Grutter v.
Bollinger
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected
from Grutter v Bollinger)
Jump to: navigation, search
Grutter v. Bollinger

Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 1, 2003
Decided
June 23, 2003

Holding
University of Michigan Law School admissions
program that gave bonus points for certain racial minorities did not violate the
Fourteenth Amendment.
Court membership
Chief Justice: William
Rehnquist
Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin
Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
Majority by: O'Connor
Joined by:
Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Concurrence by: Ginsburg
Joined by:
Breyer
Dissent by: Scalia
Joined by: Thomas
Dissent by:
Thomas
Joined by: Scalia
Dissent by: Rehnquist
Joined by: Scalia,
Kennedy, Thomas
Dissent by: Kennedy

Laws applied
U.S. Const.
amend. XIV
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), is a case in which the
United States Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of
the University of Michigan Law School. The 5-4 decision was announced on June
23, 2003.

Contents [hide]
1 The case
2 Lower courts
3 The
Supreme Court's decision
4 Dissent
5 See also
6 External links

Jew filed suit
[edit] The case
The case originated in 1996 when Barbara
Grutter, a white Michigan
resident with a 3.8 GPA and 161 LSAT score, was rejected by the University of
Michigan Law School. She filed suit in December 1997, alleging that the
university had discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation of
the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She said she was
rejected because the Law School used race as the "predominant" factor, giving
applicants belonging to underrepresented minority groups (African Americans,
Hispanics, and Native Americans) a significantly greater chance of admission
than White and Asian American applicants with similar credentials. She argued
that the university had no compelling interest to justify that use of
race.

The named defendant in the case was Lee Bollinger, the president of
the university, who fought for the university's status quo, which was to give
minorities an advantage, with the purpose of achieving racial diversity in the
student body.

[edit] Lower courts
In March 2001, U.S. District
Court Judge Bernard A. Friedman ruled that the admissions policies were
unconstitutional because they "clearly consider" race and are "practically
indistinguishable from a quota system." In May 2002, the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed the decision, citing the Bakke decision and allowing the use of
race to further the "compelling interest" of diversity. The case was
subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court agreed to hear the case,
the first time the Court had heard a case on affirmative action in education
since the landmark Bakke decision of 25 years prior.

On April 1, 2003 the
US Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Grutter. The Court allowed the
recordings of the arguments to be released to the public the same day, only the
second time the Court has allowed same-day release of oral arguments. The first
time was Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), the case that decided the 2000
presidential election.

[edit] The Supreme Court's decision
In the
court's ruling, Justice O'Connor's majority opinion held that the United States
Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race
in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the
educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." The court held that
the law school's interest in obtaining a "critical mass" of minority students
was indeed a "tailored use." O'Connor noted that sometime in the future, perhaps
twenty-five years hence, racial affirmative action would no longer be necessary
in order to promote diversity. It implied that affirmative action should not be
allowed permanent status and that eventually a "colorblind" policy should be
implemented. The opinion read, "Race-conscious admissions policies must be
limited in time. The Court takes the Law School at its word that it would like
nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula and will terminate
its use of racial preferences as soon as practicable. The Court expects that 25
years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to
further the interest approved today." The phrase "25 years from now" was echoed
by Justice Thomas in his dissent.

The decision largely upheld the position
asserted in Justice Powell's concurrence in Regents of the University of
California v. Bakke, which allowed race to be a consideration in
admissions policy, but held that quotas were illegal.

Public
universities and other public institutions of higher education across the nation
are now allowed to use race as a plus factor in determining whether a student
should be admitted. While race may not be the only factor, the decision allows admissions bodies to take
race into consideration along with other individualized factors in reviewing a
student's application. O'Connor's opinion settles the question for the
time being as to whether "diversity" in higher education is a compelling
governmental interest. As long as the program is "narrowly tailored" to achieve
that end, it seems likely that the Court will find it constitutional.

In
the majority were Justices O'Connor, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer.
Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas dissented. Much of the dissent
concerned a disbelief in the validity of the law school's claim that the system
was necessary to create a "critical mass" of minority students and provide a
diverse educational environment.

The case was heard in conjunction with
Gratz v. Bollinger, in which the Court struck down the University of Michigan's
more rigid, point-based undergraduate admission policy, which was essentially
deemed a quota system. The case generated a record number of amicus curiae
(friend of the court) briefs from institutional supporters of race preferences.
A lawyer who filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of members and former
members of the Pennsylvania legislature, State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of
Philadelphia said that O'Connor's majority decision in Grutter v. Bollinger was
a "ringing affirmation of the goal of an inclusive society."

