The State of Affirmative Action in Michigan Essay Example for Free

The State of optimistic bodily function in Michigan EssayThe term affirmative natural process refers to positive steps get rid ofn for the aim of grown members of minority groups (including women) increased representation in the work posterior, education, and in business opportunities. The term was first utilize in Executive Order (EO) 11246 issued by then chairperson Lyndon Johnson in 1965 to ensure that federal contractors were non discriminating against minority groups pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Stanford encyclopaedia of Philosophy). However, it took another five historic period before the Secretary of Labor came out with Order 4 which contained the implementing guidelines for EO 11246. In 1972, Revised Order 4 was issued by the Secretary of Labor to amend Order 4 and undecomposedy implement EO 11246.In rate to carry out the revised enunciate, directives were issued by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to bring c olleges and universities chthonic its coverage. Because the revised order already included women among the minority groups that should be fully utilized, the different institutions in the country, including colleges and universities, were required to set their goals and timetables for much(prenominal) full utilization of the so-called protected classes which by then included women (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).Controversy followed the writ of execution of the revised order not only because of the inclusion of women under the minority groups but particularly when it came to the variant of the terms goals and timetables. Some quarters insisted that goals and timetables meant quotas which required institutions to employ gender and/or racial preferences in their employee selection. Others believed otherwise. They argued that a correct interpretation of EO 11246 would show that affirmative action did not actually mean using racial or gender preferences in the selection proces ses but merely increasing representation.In an essay entitle Preferential Hiring, Judith Jarvis Thomson supported the idea of preferences as a way of compensating for the secernment that minorities suffered in the past. Thomas Nagel, on the other hand, in his Equal Treatment and Compensatory Justice, claimed that preferences could be a manner of achieving social good without needs being unfair and unjust to anybody. Their arguments were immediately contradicted by Lisa Newton who argued that if instructs give preference to women and minorities, the reverse discrimination that inevitably results violates the public equality which defines citizenship (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).As the debate raged on how to go about giving more teaching posts to women and members of the minority groups, some(a) colleges and universities took the initiative of increasing the presence of minority bookmans in their student population. Unfortunately, one problem became immediately apparent no t enough minority students could obtain sufficient sieve scores or high school grades that would enable them to gain eligibility for college admission fee.To overcome the problem, some colleges and universities decided to qualify their criteria for admissions if only to accommodate minority students and achieve a better representation ratio in the process. This utilisation resulted to some white applicants being bumped off despite getting higher test scores than some minority students who were admitted. Consequently, charges of reverse discrimination were raised in many campuses nationwide, culminating to cases being filed in court (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).The University of Michigan was not spared from this chaotic situation. One such case was filed by Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher on October 14, 1977. They took the university to court for allegedly granting illegal preference to minority students in the undergraduate admissions. The case, which was rule late r by the District judicature as a class action lawsuit in December of 1998, was initially scheduled for visitation in May 1999 but was later postponed at a later date. The Center for Individual Rights equal the plaintiffs (York).The case filed by Gratz and Hamacher stemmed from their failure to obtain admission to the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA). Gratz applied in 1995 part Hamacher filed his application in 1997. According to the complaint, although the college considered Hamacher as within the qualified range and Gratz as well qualified, they were denied admission in favor of minority students. Gratz and Hamacher claimed that the university used racial preference in its undergraduate admissions and violated deed of conveyance VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment (York).On October 16, 2000, twenty Fortune 500 companies which included 3M, Abbott Laboratories, Microsoft Corporation, and The Procter Gamble Company filed a joint amicus apprise supporting the University of Michigan. In their brief, they stated that ethnic and racial diversity in institutions like the University of Michigan is full of life not only in their efforts to put together a diverse workforce but in addition in their desire to hire workers from all backgrounds who have obtained their education in diverse environments.On January 15, 2003, President Bush made known his opinion on the case. According to his statement which was released by the Office of the cheer Secretary, although he was supportive of racial diversity in colleges and universities, he did not approve of the method occupied by the University of Michigan.He not only described its method as flawed but articulate it a quota system that unfairly rewards or penalizes perspective students, based solely on their race. He elevate said that the universitys practice of granting minority students extra points (20 out of the needed 100 points for admission) is unconstitutional since under the system being observed in Michigan, a student gets only 12 points for obtaining a faultless score in SAT (York).In response, university president Mary Sue Coleman explained the universitys admission criteria which, match to her, were simply misunderstood by the president. She said that the university only allocated 12 points for the SAT score because the high school grades were given more value. Race and socioeconomic status were also among the factors considered, explaining that only one of these factors could get 20 points for a student. Another 16 points could be obtained by a student coming from the upper peninsula of Michigan, in consideration of geographic diversity. She continued on to state that other factors included in the criteria were leadership, service, and life experiences (York).On December 13, 2000, Honorable Patrick Duggan of the District tap of Michigan, ruled that the admissions policies adopted by the university d uring the years in dubiety was indeed unconstitutional. However, he granted no remedy to the complainants. On June 23, 2003, the United States Supreme Court, after reviewing the case, ruled that the university policy violated the Equal Protection Clause because its use of race was not narrowly orient to achieve its asserted interest in diversity (York).After the Supreme Court came out with its ruling, cover Connerly, a black who formerly served as regent of the University of California immediately announced his intention to place a voters initiative on the ballot. Connerly also spearheaded the campaigns for the earlier ballot initiatives that ended minority preferences in the states of California (1997) and Washington (1998).He convinced Jennifer Gratz to spearhead the effort. Gratz organized the Michigan Civil Rights possibility and by January 2005 was able to come up with more than 500,000 signatures. That number exceeded the 317,757 signatures needed to get the initiative on the ballot in 2006. After much controversy involving accusations of fraud, proposition 2 was finally placed on the ballot with election scheduled for November 7, 2006 (Vu).Proposition 2 won by a majority of 58% of the votes cast. As a result of that victory, 45 days after the election proposition 2 would take effect to bar affirmative action in employment, public education, and contracting. A CNN exit poll showed that in a state whose population is 14% black and 81% white, one out of every 7 black voters and about 67% of the white voters signified their intention to put an end to affirmative action in Michigan. Opponents of the initiative, however, immediately filed a federal lawsuit which challenged the constitutionality of the measure.For her part, University of Michigan president Mary Sue Coleman expressed her intention to continue the fight for a diversified campus. Her exact words were I believe there are serious questions as to whether this initiative is lawful, particularl y 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 (Lewin). Unfortunately, on December 29, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided against any delay in the implementation of Proposition 2. The result was a considerable drop in the admissions of minority students at the University of Michigan.Works CitedCinti, Dylan. Leveling the Playing Field. The Communicator. 11 kinfolk 2007. 14 butt on 2008.http//the-communicator.org/index.php/site/article/leveling_the_playing_field/Lewin, Tamar. Michigan Rejects Affirmative Action, and Backers Sue. The New York Times. 9 November 2006. 14 March 2008.http//www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/us/politics/09michigan.html?_r=2oref=slogin).oref=sloginStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Affirmative Action. 4 March 2005. 14 March 2008. http//plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/Vu, Pauline. Affirmative action in Michigan ballot. Statelin e.org. 29 August 2006. 14 March 2008. http//www.stateline.org/live/details/ narrative?contentId=137542York, Grace. Affirmative Action In College Admission Gratz and Hamacher/Grutter v. The Regents of the University of Michigan. The University of Michigan Documents Center. 18 January 2008. 14 March 2008.http//www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/affirm.html