For the past few weeks, four Michigan legislatures, led by state Rep. David Jaye (R-Macomb), who happens to be running for a vacant state Senate seat in the upcoming November election, have been drumming up support through rallies. After much postulating and consultation with the CIR - the same law firm that handled last-year's Hopwood case in the Texas-Mississippi-Louisiana district - the first step of Jaye's plan to eliminate affirmative action went into practice.
The University of Michigan has been a longtime supporter of affirmative action and now must defend its practice in the upcoming courtroom battle. The University currently uses affirmative action policies in accordance with the 1978 Supreme Court Bakke ruling. In that decision, the court ruled that although affirmative action may among many factors in hiring and admissions decisions.
This lawsuit aims to set a precedent - posing a serious threat to affirmative action as we know it. The potential ruling may change current hiring policies in government jobs, awarding of contracts, as well as admissions to higher education. Also riding on the result of the lawsuit is the future of race relations in America. In a time when relations are tense, and a presidential dialogue is underway, the possible reversal of affirmative action may wedge a deeper divide. The anti-affirmative action faction, mainly Jaye, has used the aged argument pitting whites against minorities, which equals race-baiting in order to gain attention for a political campaign.
Diversity is one of the reasons why the University remains one of the most desirable higher education institutions in the country. It was under Duderstadt's 1988 Michigan Mandate plan that the University first made substantial progress toward the goal of diversifying campus. Duderstadt's Michigan Mandate has increased minority representation in the past 10 years, from 12.7 percent at the Mandate's inception to its current level of 25 percent. While the Mandate has shown progress, the University's work is not done in the sphere of minority recruitment and retainment.
Getting rid of the Mandate and other affirmative action policies would be disastrous. Eliminating affirmative action would seriously jeopardize future enrollment of minority students. A comparison can be made to the University of California system, where a race-blind policy commenced this year. None of the 14 minority students accepted to Berkeley law school this year have enrolled. Similarly, at the University of Texas, the Hopwood case reduced minority enrollment to a mere handful and has raised serious concerns among students and faculty whether the trend will continue to the future.
Over the next year, Ann Arbor will be the hotbed of one of the hottest topics in the American political spectrum. Affirmative action debates have brought out many emotions from both sides of the spectrum. The University must ensure that diversity is maintained in spite of this onslaught.