Post-Prop. 2 Michigan Law Admissions

According to an article today in the Detroit News,

Black, Hispanic and Native American students were admitted at a much higher rate compared with other students prior to Proposal 2 taking effect in January (36 percent of applicants compared with 15 percent). But midway through the admissions cycle, when the law school could no longer consider race as a factor, 5 percent of the underrepresented minorities who applied got in, compared with 26 percent of the pool of students who don’t benefit from affirmative action, including whites and Asian Americans.

Some critics have alleged that the U-M law school was stuffing the next class with minorities as fast as it could in anticipation of Prop. 2’s victory.

Not so, said the law school. In fact,

an assistant dean at the law school, Sarah Zearfoss, said that claim is false and irresponsible, and that it’s premature to draw any conclusions. She said this year’s admissions cycle was disrupted by Proposal 2. Law school officials said they accelerated the admissions process hoping to avoid legal complications of the affirmative action ban.

Oh, now I get it. The law school didn’t rush to admit as many minorities as it could. It simply “accelerated the admissions process” in order “to avoid legal complications.”

Once again the University of Michigan has accomplished what no reasonable person would have thought possible: it has made BAMN, which criticized these numbers and was called irresponsible in reply by the university, seem almost sane.

Say What? (8)

  1. Dom June 15, 2007 at 2:59 pm | | Reply

    Can you explain what this means: “Many of the students admitted when race was a factor would still have been admitted when affirmative action went away, Zearfoss said. Race was given no more consideration than usual before the ban took effect, she said.”

    So why did the numbers change?

  2. John Rosenberg June 15, 2007 at 3:09 pm | | Reply

    No, I can’t. Of course, assuming that what U-M officials say about race means anything at all may be a stretch.

    I suppose the operative question is, how many? If very many, then ending race preferences is not going to make much difference, and so what was all the opposition about?

  3. Chetly Zarko June 15, 2007 at 5:16 pm | | Reply

    U-M is saying two things – very contradictory here, which, on my blog, when I picked up the AP story (before the DN was available), I thought was a “move towards” what we’ve said all along (aka – the Michigan Civil Rights Commission flop). When I saw the DN, it was evident Zearfoss was speaking out of both sides of her mouth with a forked tongue.

    One would expect that the numbers from pre-effect date (late Dec./early Jan) would be higher than post-effect date because the preferences ended. BAMN focuses on the post-effect numbers – a 6-1 ratio (over roughly equal admissions periods) and argues that next year’s numbers would reflect that.

    Everything else equal – BAMN would be right. But that 6-1 ratio is distorted because not only did “normal preferences” end, but before they ended U-M “front-loaded” “super-preferences” to beat the clock. The effect of front-loading was – even if they received an “extension” as they sought from a court and were denied – to guarantee discrimination later in the process against blacks (and all others, in fact) who didn’t file early. It also means that the 6 to 1 ratio is inflated (ie – BAMN’s view that say, admissions of minorities will be 1/6th what they were). U-M is absolutely correct that BAMN’s sky is falling prognostication is bunk, and I thought, early this morning, that was the end of the story. Then the Marisa Schultz (Detroit News Proposal 2 beat reporter, who does a relatively good job relative to the MSM) final paraphrase of Zearfoss catches the lie. U-M is literally trying to have it both ways – the numbers can’t be of no concern unless U-M knows that it gamed the system by front-loading. Race must have been given more consideration than it even normally was given if the numbers can’t be extrapolated. Of course, admitting to that puts U-M at risk of two types of lawsuits — one would be a “traditional” suit by late-applicant blacks, and another would be a Grutter-like suit arguing that U-M’s reason for the change was capricious, not “compelling”, and violated Grutter standards (even as we disagree with Grutter, Grutter didn’t tighten the rules on preferences).

    So both U-M and BAMN are lying – no surprise there – but at least they are lying against each other now instead of fabricating (or agreeing with) legendary stories of the greatest fraud conspiracy mankind ever witnessed (180,000 counts of fraud, against at least hundreds of individuals, would have been necessary).

