Poor methods

State funding puts admissions under fire

Last week, the state House of Representatives upped Gov. John Engler's recommendation for a 1.5-percent funding increase for higher education to approximately 4-percent. While the nearly $50 million increase is welcome, an attached amendment that challenges the University's admissions policy must be removed from the legislation. The University's right to use its own criteria when individually evaluating each prospective student must be preserved.

The University's use of affirmative action when creating its student body came under a great deal of scrutiny and rhetoric last year. Many high-profile political figures are involved - Sen. David Jaye (R-Macomb) is arguably the most vocal, spewing forth venomous condemnations of the University's practices. Through the controversy, and a well-publicized lawsuit, the University has not wavered in its support of affirmative action and a diverse campus. For this commitment to integrity, the University deserves a great deal of credit.

Affirmative action seeks to create a fair basis on which students may be evaluated. Too often, universities place emphasis on quantitative measurements such as standardized tests which do not take into account the socioeconomic status of a student. Essays, extra-curricular activities and personal experience contribute more to the overall picture of a student's abilities and potential through a policy of affirmative action. Without such provisions, well-to-do students from financially sound districts have a distinct advantage over underprivileged students.

When proposition 209 ended affirmative action in California, the state's premier campuses experienced a striking decline in minority enrollment. The University of California-Berkley will have 65-percent fewer black students enrolled in this year's freshman class than last year's. Similar numbers could result at the University if its use of affirmative action is compromised.

The amendment attached to the funding legislation prohibits schools from adjusting scores and using different cutoff scores because of a student's race, color, nationality, gender, alumni relationships and religion. The University uses a complex system that evaluates such considerations among others and then recalculates a student's grade point average. Under the amendment, the University would have little control over the applications it receives.

The University must have the ability to mold a student body it believes will optimally benefit all students. A great deal of the University experience comes from social interactions between students of different backgrounds. Diversity teaches the values of culture - different cultures bring together different expressions and ideas. Students benefit from such variety.

There is no question the University and other public institutions of higher learning need this extra funding to continue to improve the quality of education they provide. This money allows them to stay competitive with other institutions. Early estimates based on Engler's 1.5-percent increase projected a 5.6-percent tuition increase for University students. In all probability, students at other state universities and colleges would see a similar tuition increase under Engler's proposed 1.5-percent increase. But while the extra funding would be of great benefit, the University cannot afford to trade in its principles for a funding increase.

Sadly, state legislators cannot see that affirmative action promotes fairness and diversity. The University must maintain its internal control and commitment to excellence. For this to happen, the University must benefit from the funding increase without any government interference in admissions.

06-15-98