Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on March 3, 2004, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004-2005 higher education budget. (Note: Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s proposed budget for this department is Senate Bill 1042.) This appropriates $1.698 billion in adjusted gross spending (funded from all sources, including special state restricted fund and federal pass-through dollars, minus interdepartmental transfers), compared to $1.789 billion, which was the FY 2003-2004 amount enrolled in 2003. Of this, $1.603 billion will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2003-2004 amount of $1.632 million. The Senate version authorizes approximately $66.6 million more in gross spending than the governor recommended. This includes $64.7 million for state scholarships to students at private colleges, which the governor recommended cutting. The Senate version contains the governor's tuition restraint proposal, which promised the partial restoration of 2003 cuts for colleges that keep tuition increases below the rate of inflation. Much more information on Michigan’s budget is available at Hot Topics: Michigan’s Budget Challenge at www.mackinac.org/4964

The vote was 37 in favor, 0 opposed and 1 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 188 at Senate Journal 34)

Click here to view bill details.

Reps. Law, Brown, Byrum and Gleason, having reserved the right to explain their protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted no on final passage of Senate Bill 1067 because the Legislature chose to overstep its constitutional authority in a way that will be extremely harmful to Michigan's universities. The Michigan Constitution clearly grants authority over admissions policies to the boards in control of each university, not to the state Legislature. While the use of preferential policies in college admissions remains controversial, this is an issue that has been discussed all the way to the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that such policies are legal and may be used to advance the goal of a diverse educational environment. Whether universities choose to adopt such policies or not, the Legislature should not micromanage university operations by tying such decisions to the availability of state funding. Doing so will jeopardize the excellence and independence Michigan's public universities have achieved for the past 187 years."

Rep. Waters, having reserved the right to explain her protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted no on final passage of Senate Bill 1067 because in adopting the Drolet Amendment #5 today, the Legislature chose to overstep its constitutional authority in a way that will be extremely harmful not only to Michigan's universities, but to the overall social health of the state for many years into the future. The Michigan Constitution clearly grants authority over admissions policies to the Boards in control of each university, not to the state Legislature. And while the use of preferential policies in college admissions remains controversial, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that such policies are legal and may be used to advance the goal of a diverse educational environment. I support the University of Michigan's admissions policies and similar policies because the inequity of our nation's past actions continue to negatively effect the opportunities of people today. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said in his book Why We Can't Wait,'... it is obvious that if a man is entered at the starting line in a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some impossible feat in order to catch up with his fellow runner.' Furthermore, admissions policies at the University of Michigan in particular have proven extremely successful in that they have helped the University produce generations of scholars whose efforts upon graduating have greatly benefited this state."

Why would anyone NOT support an amendment banning racial preferences, even if it is only symbolic and not enforcible?

The morons presently inhabiting (occupying) the legislature I guess have too much free time on their hands (and are overpaid) when this sort of trash is introduced. How about legislation to prohibit 'legacy' admissions that let B- Bush into Yale ? You won't see that happen from this bunch of idiots; it's too sensible and doesn't castigage minorities.

Privatize the state universities so that they would not be dependent upon the "generocity" of my tax dollars, and allow them to be free to set whatever admission standard they wish. If their entrusted to produce the next generation of leaders, they should be able to do a good job of fending for themselves in the real world without any difficulty.

How is eliminating preferential treatment equal to "castigating minorities'? Isn't preferential treatment what the civil rights movement was supposed to eliminate? And don't the children of minority alumini have "legacy" preferences in admissions? I'll bet they do! One of the persons voting against the amendment has judicial aspirations. Do you feel that a person that believes in preferential treatment could be an impartial judge?

I think the privatization of the universities is an idea worth considering. Maybe then they would be judged by the quality of their graduates and not the diversity of their student body. Maybe privatize the schools and issue vouchers to qualified students allow them to pick the school of their choice.

So, am I to assume that you feel racial preferences (sometimes called reverse discrimination) should continue for 300 years? Starting when? I thought we were not supposed to judge peoples worth based on their skin color. Preferential treatment divides people into classes by race, sex, ethnicity etc. That is discrimination.

The Supreme Court, in a narrow 5-4 ruling with Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor as the swing vote decided that race may be considered into the admissions criteria, but cannot be the deciding factor. O'Connor said the issue should be revisited in 25 years. In other words, she suspended the equal protection granted by the 14th amendment, for 25 years. The UofM is sidestepping the issue by requiring and judging essays as a part of the admission process. That is highly subjective and gives the edge to those that press the right buttons of the liberals reviewing the essays.

What isn't sensible is denying a qualified student admission because their skin color does not satisfy the decorating tastes of some social engineers. Some groups complain that there are "too many" Asians in the schools. Should they be denied admission because of their skin color, or should the fact that they have a better work ethic, study habits, and grades qualify them? They try harder. They also have a pride in their personal accomplishments vs "racial pride" and/or a group mentality. Some use the term "diversity" to justify racial preferences. This is saying a persons worth to a class of students can be determined by their skin color. Isn't that "profiling"? What next? Determining their vote value by skin color? Stop legacy admissions? Sure, then the alumini can take the millions they contribute to places like the U of M and send it to other schools, the ones that their kids will be going to.