is.”
Ours is a university of the leaders and best. We must always be vigilant about
recruiting and retaining the best students and staff and the finest
faculty—individuals of all backgrounds and experiences—so that they may further
enrich the fabric of this university. We simply cannot lose these bright minds.
As the days and weeks unfold, I know you will have questions about what this
proposal means—for the University overall and for you personally, as students,
faculty and staff. We do not yet have all the answers, but I vow to keep you
fully informed as we explore the full effects of this initiative.
Of course the University of Michigan will comply with the laws of the state.
At the same time, I guarantee my complete and unyielding commitment to
increasing diversity at our institution.
Let me say that again: I am fully and completely committed to building diversity
at Michigan, and I will do whatever it takes.
I will need your help. As individuals and as a University, we absolutely must
continue to think creatively about how to elevate Michigan’s role as a national
model for diversity in higher education.
In the days and weeks ahead, you will hear from us about specific ways you can
help in our cause. Starting today, I am asking all of our students and alumni of
this great university to fire up their networks and spread the word. Tell
people, “I am what a U-M education looks like—please join us.”
Together, we must always work to make ours a welcoming campus. Always. Let the
world know that we are a university that embraces all. No one—no one—should ever
forget that every student at Michigan is highly qualified, and has rightfully
earned his or her place here.
Martin Luther King Jr. told us: “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he
stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of
challenge and controversy.”
Let’s stand together to tell the state and the nation that the University of
Michigan embraces … promotes … wants … and believes in diversity.
Let’s stand together to say we value all those on our campus who make this such
a remarkable institution.
Let’s stand together to say: We are Michigan and we are diversity.
A letter from President Mary Sue Coleman
To the Campus Community:
The President’s Office has received many messages about a student conference on
Palestinian solidarity, scheduled to take place on our campus in October.
President Mary Sue Coleman (U-M Photo Services)
This conference is sponsored by a student organization, following established
University procedures for holding events on campus. We expect the organizers and
participants to respect all University rules concerning appropriate conduct on
campus. The agenda of the conference represents the views of the organizers and
not the University of Michigan.
Divestment
|
When matters of intense emotional impact are presented on campus, it is vital
that we uphold two cherished values upon which our academic community depends.
One is the right to explore and debate the widest possible range of ideas, even
if those ideas are offensive or repugnant to some members of the community.
Candid expression and open debate are intrinsic to academic freedom. We afford
that freedom both to those who organize and participate in this conference, and
to those who disagree with the views thus presented.
The other cherished value is the respect that we owe to each other as human
beings and as fellow members of this academic community. We constantly strive to
build a community that is welcoming to all and that does not foster hatred and
discrimination. It is especially important during difficult times and when
dealing with divisive topics that we extend to one another the highest levels of
tolerance and mutual respect.
We know we are not somehow separate from the larger world, or immune from global
events. We must and we will take a strong stand against acts of incivility and
hate wherever they occur; because by doing so, we protect our right to live,
study, and express our views in safety.
Just last week we experienced a disturbing incident when, in violation of
University e-mail policy, a message containing inflammatory language was
distributed to many U-M faculty members. The message was neither authorized nor
aided by University administrators. The authorship and other related
circumstances are under investigation, and the Provost’s Office will handle the
matter consistent with University procedures. Although we defend the right to
freedom of expression, we also have a responsibility to vehemently dispute
speech that is incompatible with our principles and beliefs. The e-mail
contained language that was deeply offensive and hurtful to me and to many
others in our community, and I condemn it. This country’s history teaches us
that ugly speech is best neutralized with other voices and more speech. I ask
for your collective support in maintaining civil and respectful campus dialogue
on important issues.
Such values of civil discourse hold a special meaning for us at the University
of Michigan. Our diverse population includes more than 4,000 international
students; one of the largest Jewish student and alumni bodies of any major
university; and a significant enrollment of Arab American students on campuses
situated near one of the most sizable Arab American communities in the nation.
Many students and faculty are deeply engaged in studies on Middle Eastern topics
through longstanding and internationally recognized academic programs, including
the Center for Middle Eastern and North African Studies, the Jean and Samuel
Frankel Center for Judaic Studies, the Department of Near Eastern Studies, and
the Center for Arab American Studies at U-M–Dearborn.
These rich resources also provide us with a unique opportunity and
responsibility to study and debate, in an atmosphere of trust and mutual
respect, the pressing issues facing our world. I am committed to ensuring that
this University remains a place where that will always be possible.
Sincerely,
Mary Sue Coleman
email
What are the circumstances surrounding an e-mail about the conference that circulated to the campus community on Sept. 25 and 26?
A large number of U-M faculty, staff and students were sent an e-mail message on Sept. 25 and 26 under the heading “invitation to upcoming divestment conference.” The language in the e-mail message was highly offensive to many members of the campus community. The message appeared as if it came from the student group SAFE, but in fact the SAFE return address was falsified.
What is the status of the investigation into the fraudulent e-mail message?
U-M’s Information Technology Central Services (ITCS) conducted an investigation to determine the origin of the message, consistent with University policies and with the support of the U-M Department of Public Safety. By examining detailed computer records, the investigators were able to determine that the message was not sent from any U-M e-mail accounts, including those of the student and student organization named in the message.
When e-mail is sent from one point on the Internet to another, it can follow a complex path as it travels through multiple mail servers. In this case, the senders used an unsecured server known as an “open relay” in order to help hide their identity. Despite the best efforts of the investigating team, it is possible the University may not be able to determine who really sent the messages.
How were the senders of the fraudulent message able to obtain campus addresses without the help of University computing staff?
The senders obtained hundreds of faculty, staff and student e-mail addresses from public sources such as departmental web pages or the University’s online directory. It is unknown precisely how many faculty, staff and students received the message.
Did the message violate University policy?
The message violated University computing policies in two ways: in the falsification of the identity of the sender, and in the unauthorized, mass distribution to the campus community. (http://www.itd.umich.edu/nav/policies.html)