    I will note this – U-M’s spin is predictable from a logical viewpoint. If you put yourself in their shoes and assume crass-self-interest, their response is understandable. BAMN’s spin is predictable from an emotional viewpoint. When in BAMN’s shoes, you need to think like a Communist looking for a transition issue for the revolution. Everything (including former allies, U-M) is a target of your rage, and every issue is a catastrophe to excite the masses.

    Nothing here is a surprise when viewed through those lens.

  4. Jian Li June 15, 2007 at 5:48 pm | | Reply

    Some critics have alleged that the U-M law school was stuffing the next class with minorities as fast as it could in anticipation of Prop. 2’s victory.

    Not so, said the law school. In fact, an assistant dean at the law school, Sarah Zearfoss, said that claim is false and irresponsible, and that it’s premature to draw any conclusions.

    Actually, I believe you have quoted Zearfoss out of context. According to the article, Zearfoss is referring to BAMN’s claim that there has been a “catastrophic” decline in minority admissions after Prop 2, rather than to the claim that UM was packing the class before Prop 2. BAMN would have no reason to object to the latter, anyway.

  5. John Rosenberg June 15, 2007 at 7:02 pm | | Reply

    Jian – You are at least partly right, in that Zearfoss was primarily referring to the BAMN charge in the comment I quoted. But only partly, and it is the other part that means the quote was not out of context, if you define the context (“depends on what the meaning of ‘context’ is” …) as the debate over the meaning of the admission rate for minorities leading up to the end of 2006 that was drastically higher than it had ever been before, and then drastically lower after Prop. 2 went into effect.

    U-M has repeatedly and consistently denied that it inflated the minority admission rate in anticipation of Prop. 2, and in fact Zearfoss denied it here as well. And, as Chet Zarko points out in his comment, they had good reason to deny it. If U-M admitted it did what it obviously did, it might well be subject to a lawsuit for violating even the very loose Grutter requirements.

  6. Cobra June 16, 2007 at 11:07 am | | Reply

    Let me get this straight–

    The SKY IS FALLING because the University of Michigan “accelerated” the admission of some minority students?

    ???

    Perhaps those here who espouse an alleged “color-blind” philosophy can explain to me why they have a problem with an INCREASE in minority (particularly Black) student admissions.

    –Cobra

  7. Twill00 June 19, 2007 at 8:55 am | | Reply

    Umm, Cobra, it’s obvious.

    “Color-blind” means “color-blind”.

    It doesn’t mean “hurry to get all the black people in before we *have* to follow the law and be color-blind”. Which is descriminating *for* blacks and *against* everyone else, and is illegal in the United States, even under Grutter.

    So, the question is, why can’t you understand this simple concept? Pretend that it’s 1963 and a college is accellerating white admissions to quickly fill seats so that they won’t have to admit as many minorities. Get it now?

    It’s not that tough to follow.

  8. Cobra June 19, 2007 at 9:31 pm | | Reply

    Twilloo writes:

    >>>””Color-blind” means “color-blind”.

    Twilloo then writes:

    >>>”So, the question is, why can’t you understand this simple concept? Pretend that it’s 1963 and a college is accellerating white admissions to quickly fill seats so that they won’t have to admit as many minorities. Get it now?”

    Oh I certainly “get it.” You, and the other posters apparently don’t. “Color-blind” means you wouldn’t have even NOTICED the increase of minority (read: BLACK) law students, much less make “Fox News Alert” level commentary about admission percentage levels.

    Begs the question…

    Twillooo, are you one of those Anti-Affirmative Action types who CLAIMS to be “color-blind” but demands review & investigation if the number, or percentage of minorities in any given scenario rises above some unspoken threshold?

    Not casting aspersions, mind you. Just trying to figure out which angle you’re coming from.

    –Cobra

Say What?