[edit]
Dissent
Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, has caused debate regarding
the length of time the racial admissions policy will be lawful, with the
following statement in Justice Thomas's opinion (concurring in that racial
preferences would be unlawful in 25 years, dissenting in that they should be
unlawful now):

I therefore can understand the imposition of a 25-year
time limit only as a holding that the deference the Court pays to the Law
School's educational judgments and refusal to change its admissions policies
will itself expire. At that point these policies will clearly have failed to
"'eliminate the [perceived] need for any racial or ethnic'" discrimination
because the academic credentials gap will still be there. [citation omitted] The
Court defines this time limit in terms of narrow tailoring, [internal citation
omitted] but I believe this arises from its refusal to define rigorously the
broad state interest vindicated today. [internal citation omitted]. With these
observations, I join the last sentence of Part III of the opinion of the
Court.

For the immediate future, however, the majority has placed its
imprimatur on a practice that can only weaken the principle of equality embodied
in the Declaration of Independence and the Equal Protection Clause. "Our
Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among
citizens." Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 559, 41 L. Ed. 256, 16 S. Ct. 1138
(1896) (Harlan, J., dissenting). It has been nearly 140 years since Frederick
Douglass asked the intellectual ancestors of the Law School to "[d]o nothing
with us!" and the Nation adopted the Fourteenth Amendment. Now we must wait
another 25 years to see this principle of equality vindicated. I therefore
respectfully dissent from the remainder of the Court's opinion and the
judgment.

Justice Scalia also issued a critique of O'Connor's logic as
effectively neutering the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection
guarantees.

Michigan (Ann Arbor):
Racial
Engineers (07/27/00 - Washington
Times)

"It wasn't enough that
Jennifer Gratz had to
take on the University of Michigan and much of the civil rights
establishment to try to fulfill a dream. Now one of the biggest
corporations in the world, mighty General Motors Corp. (GM), is standing
in the way. Why? Apparently it's because Miss Gratz, who happens to be
white, has the wrong skin color.

"In 1995, Miss Gratz was just another high
school senior hoping to get into the university of her choice, the
nearby University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.  But she was no
ordinary student.  She was
12th in her high school class of 299, a cheerleader, National Honor
Society member, student council vice president.  She did volunteer
work at a senior citizens center, organized a blood drive and served as
a math tutor.

"But she didn't get in.  The school first put her
on the waiting list, then rejected her.  She was stunned.  She was
also skeptical because she believed her academic record was better than that of
persons she knew had been accepted.

"Although she didn't know it at the time, others
were also suspicious of Michigan admissions practices. Working with professors
at the school who had obtained admissions records through Freedom of Information
Act requests, lawyers with the Washington-based Center for Individual Rights
(CIR) discovered that the school was actually running a segregated admissions
system:   If minorities —
African-Americans, Hispanics and others — obtained certain scores, they were
automatically accepted.  If members of disfavored ethnic groups
[whites and others] achieved the same scores, they enjoyed no such guarantee.

"In 1997, CIR
filed a class-action lawsuit against the school on behalf of Miss Gratz and
others who had suffered from Michigan's racial manipulations, charging the
school with illegal discrimination.

"This month General Motors filed an amicus brief
defending the school's use of racial bias to set aside admissions openings for
preferred races and ethnic groups —African-Americans, Hispanics and others — at
the expense of people like Miss Gratz.  It's not the easiest practice in
the world to defend, and GM carefully doesn't try. ... Instead General Motors
lays out an antiseptic vision of social engineering wiped clean of the
casualties associated with it. "In General Motors' view," the company said in a
press release and in the brief filed in federal district court in Michigan,
"only a well-educated, highly-diverse workforce,
comprised of people who have learned to work productively and creatively with
individuals from a multitude of races and ethnic, religious, and cultural
histories, can maintain America's global competitiveness in the increasingly
diverse and interconnected world economy."   [Emphasis added.]

"General Motors' argument seems to be that unless
U of M classrooms, dorms and athletic locker rooms achieve some percentage —
quota — of racial or religious minorities, education (read: "consciousness
raising") can't happen. "Proscribing the consideration of race and ethnicity in
admissions," complains the company, would "dramatically reduce" diversity and
deprive students of the "acquisition of cross-cultural skills."

"So it is.
A minority applicant starts with an extra 20 points (out of a possible 150) just
for the color of his skin. Twenty points, says the school's 2000
admissions guidelines, "will be awarded to an applicant who . . . is a member of
a federally recognized underrepresented race or ethnicity, which is also
underrepresented on the UM Ann Arbor campus." To put that figure in perspective,
the difference between having a 3.0 grade point average (gpa) and a 4.0 gpa or
between a 2.0 gpa and a 3.0 gpa is also 20 points. Likewise, getting the highest
scores in standardized college placement tests is worth only 12
points.

"Alas, for Miss Gratz, she flunked Michigan's skin
color test and had to go to school elsewhere in Michigan. When General Motors
takes a break from its social engineering, perhaps it could take a few minutes
to explain to her why it's a good thing she didn't get that chance.

(Excerpted from the Washington Times
editorial 07/27/00 by Kenneth D. Smith, editor of the Washington Times editorial
page.)
[link http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/ed-column-2000727184052.htm
]

Jennifer Gratz – Executive Director champion

Jennifer Gratz is recognized as one of the nation’s
leading figures in the battle to end racial preferences. She has
appeared in numerous national and local media outlets (Dateline,
Nightline, Today Show, NY Times, Washington Post, WSJ, Fox News, CNN,
MSNBC, and many others), and served as the lead plaintiff in the most
important challenge to racial preferences in a generation.

A
graduate of Southgate (Mich.) Anderson High School in 1995, she was
unfairly rejected admission to the University of Michigan despite
placing 12th in her graduating class with a 3.8 GPA along with numerous
extra curricular activities including serving as Student Council Vice
President and Honor Roll Student for consecutive years.

After a
lengthy investigation, spearheaded by a University of Michigan
professor, it was discovered that the University was using a
dual-admissions system with completely different standards depending on
one’s race.

Therefore, in
1997 Gratz filed suit against the UM based on its two-track admissions
grid system, which assigned higher points to some applicants because of their
racial background. Gratz v. Bollinger challenged racial preferences in student
admissions at UM’s College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LS&A).

On June 23, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the preference
programs in place for the past decade at the University of Michigan's
undergraduate college of LS&A. This was the first successful Supreme Court
challenge of a college racial preference program in more than 25 years. The
Court ended the wholesale use of mechanical racial preferences in admissions but
in a separate, companion case against UM’s Law School the Court inexplicably
allowed the continued use of race in admissions.

As executive director
of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, Gratz spearheaded the effort that
secured a record 500,000+ signatures to amend the Michigan constitution. As a
result of Gratz’s leadership, Michigan voters will have the opportunity in
November 2006 to decide whether to end race and gender preferences once and for
all.

The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative does not propose to and will
not end all forms of affirmative action. Instead the Initiative will make it
unlawful for public employers, public contractors, and public education to
discriminate or grant preferential treatment on the basis of race, ethnicity,
skin color, sex, or national origin.

Since she filed her suit, Jennifer has
graduated from the University of Michigan - Dearborn with a degree in
mathematics and worked in the computer software industry before moving back to
Michigan to lead the Michigan Civil Rights
Initiative.

Students Mobilize to Defeat Anti-Israel Resolution at University of
Michigan

March 16, 2005

On March 15th, the University of Michigan Student
Assembly soundly voted down (25-11) a proposal to create a committee to
investigate the university's investments in companies doing business with
Israel. Kudos go to Alana Kuhn and
Jessie Risch, co-chairs of the American Movement for Israel, as well as UM
Hillel student Governing Board President Monica Woll, Governing Board rep
Michelle Gorman and Andrew Yahkind, who mobilized the campus to stand with
Israel and against the unfair, inaccurate misinformation being
disseminated by the anti-Israel activists.

The 7:30pm meeting had to be moved twice to accommodate
the crowd of students who wanted to show support for their side. They
finally ended up filling the 500 seat ballroom, with many students
standing in the back and aisles as well. The meeting lasted until 1am with
students from both sides taking turns to passionately voice their
opinions.

According to Alexis Frankel, program director for the
Univ. of Michigan Hillel, the student daily paper, The Michigan Daily, may
have inadvertently motivated increased attendance by pro-Israel students
by predicting in a large front page article the day of the vote that the
anti-Israel proposal would likely pass. Students who normally don't get
involved in such issues were so concerned to read of the "likely" success
of the proposal that they showed up in huge numbers, demonstrating their
pro-Israel support by wearing blue sticky tape all over their shirts and
pants, on their foreheads or as armbands. Many students also sported blue
streamers in their hair and T-shirts made by the American Movement for
Israel (AMI) that said, "It's not JUST a committee."

Frankel noted, "The shirts made by AMI were homemade and
spray painted with the slogan in blue....it had a great grassroots look
which really strengthened the visual impact of their message." The
pro-resolution supporters wore black shirts with the Palestinian flag that
said: "Divest from Israeli Apartheid."

According to Frankel, "The Israeli Student Organization was
also present and one of their members, Arik Cheshin, who served in the
territories with the IDF (Israel Defense Forces), spoke
passionately to the assembly about Israelis' commitment to peace and about
the one-sided wording of the resolution that neither placed accusations of
human rights abuses in their proper context (such as the reason roadblocks
are erected in the first place), nor made any mention of the vast
suffering inflicted on Israeli civilians by Palestinian groups."

UM Hillel is the umbrella group for over 33 Jewish student groups on the
University of Michigan campus, including AMI and the Israeli
Student Organization. Hillel staff offered logistical and moral support to
the students throughout their organizing efforts. "While we were there to
offer students support in whatever capacity they needed, it was the
students themselves who took the initiative and lead in organizing this
tremendous response. It was very empowering for them and inspiring for us
as staff to witness" said Frankel.

Frankel commented that the successful defeat of the
anti-Israel proposal was also greatly aided by the fact that many of the
student representatives in the assembly came to the debate already well
informed about Israel, and so were not easily swayed by inaccurate,
misleading anti-Israel propaganda. Student body president Jason Mironov
spoke eloquently against the resolution and MSA rep. Stu Wagner was also
key in organizing opposition to the resolution. This underscores the
importance of pro-Israel activists getting involved in student government
so that fair, informed people are in positions of power to vote on
important issues.

U-M enrollment reaches another record high

Freshman enrollment down; minority student numbers up overall

By Julie A. Peterson
Office of the Vice President
for Communications

The University has
enrolled a record number of students on its Ann Arbor campus for the sixth
consecutive year, according to figures released Nov. 12. Total enrollment for fall 2002 is 38,972, up
1.9 percent from 38,248 a year ago.

"The growing demand for admission to the University and the growth in
enrollments are a reflection of our academic strength, the breadth of programs
we offer, and the importance of our mission," says Paul N. Courant, provost and
executive vice president for academic affairs, and professor of economics and of
public policy.

"Students tend to find a college education more appealing and more essential
when job prospects are less abundant. Equally important are the University's
contributions to the state's economy through research and the production of
educated graduates. Accordingly, we are teaching more students and conducting
more research than ever before."

Student enrollment grew markedly in the School of Nursing, School of
Information, School of Social Work, College of Engineering, Ford School of
Public Policy, and Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning. The
School of Nursing has made a sustained effort to enroll greater numbers of
students in part to address a growing shortage of nurses in southeast Michigan
and nationwide.

Since 1996, the University's undergraduate enrollment has grown by 882
students to 24,472 for fall 2002. Graduate and professional enrollment has grown
over that time period by 1,565 students, to 14,500.

Once again, the University received a record number of applications for its
freshman class. A total of 25,108 students applied for admission in summer or
fall 2002, up from 24,141 last year. The first-year student enrollment of 5,187
reflected a planned decrease in the freshman class in order to create a stable
undergraduate student body for the 200203 school year.

Courant says some factors behind the growing number of applications include
demographic trends in Michigan and nationally; the greater appeal of top-tier
public universities during difficult economic times; and the ease of submitting
electronic applications. This was the first complete admissions cycle during
which students could submit online applications to U-M.

In the total student body, which includes undergraduate, graduate and
professional students, underrepresented minorities made up 13.6 percent, up from
13 percent last year. By racial group, enrollment percentages were: African
American, 8.1 percent (up from 7.9 percent); Hispanic American, 4.7 percent (up
from 4.4 percent); Native American, 0.8 percent (up from 0.7 percent); Asian
American, 12.9 percent (up from 12.7 percent); and white, 66.7 percent (up from
66.5 percent). Nearly 7 percent of students listed other racial categories or
did not indicate their race (down from 8 percent in 2001).

"We are pleased that racial and ethnic representation remains strong among
our student body. Our progress and sustainability in this arena is a reflection
of the value the University places on diversity as an important part of its
mission," says Lester Monts, senior vice provost for academic affairs and senior
counselor to the president for the arts, diversity and undergraduate affairs.
"The many programs and outreach initiatives we have in place to recruit and
retain students of color continue to provide students with a myriad of
opportunities to succeed.

"In addition to their place in campus demographics, students of color are
making enormous contributions to the cultural life of the campus, and that is
something from which we all benefit, yet cannot statistically measure," he says.

Enrollment percentages for the various
racial groups are calculated using an adjusted enrollment of 33,440, which
represents U.S. residents enrolled in degree-granting programs on the Ann Arbor
campus.

International student enrollment increased at both the undergraduate and
graduate levels, despite delays encountered by some international students in
getting their visas processed. A total
of 4,261 international students were enrolled for fall 2002, up 268 (6.7
percent) from last year.

"The increases we're seeing in international student enrollment are part of a
continuing trend," says Earl Lewis, vice provost and dean of the Horace H.
Rackham School of Graduate Studies. "It is widely recognized that the best
graduate education available in the world is at the top research universities in
the United States. We're seeing an especially strong enrollment of students from
Asia, as those rapidly developing economies continue to produce large numbers of
well-qualified and ambitious students."

The Israeli Student Organization

IACEB Newsletter: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 (5765)
www.fliegler.org/iaceb/20050316.html
Published on: 3/16/2005  Last Visited:
6/26/2005

According to Alexis Frankel, program director for
the Univ. of Mich.
...
Frankel noted, "The shirts made by AMI were
homemade and spray painted with the slogan in blue....visually it had a great
grassroots look." The pro-resolution supporters wore black shirts with the
Palestinian flag that said: "Divest from Israeli Apartheid."

