ANN ARBOR—On behalf of the University, I want to talk for a few minutes about the admissions lawsuits and yesterday’s news that the White House will file a brief in opposition. First, I was happy to hear the President strongly support the importance of diversity in America’s colleges and universities. He recognized that racial prejudice is a reality in America. Race still matters.

He said, and we know this to be true from our research, that the values of respect, understanding and goodwill are strengthened when students live and learn from people from many backgrounds. And we agree wholeheartedly that universities have a responsibility to seek out diversity and consider a broad range of factors in admissions, including a student’s potential and life experiences. In fact, we do just that in our admissions policies. We consider the whole student. Our admissions policies here at the University of Michigan look at a broad range of factors and a student’s entire background. And let’s set the record straight: We do not have — nor have we ever had — quotas or numerical targets in either the undergraduate or the law school admissions system. By far the overwhelming consideration is academic qualification. Here’s important data to share about our undergraduate selection index and its point system. 110 points out of a possible 150 are given for academic factors including grades, test scores and the strength of the high school curriculum. It is true that a perfect SAT score yields just 12 points in that system. That is because we feel the GPA is a much better indicator of a student’s potential and performance than standardized tests. A perfect GPA yields 80 points on its own. Grades matter.

Every student we admit is qualified and prepared to do the work. We consider many other factors in addition to academics, including race. Geographic diversity is important, too; so if you come from Michigan’s upper peninsula you earn 16 points. A student who is socioeconomically disadvantaged earns 20 points. We look at leadership, at service and extra-curricular activities, at life experiences, among others. Overall, we strive for a student body that is richly diverse in many ways because it enriches each student’s learning environment. In making decisions at the Law School, we also carefully review individual experiences and interests in a highly competitive process. Every applicant competes fairly for every seat. There are no numerical targets, and the actual enrollment of underrepresented minorities at the Law School over the past 10 years has ranged from 12.5 to 20 percent. (Our enrollment of students from California has ranged from 11 to 15 percent during that same time; but I don’t imagine anyone would think we had a numerical target for Californians!) Also, I want to talk a bit about the percentage plans now in place in a couple of states. They are not a panacea, and I firmly believe they would not work at all here at Michigan and for most other highly selective universities across the country. These programs have hardly been an unqualified.success. In fact, yesterday I read an Associated Press story citing that minority enrollment at the University of Texas flagship Austin campus is still lower than it was before the court barred consideration of race. And the most selective graduate schools seem to be particularly hard hit. For Michigan it would be especially problematic. We are an individual institution, not part of a system, and we simply wouldn’t be able to guarantee admission to a certain percentage of students from every high school in the State. We have over 25,000 applications for about 5,000 seats. In Texas, this sort of plan might work to some degree for undergraduate schools because it is a system and because many K-12 schools in Texas are racially segregated. So, admitting the top ten percent guarantees some number of minority students. But if the nation’s goal is to end segregation as identified in Brown v. Board of Education, how can we be in the business of relying on it for college diversity? Also, the percent plans select high school students solely on the basis of their high school grades — not on their leadership abilities, activities, teacher recommendations, nothing. It is a one-dimensional approach that fails to see students as whole people. It doesn’t allow for an evaluation of their full capabilities or their potential contributions. Finally, I want to underscore just how critical this Supreme Court review is — not just for Michigan but for all of higher education. Although critics of affirmative action have painted Michigan’s admissions processes as extreme over these past few years, in fact ours is a moderate approach, carefully considered under the guidelines of the 1978 Bakke decision. Our policies are similar to most other selective colleges and universities across the country—public and private. Bakke said that universities could not use quotas but could consider race as one of many factors in order to achieve real diversity. And in fact, we conform to that decision. The Sixth Circuit, in our law school case, said Michigan’s admissions policy is indistinguishable from the Harvard plan that the court held up as the model to follow. So the Supreme Court decision from our cases has the potential to affect all of higher education — in everything from admissions policies to financial aid to mentoring and enrichment programs. As the Justices review the Bakke decision, the Court will determine whether or not colleges and universities can take any consideration of race into account when recruiting and nurturing its student body. I believe Bakke is good law. It has formed the basis for governmental guidelines that higher education has relied on over these years. It has been implemented fairly and effectively since 1978; and it has worked to create real diversity in our classrooms and on our campuses. We look forward to filing our briefs with the Supreme Court in February. We will be joined by institutions representing a broad spectrum of American society as they file friend of the court briefs articulating the value of diversity in education, religious and corporate environments, among others. The debate will be important and robust, and in the end, we believe the Supreme Court will find our admissions policies to be fair and legal under the Constitution of the United States of America.

More information on the admissions lawsuits

Statement by University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman