amc987 wrote:blowhard wrote:amc987 wrote:thelaststraw05 wrote:Also Michigan law (as in the law of the state of Michigan) does not allow the use of race in admissions:
This actually isn't accurate. As a result of the SC's decision in Grutter vs. Bollinger, the University of Michigan and other state universities have a compelling interest in admitting a diverse class of law students. Using affirmative action in that context was deemed narrowly tailored to meet that interest. Michigan is allowed to consider race and ethnicity holistically and use those aspects of an applicant's background when they're making decisions. Michigan can't have quotas or give an application an automatic number of additional points just because the applicant is a URM, but they are allowed to weigh race along with lots of other factors when they choose the incoming class. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger
Michigan amended their state constitution after Grutter to prohibit such consideration. So actually, it's very accurate.
The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative got overturned by the 6th Circuit on appeal in July. Michigan's AG said he's going to appeal that ruling. To be fair, I didn't know that this had happened when I posted my response. But at the very least, the legislation seems to be in some kind of limbo. I'm not sure what that means in terms of admissions, but I don't think it's quite as clear cut as "Michigan can't use race in admissions decisions." Grutter vs. Bollinger on the other hand is federal law and, to my knowledge, has not been overturned. I think the Supreme Court might be hearing arguments on a related affirmative action case next year.
http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,1607,7-164 ... --,00.html
"The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative will remain in force pending a final decision by the court."
Yes, there are efforts to defeat the amendment to the state constitution by finding it unconstitutional, but the state amendment remains in place during the appeals process. It is, for the moment, that clear cut. Grutter v. Bollinger DOES talk about what is constitutional, but does not talk about state law. Michigan could (and would) take race into account as Michigan Law had prior to the passage of prop 2. As the law currently stands Michigan can't take race into account.
Also, Joe Mo isn't a URM. As he said.