Michigan has been the crucible of a nationwide debate surrounding affirmative action and where it fits under the civil rights umbrella.
Higher education circles have favorably regarded the issue of race-gender preferential treatment in school enrollment and job employment. But in the face of bans, it doesn’t appear any public school is folding under government restrictions.
In 2003, it looked as if universities would prevail in creating diversity quotas. A lawsuit involving the University of Michigan Law School and undergraduate admissions reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Two decisions — 6-3 and 5-4 majority votes — upheld affirmative action as socially responsible under the constitution.
Three years later, though, Michigan voters passed Proposal 2, a civil rights amendment that prohibits public affirmative action in the state — and the news hasn’t been taken well.
One WSU governor said Feb. 3 the school abides by all laws, but it is not happy about it.
Supplier diversity, for example, has become a large issue since 2006. Christopher Jones, Wayne State director of the Office of Equal Opportunity, said from fiscal year 2004-05 to 2007-08, minority suppliers lost around $15 million in contracts. He said that it is unclear whether the new law or the economy is affecting the numbers most.
Under the new law, the university can no longer ask a person’s race, gender or ethnicity when they apply for a job.
Wayne State President Jay Noren said the university is using other methods to increase diversity. A Midtown Detroit initiative for contracting local, third-party suppliers would, in essence, most likely give WSU a bump in minority suppliers in the process.
Wayne Law Professor Peter Hammer is not surprised. Many institutions are now trying to find ways around the ban.
“The amendment makes it more difficult to recruit and attract a qualified, diverse student body. The law’s symbolic statement of hostility to diversity makes it difficult to recruit an
d retain qualified faculty and staff,” he wrote via e-mail. “The university can also make best efforts, consistent with the law, to pursue the objectives of diversity and inclusiveness.”
Following the state’s constitutional amendment, like every public entity, Wayne Law changed its admissions policy. And like most institutions in favor of affirmative action, the policy highlights legal allowances that might help increase diversity secondarily, such as socio-economic status.
“The policy represents an effort to fully comply with the law, while at the same time aggressively pursuing the objectives of diversity and inclusion as permitted under state and federal law,” Hammer wrote.
Browsing several public Michigan universities human resource — or equivalent — Web pages, it appears that some boilerplates and topics contain an “affirmative action/equal opportunity” moniker. Schools like the University of Michigan, Michigan State University and Central Michigan University have it.
“The university can comply with the law and still express its disagreements,” wrote Hammer, regarding the WSU affirmative action report. “Much of the data collected in the report is required to comply with federal law. Additionally, it is important to be able to observe and document the effects of the state constitutional amendment.
“There is no constitutional bar to being well-informed.”
1 comments