According
to Frankel, "The Israeli Student Organization was there and one of their members who served
in the territories in the IDF spoke passionately to the assembly
about Israelis' commitment to peace and about the one-sided wording of the
resolution that was completely devoid of context and made no mention of
suffering on the Israeli side or the reasons for some measures such as
roadblocks." UM Hillel is the umbrella group for AMI and the
Israeli Student
Organization and offered
logistical and moral support to the students in their organizing efforts.
Hillel staff members were there until 1am along with the students to offer
support and monitor the proceedings.

Frankel commented that the
successful defeat of the divestment proposal was also greatly aided by the fact
that many of the representatives in the Michigan Student Assembly came to the debate already
being well informed about Israel, and so were not easily swayed by inaccurate,
misleading anti-Israel propaganda.

SAFE

Students seek to halt pro-Palestinian conference

By The Associated
Press

10.10.02

Printer-friendly
page

Editor's note: Attorney Deborah Schlussel said Oct. 10 that earlier that
day Circuit Judge Melinda Morris denied her request for a temporary order
barring the conference. Morris ruled the two Jewish students who filed the
lawsuit lacked standing, or qualification, to seek to block the event, Schlussel
said. She said she was deciding whether to appeal Morris' ruling.

ANN ARBOR, Mich. — Saying a
conference at the University of Michigan promoting divestment in Israel is a
danger to students' safety, a lawyer was expected to seek a restraining order to
halt the event.

Deborah Schlussel represents two students who sued the university over the
conference earlier this week.

She was expected to ask Washtenaw Circuit Judge Melinda Morris to hold a
hearing tomorrow to halt the conference.

People scheduled to speak this weekend at the Second National Student
Conference on the Palestinian Solidarity Movement advocate violence and are not
protected by constitutional guarantees of free speech, Schlussel told the
Detroit Free Press.

Schlussel filed a lawsuit — on behalf of the leaders of the Michigan Student
Zionists — on Oct. 8 against the school's president and Board of Regents trying
to halt the event.

Students Allied for Freedom and Equality is hosting the conference, which
runs Oct. 12 through Oct. 14. The group is calling on universities nationwide to
divest any interests they have with companies doing business with Israel, saying
that Israel treats Arabs the same way apartheid South Africa treated blacks.

According to the suit, the speaker drawing the most concern is Sami Al-Arian,
who is facing dismissal by the University of South Florida after appearing on
Fox News Channel's "The O'Reilly Factor" shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. On
the show, he was questioned about alleged links to terrorists and asked about a
speech a decade ago in which he advocated "death to Israel."

USF has filed a lawsuit asking a Florida court to determine whether firing
Al-Arian would violate his free-speech rights.

Meanwhile, Fadi Kiblawi, co-founder
of SAFE and a Michigan senior from St. Louis, said the Michigan lawsuit
is a "laughable attempt to stifle debate, which strikes at the core of American
values and First Amendment rights."

Marvin Krislov, the university's general counsel, said yesterday there was no
legal basis for the lawsuit.

"An attempt to impose a gag order violates the most fundamental precepts of
the First Amendment," he said. "The University of Michigan has carefully and
thoughtfully considered the concerns expressed about this conference, and we
have elected to stand by the principles of openness, tolerance and robust debate
that are central to our educational mission."

SAFE spokesman Eric Reichenberger has said the group is not anti-Semitic and
that it has some Jewish members.

Other speakers include Adam Shapiro, a New York City Jew who spent a night in
Yasser Arafat's headquarters in April to support the Palestinian leader when the
compound was under siege by Israeli forces.

Reichenberger said 250 people have registered for the conference, and SAFE
expects more to attend.

Students in the university's pro-Israel groups plan rallies over the weekend
to protest the conference.

Jewish faculty

Jewish law
professors

U.S. Supreme Court rules on University of Michigan cases

June 23, 2003

coleman michigan lawsuit

To the University of Michigan community:

Today we received the decisions of the Supreme Court regarding
our
admissions cases. This is a day of enormous pride for the University
of
Michigan.

A majority of the Court has strongly reaffirmed the principle of
diversity
articulated by Justice Powell in the Bakke decision. The
Court said that
it "endorses Justice Powell's view that student body
diversity is a
compelling state interest." Universities can continue to use
race as one
of many factors in an individualized admissions process.

From the outset, this has been a debate about the principles to which
we
are dedicated at this great University, not merely about our
policies.
These decisions are a wonderful victory for the University of
Michigan,
for all of higher education, and for the hundreds of groups and
thousands
of individuals who supported us.

The Court has provided two important signals. The first is a green
light
to pursue racial and ethnic diversity in the college classroom.
The
second is a pathway to get us there. The Law School policy clearly
met
the Court's criteria for a holistic admissions process. We will modify
our
undergraduate admissions process to follow today's guidance from
the
Court. I am confident we can do that as we continue our commitment to
a
richly diverse student body. We expect to have a revised
undergraduate
admissions process in place this Autumn.

