With last June鈥檚 U.S. Supreme Court rulings on affirmative action as a road map, the University of Michigan is leading colleges and universities out of the gate in retooling policies on the consideration of race and ethnicity in student admissions.
Beginning with the freshman class that will enter in fall 2004, Michigan will discard its much-scrutinized system of awarding points to minority undergraduate applicants on the basis of race. University officials say they will instead consider race in a more 鈥渉olistic鈥� way, in meeting the demands of the high court鈥檚 rulings in cases challenging their undergraduate and law school admissions practices.
Michigan鈥檚 new undergraduate policy is serving as a harbinger of admissions overhauls at other campuses, where administrators are seeking to craft legally defensible affirmative action plans of their own.
The posts resources on its new .
Many of those schools hope to have revamped procedures in place by the time they start reviewing applications for next fall鈥檚 entering classes. Michigan began reworking its undergraduate policy within a week of the court鈥檚 June 23 decisions and spent the next month fine-tuning it, university Provost Paul N. Courant said.
鈥淲e鈥檙e as confident as we can be,鈥� he said. 鈥淲e always believed that diversity added to our ability to provide an excellent education. The methods for providing it will change somewhat, but the overall goal will remain the same.鈥�
Officials at Ohio State University, which had also used a point-based system that took race into consideration, approved a new admissions model on Aug. 26. The new policy allows race as an admissions factor, along with socioeconomic status, extracurricular activities, and other measures, without giving it a numerical value.
Outside Scrutiny
Ohio State admissions officials consulted with state university administrators in Michigan, California, and Florida in crafting the new policy, said Mabel G. Freeman, the university鈥檚 assistant vice president for undergraduate admissions. The work delayed the release of fall 2004 applications by two weeks. The new admissions model will be reviewed constantly, she said.
鈥淭here will be a lot of internal scrutiny, because we鈥檙e expecting there to be a lot of external scrutiny,鈥� Ms. Freeman said.
Already, the Center for Equal Opportunity, a Sterling, Va.-based advocacy organization that was among the opponents of Michigan鈥檚 race- conscious policies, has filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education over one new policy.
In its Aug. 18 complaint to the department鈥檚 office for civil rights, the center argues that Rice University in Houston plans to use racial preferences in a way not allowed by the Supreme Court鈥檚 Michigan rulings.
The center also warned University of Texas at Austin officials in an Aug. 20 letter not to reimplement racial preferences. In both cases, the center argues that the universities have achieved diversity through court-imposed, colorblind policies that now make race-based models unnecessary. Officials at both Rice and Texas said the center鈥檚 criticism was premature, given that neither institution had settled on new admissions procedures.
The rush to rework admissions policies stems from the Supreme Court鈥檚 landmark rulings in the Michigan cases.
In Grutter v. Bollinger, the court ruled 5-4 to uphold the admissions policy at the University of Michigan鈥檚 law school, which did not employ a point system but used race to come up with a 鈥渃ritical mass鈥� of students from underrepresented minorities. The majority opinion by Justice Sandra Day O鈥機onnor strongly endorsed the principle of promoting racial diversity in education.
In Gratz v. Bollinger, however, the court struck down Michigan鈥檚 policy of assigning underrepresented minorities a bonus of up to 20 points, on a 150- point scale, for undergraduate admissions. In ruling 6-3 to strike down that system, the court held that assigning points on the basis of race did not provide the 鈥渋ndividualized consideration鈥� of applicants necessary to pass constitutional muster. (鈥淛ustices Give K-12 Go-Ahead to Promote Diversity,鈥� July 9, 2003.)
Many college officials read the court鈥檚 opinions as allowing race-based admissions in higher education, as long as colleges institute more comprehensive systems of evaluating of the abilities of all students who seek admission.
More Reading, Writing
At the University of Michigan, in Ann Arbor, that meant replacing the point system with a process that administrators say will yield a broader picture about a student鈥檚 background, academic strengths, and personal characteristics鈥� including race.
Previously, Michigan reviewed applications using a 鈥渟election index鈥� that assigned points on the basis of the academic rigor of high school classes, grade point average, socioeconomic upbringing, and race, among other factors.
Under the new process, each application will first be evaluated by a 鈥渞eader,鈥� who will recommend whether to admit the student. The file will then be passed on to a professional admissions counselor, who will make an independent recommendation. Those two reviews will go to a senior manager in the admissions office, who will make a final decision.
While the former process required one written essay from applicants, the new policy asks for one long essay and two shorter ones, and gives students the option of writing a third essay.
That more intense review comes with a cost. The budget for undergraduate admissions at Michigan will increase from roughly $4.6 million to between $6.1 million and $6.6 million for the 2003-04 academic year, Mr. Courant estimates, before settling to a projected $5.6 million annually.
The university is hiring more than 20 readers and admissions-staff members to review applications, in addition to adding technical- and clerical- support employees, spokeswoman Julie Peterson said. Michigan typically receives about 25,000 applications for freshman enrollment each year and admits around 50 percent of applicants, she said.
Michigan鈥檚 new policy bears a distinct similarity to the University of California system鈥檚 process of 鈥渃omprehensive review,鈥� said Barmak Nassirian, the associate executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars, in Washington. The California plan does not consider applicants鈥� races, but it does ask them to describe special talents and any disadvantages they have overcome.
While Michigan鈥檚 new policy was clearly a response to the high court鈥檚 ruling, Mr. Nassirian said it also reflects a commitment by many selective state universities to assess applicants in more subjective and creative ways鈥攎any of which require written essays.
鈥淭here was increasing dissatisfaction with the mechanical, numerically driven methods we used to see,鈥� Mr. Nassirian said, while new admissions polices 鈥渇it into a narrative structure.鈥�
