AAMC Reporter: December 2006

Michigan Passes Initiative to Ban Affirmative Action

On Nov. 7, Michigan became the latest state to ban affirmative action in state contracting, hiring, and employment. Fifty-eight percent of voters in that state approved the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), despite opposition from both the Republican and Democratic candidates for governor, a host of business and political leaders from across the state, and prominent state university figures including medical school leaders.

"Clearly, this is a setback for diversity efforts in the state of Michigan, and I think it may well strip us of some very important tools for diversifying medical education and providing the access to health care that students from underrepresented groups provide," said Charles Terrell, Ed.D., vice president of the AAMC's Division of Diversity Policy and Programs.

Exactly what happens next remains unclear. Although the MCRI, also known as Proposal 2, is set to take effect Dec. 22, at least one legal challenge to the measure has already been filed in federal court, by By Any Means Necessary, a pro-affirmative action group. Lawyers cited in media accounts have predicted lawsuits in the case could take more than a decade to resolve. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled universities could factor race into their admissions policies in two cases brought against the University of Michigan's undergraduate and law schools, Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger. The plaintiff in the first case, Jennifer Gratz, leads the coalition named for MCRI that pushed for Proposal 2's passage.

"Everybody in Michigan is going to have to go back to the drawing board," Terrell said. "One of the things we are intrigued by is the question of how the Supreme Court decision is affected by the passage of this initiative, and what is the intersection of those conflicting principles?" As the Reporter went to press, MCRI coalition officials had not returned messages seeking comment.

At a rally the day after the vote, University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman affirmed her institution's commitment to diversity.

"If Nov. 7 was the day that Proposal 2 passed, then Nov. 8 is the day we pledge to remain unified in our fight for diversity," she said. "I am standing here today to tell you that I will not allow our university to go down the path of mediocrity. That is not Michigan."

Coleman also expressed concerns over implementation of the MCRI, which she said contains vague language that may make it difficult to adopt.

"There are serious questions as to whether this initiative is lawful, particularly as it pertains to higher education," Coleman said.

University of Michigan Medical School Interim Dean James Woolliscroft, M.D., echoed many of Coleman's general sentiments.

"The recent passage of Proposal 2 does not change our long-standing commitment to promoting diversity, which recognizes the value of the passionate dedication our applicants demonstrate to their communities, their research, their activities, their talents, and their academic accomplishments,"Woolliscroft said. "Clear and incontrovertible evidence shows that the diversity we endorse enhances the educational experience for our students. Maintaining our academic excellence while producing the finest physicians and scientists in the world remains our goal."

MCRI is backed by former University of California (UC) Board of Regents member Ward Connerly, who was involved in passing anti-affirmative action referenda in California and Washington in 1996 and 1998, respectively. The MCRI organization claims public schools in those states are experiencing rising rates of underrepresented minority enrollment nearly 10 years after the measures were passed.

While that is true in some cases, in many other areas the opposite has happened, according to AAMC statistics. In 2005, only 39 of 1,047 matriculants to California medical schools were African-American; 121 were Latino. At the University of Washington School of Medicine, only seven students from underrepresented minorities enrolled in 2001. In July, the UC Board of Regents, alarmed by a dip in minority enrollment at their 10 state campuses, called for a comprehensive study of the effects of the measures.

In September, Washington State's Higher Education Coordinating Board issued a report on diversity in the state, noting that its public colleges and universities face an "added challenge" to increasing diversity because of the ban on affirmative action.

Proposal 2's impact may be even greater, since all three Michigan medical schools are public institutions whose programs will be governed by Proposal 2.

"It's a devastating loss," said Ellen Buchman, field operations director for the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. "Affirmative action was the one tool [for increasing institutional diversity] that we had as a mandate in the state, and now it's gone."

But while the outlook may be bleak, strategic thinking is already underway to help mitigate any negative effects that may result from the MCRI's passage.

"We'll need to work even harder on building the K-12 and college pipelines, finding ways for institutions to cast the net as broadly as possible as they work to build diversity in their institutions," Terrell said.

"Institutions will also need to look at what can be done in the admissions process in terms of holistic review—that is, looking at each applicant's file, without discarding grades and test scores, but considering the diversity contribution each individual student might bring to an institution," Terrell said.

"We need to explore every conceivable option for inclusion that doesn't run afoul of the law, in order to meet our goals of a diverse student body and diverse physician workforce," Terrell said.

—By Gina Shaw, special to the Reporter

Contact Us    © 1995-2008 AAMC    Terms and Conditions    Privacy Statement