I believe these rulings will go down in history as landmark decisions
of
the Court. And I am proud of the role of the University of Michigan
in
this important debate. We argued for fair and equal access. Now, we
will
do whatever it takes to recruit the finest, most diverse student
body
possible, within the provisions of today's decisions.

We must look to the future and affirm our institutional commitment
to
diversity in every aspect of our community: our student body,
our
faculty, and our staff.

These decisions affect not only our own University, but
universities,
public and private, throughout the nation. I pledge to you that
the
University of Michigan will take the lead in creating new ways to
infuse
our campuses with the myriad perspectives that fuel our strength.

We will make a dual promise to future generations of students and to
our
alumni, who are so proud of their Michigan heritage: First,
our
commitment to a diverse campus will continue. And second, every
student
admitted to our University will continue to be eminently well
qualified.

As we work to ascertain the ramifications of these decisions and to
devise
means to work within them, I expect that members of our community
will
engage in a full and robust debate of many related issues. I
anticipate
this discussion will be civil and respectful of all points of
view. Your
right to freedom of expression is paramount at the University of
Michigan.
This is a hallmark of our educational system, and one of which I am
most
proud.

In the coming days and weeks, we will continue to provide
updated
information on our main University
WWW site.

This is an historic day for our University. You may look to me
for
leadership as we adapt to the new provisions of the law, and I will
look
to all of you for inspiration.

With my best wishes,

Mary Sue Coleman
President

photo

Jewess's Salary

“Mary Sue Coleman is the highest paid leader of a public university. For the
2005-2006 school year, she made $724,604.00” Perhaps if this fact were
advertised on a billboard it might help in getting her removed and having this
outrageous salary drastically reduced for her successors. Other than pander to
minorities and peddle the Marxist agenda what exactly does she do to earn her
keep? The American people are under no obligation to allow people like her to
attain positions of influence or authority…

Coleman's speech

Diversity Matters at Michigan
November 8, 2006
En
Español>>

University of Michigan President Mary Sue
Coleman addressed the University community on the U-M Diag, one day after
Michigan voters approved Proposal 2. Here is the text of her
remarks:

Diversity matters at Michigan, today more than any day in our
history.

It matters today, and it will matter tomorrow. It will always
matter because it is what makes us the great university we are.

I am
deeply disappointed that the voters of our state have rejected affirmative
action as a way to help build a community that is fair and equal for
all.

But we will not be deterred in the all-important work of creating a
diverse, welcoming campus. We will not be deterred.

Universities are
models for the civil exchange of ideas, and the debate over Proposal 2 has been
no exception. Still, it has been a particularly difficult campaign, and I regret
the pain and concern it has caused people on our campus.

But there has
been a positive outgrowth of the debate about Proposal 2. It has brought
together so many different people to say: diversity matters at the University of
Michigan. Many, many people were passionate in delivering this message, and I
want to thank them for their hard work.

If November 7th was the day that
Proposal 2 passed, then November 8th is the day that we pledge to remain unified
in our fight for diversity. Together, we must continue to make this world-class
university one that reflects the richness of the world.

I am standing
here today to tell you that I will not allow this university to go down the path
of mediocrity. That is not Michigan. Diversity makes us strong, and it is too
critical to our mission, too critical to our excellence, and too critical to our
future to simply abandon.

This applies to our state as much as our
university. Michigan’s public universities and our public bodies must be more
determined than ever to provide opportunities for women and minorities, who make
up the majority of our citizenry.

Last week I received an email from
Miranda Garcia, a Michigan graduate who shared my concern about the dangers of
Proposal 2, and how it jeopardizes the fiber of our university.

“My four
years in Ann Arbor,” she said, “were a life-changing experience. I met students
from every area of the country, from all different socioeconomic and cultural
backgrounds.”

She was blunt in saying her life-changing experience would
not have been possible without affirmative action.

I should add that
Miranda lives in California, a state whose voters banned affirmative action 10
years ago. It has been a horribly failed experiment that has dramatically
weakened the diversity of the state’s most selective universities.

It is
an experiment that we cannot, and will not, allow to take seed here at
Michigan.

I will not stand by while the very heart and soul of this great
university is threatened. We are Michigan and we are diversity.

I am
joined on these steps by the executive officers and deans of our university. We
are united on this. You have my word as president that we will fight for what we
believe in, and that is holding open the doors of this university to all
people.

Today, I have directed our General Counsel to consider every
legal option available to us.

In the short term, we will seek
confirmation from the courts to complete this year’s admissions cycle under our
current guidelines. We believe we have the right, indeed the obligation, to
complete this process using our existing policies. It would be unfair and wrong
for us to review students’ applications using two sets of criteria, and we will
ask the courts to affirm that we may finish this process using the policies we
currently have in place.

This is our first step, but only our first
step.

I believe there are serious questions as to whether this initiative
is lawful, particularly 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. I will immediately begin exploring legal action
concerning this initiative. But we will not limit our drive for diversity to the
courts, because our conviction extends well beyond the legal
landscape.

It is a cause that will take our full focus and energy as an
institution, and I am ready to begin that work right now. We will find ways to
overcome the handcuffs that Proposal 2 attempts to place on our reach for
greater diversity.

As Susan B. Anthony said in her crusade for equal
rights, “Failure is impossible.”

I know many in our community have been
wondering what this election outcome means for you in a directly personal
way.

For our current students, I promise that we will honor all financial
commitments we have made to you. This is a contract we have with you, and the
University of Michigan honors its contracts.

Your scholarships,
fellowships and grants will remain just that: yours. The funds we awarded you
are available today, and they will be there for you tomorrow, because the
University of Michigan embraces diversity.

Threat?

For University employees who fear that their livelihood is at risk
with the passage of this proposal, please know that you have no cause
for worry. No one’s job at the University of Michigan will go away
because of Proposal 2. We will continue to review all of our programs
dedicated to minority affairs and campus diversity to ensure that they
comply with the law, as we have done for many
years.

Let me be very clear about this: Your work is more important now than
ever before. I will do everything I can to support you in this work, because the
University of Michigan promotes diversity.

To the hundreds of thousands
of Michigan alumni, I ask for your support in recruiting the finest students for
your alma mater. You more than anyone know the benefits of an education at this
great university.

I urge you to share that enthusiasm with prospective
students, because the University of Michigan wants diversity.

To high
school principals, counselors and teachers throughout Michigan, please know that
our outreach efforts to your schools will continue. We believe this outreach is
on firm legal ground, and we will continue these programs because we want your
graduates at our university. Our high school partnerships are critically
important pipelines for drawing great students to Michigan, and those programs
will go on.

Those programs will go on because the University of Michigan
believes in diversity.

Finally, to high school students and their
families, my message is simple: We want you at the University of Michigan. We
want your intellect, we want your energy, and we want your ambition. We have one
of the finest universities in the world, and it is remarkable precisely because
of our students, faculty and staff. We want you to aspire to be part of this
amazing community.

It is amazing because the University of Michigan is
diversity.

We know that diversity makes us a better university—better for
learning, for teaching, and for conducting research. Affirmative action has been
an effective and important tool for creating this rich, invigorating
environment.

We believe so strongly in affirmative action that we went
before the United States Supreme Court to defend its use, and we
prevailed.

Today, I pledge that the University of Michigan will continue
that fight.

Look around you. We are standing at the heart of our campus,
where all the divergent pathways of the Diag come together.

We still have
much to do to bring together all the people of our university. All walks of life
must be present and welcome at the University of Michigan.

We should
never forget a challenge issued by Henry Tappan, the university’s first
president, who said, “We must take the world as full as it is.”

Ours is a
university of the leaders and best. We must always be vigilant about recruiting
and retaining the best students and staff and the finest faculty—individuals of
all backgrounds and experiences—so that they may further enrich the fabric of
this university. We simply cannot lose these bright minds.

As the days
and weeks unfold, I know you will have questions about what this proposal
means—for the University overall and for you personally, as students, faculty
and staff. We do not yet have all the answers, but I vow to keep you fully
informed as we explore the full effects of this initiative.

Of course the
University of Michigan will comply with the laws of the state.

At the
same time, I guarantee my complete and unyielding commitment to increasing
diversity at our institution.

Let me say that again: I am fully and
completely committed to building diversity at Michigan, and I will do whatever
it takes.

I will need your help. As individuals and as a University, we
absolutely must continue to think creatively about how to elevate Michigan’s
role as a national model for diversity in higher education.

In the days
and weeks ahead, you will hear from us about specific ways you can help in our
cause. Starting today, I am asking all of our students and alumni of this great
university to fire up their networks and spread the word. Tell people, “I am
what a U-M education looks like—please join us.”

Together, we must always
work to make ours a welcoming campus. Always. Let the world know that we are a
university that embraces all. No one—no one—should ever forget that every
student at Michigan is highly qualified, and has rightfully earned his or her
place here.

Martin Luther King Jr. told us: “The ultimate measure of a
man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he
stands at times of challenge and controversy.”

Let’s stand together to
tell the state and the nation that the University of Michigan embraces …
promotes … wants … and believes in diversity.

Let’s stand together to say
we value all those on our campus who make this such a remarkable
institution.

Let’s stand together to say: We are Michigan and we are
diversity.

A letter from President Mary Sue
Coleman
To the Campus Community:

The President’s Office has
received many messages about a student conference on Palestinian solidarity,
scheduled to take place on our campus in October.

President Mary Sue
Coleman (U-M Photo Services)
This conference is sponsored by a student
organization, following established University procedures for holding events on
campus. We expect the organizers and participants to respect all University
rules concerning appropriate conduct on campus. The agenda of the conference
represents the views of the organizers and not the University of Michigan.

Divestment

One of the issues that
the student conference will address is the divestment of
University stock in companies doing business in
Israel. I do not
support this divestment. As a matter of University
policy, we do not believe political interests should govern our
investment decisions. The University has divested stock just twice
in its history. Both decisions to divest were reached only after
sustained, campus wide support that followed extensive research by
faculty-led committees, which in turn prepared a compelling case
that such investments were antithetical to the basic mission and
values of the University. Those conditions do not exist, and
I do not plan to
ask our Board of Regents to pursue divestment.

When matters of intense emotional impact are presented on campus, it
is vital that we uphold two cherished values upon which our academic community
depends. One is the right to explore and debate the widest possible range of
ideas, even if those ideas are offensive or repugnant to some members of the
community. Candid expression and open debate are intrinsic to academic freedom.
We afford that freedom both to those who organize and participate in this
conference, and to those who disagree with the views thus presented.

The
other cherished value is the respect that we owe to each other as human beings
and as fellow members of this academic community. We constantly strive to build
a community that is welcoming to all and that does not foster hatred and
discrimination. It is especially important during difficult times and when
dealing with divisive topics that we extend to one another the highest levels of
tolerance and mutual respect.

We know we are not somehow separate from
the larger world, or immune from global events. We must and we will take a
strong stand against acts of incivility and hate wherever they occur; because by
doing so, we protect our right to live, study, and express our views in
safety.

Just last week we experienced a disturbing incident when, in
violation of University e-mail policy, a message containing inflammatory
language was distributed to many U-M faculty members. The message was neither
authorized nor aided by University administrators. The authorship and other
related circumstances are under investigation, and the Provost’s Office will
handle the matter consistent with University procedures. Although we defend the
right to freedom of expression, we also have a responsibility to vehemently
dispute speech that is incompatible with our principles and beliefs. The e-mail
contained language that was deeply offensive and hurtful to me and to many
others in our community, and I condemn it. This country’s history teaches us
that ugly speech is best neutralized with other voices and more speech. I ask
for your collective support in maintaining civil and respectful campus dialogue
on important issues.

Such values of civil discourse hold a special
meaning for us at the University of Michigan. Our diverse population includes
more than 4,000 international students; one of the largest Jewish student and
alumni bodies of any major university; and a significant enrollment of Arab
American students on campuses situated near one of the most sizable Arab
American communities in the nation. Many students and faculty are deeply engaged
in studies on Middle Eastern topics through longstanding and internationally
recognized academic programs, including the Center for Middle Eastern and North
African Studies, the Jean and Samuel Frankel Center for Judaic Studies, the
Department of Near Eastern Studies, and the Center for Arab American Studies at
U-M–Dearborn.

These rich resources also provide us with a unique
opportunity and responsibility to study and debate, in an atmosphere of trust
and mutual respect, the pressing issues facing our world. I am committed to
ensuring that this University remains a place where that will always be
possible.

Sincerely,
Mary Sue Coleman

email

What are the
circumstances surrounding an e-mail about the conference that circulated to the
campus community on Sept. 25 and 26?

A large number of U-M faculty, staff
and students were sent an e-mail message on Sept. 25 and 26 under the heading
“invitation to upcoming divestment conference.” The language in the e-mail
message was highly offensive to many members of the campus community. The
message appeared as if it came from the student group SAFE, but in fact the SAFE
return address was falsified.

What is the status of
the investigation into the fraudulent e-mail message?

U-M’s Information Technology Central
Services (ITCS) conducted an investigation to determine the
origin of the message, consistent with University policies and with the support of the U-M
Department of Public Safety. By examining detailed computer records, the
investigators were able to determine that the message was not sent from any U-M
e-mail accounts, including those of the student and student organization named
in the message.

When e-mail is sent from one point on
the Internet to another, it can follow a complex path as it travels through
multiple mail servers. In this case, the senders used an unsecured server known
as an “open relay” in order to help hide their identity. Despite the best
efforts of the investigating team, it is possible the University may not be able to determine who really sent
the messages.

How were the senders
of the fraudulent message able to obtain campus addresses without the help of
University computing staff?

The senders obtained hundreds of
faculty, staff and student e-mail addresses from public sources such as
departmental web pages or the University’s online directory. It is unknown precisely
how many faculty, staff and students received the message.

Did the message
violate University policy?

The message violated University computing policies in two ways: in the
falsification of the identity of the sender, and in the unauthorized, mass
distribution to the campus community. (http://www.itd.umich.edu/nav/policies.html)