[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 549-550]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN ADMISSION POLICY

  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I rise to express my deep 
disappointment at news reports today that indicate the Bush 
administration will try to overturn the admissions policy at the 
University of Michigan, in my great State. As many people know, the 
Supreme Court will soon hear a case that will decide the future of 
racial diversity in all institutions of higher education. The 
University of Michigan's admissions policy so far has been upheld by 
the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals as constitutional. Unfortunately, 
those who want to dismantle all admissions programs that consider race 
have taken this all the way to the Supreme Court.
  It is important to note this case is not about racial quotas. Let me 
say that again. It is important to note this case is not about racial 
quotas. The University of Michigan does not have racial quotas for 
admission. I am opposed to racial quotas and this, in fact, has been 
the law of the land since the Supreme Court's decision in the Bakke 
case in 1978.
  The University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy simply 
takes into account student diversity as one of many factors that are 
considered for admission. Incidentally, the most important factors for 
admission are the applicant's grade point average and test scores. Race 
is one factor of diversity, but it is not the only factor. I think this 
oftentimes is missed in the discussion about the university's policies 
and what affirmative action means. There are several other factors the 
university considers, including if the applicant comes from a socially 
or economically disadvantaged background, if the applicant is a white 
student from a majority minority high school, if the applicant comes 
from an underrepresented community, such as one of Michigan's many 
rural communities throughout northern Michigan, southern Michigan, up 
in the Upper Peninsula, or if the applicant is an athlete.
  I think it is important to emphasize there is a category where there 
are certain points that are given and you can either be given points as 
an athlete or points for racial diversity or points for other kinds of 
categories--not all of them but one. Certainly, there are a number of 
factors that are considered in this process to create a balanced 
student body for the university.
  The university considers a long list of factors, including if the 
applicant is a child of an alumni or if he or she has written a 
terrific essay. So there are many factors.
  All of these factors help the University of Michigan select a 
diverse, well-rounded student body that is not just racially diverse 
but economically and geographically diverse as well.
  Do we not believe that students from our small towns and rural 
communities add a unique and valuable perspective to our academic 
institutions? What about our students who come from economically 
disadvantaged backgrounds?
  I know many Michigan families in the Upper Peninsula who lost their 
jobs because of the iron mines closing. Don't their children deserve an 
equal opportunity to attend one of the State's best academic 
institutions, and in fact I would argue one of the best in the Nation?
  I might add that my son, Todd, is also an alumni of the great 
University of Michigan.
  This debate is much greater than the admissions policy of one 
university. This is about whether we are going to have equal 
opportunity for all Americans. This is about whether we support 
policies that help provide the opportunity for Americans of all 
backgrounds to have a chance at the American dream regardless of where 
they live, regardless of their ethnic background and their religious 
background, or whether they are male or female, whether they are an 
athlete or not a good athlete--a wide variety of factors that go into 
making those decisions. And shouldn't all young people have the 
opportunity?
  We already have policies called veterans preferences to help our 
veterans. I certainly am very supportive of doing that. We have set 
aside programs for women-owned and minority-owned small businesses and 
some categories for small businesses in general. There are certainly 
preferences that make good sense in public policy.
  Shouldn't we also give a helping hand to all young people who want to 
go to college to be able to create the brainpower to drive the economic 
engine of this country with new innovations and new opportunities to 
continue forward an American economy that is as strong as it can be?
  President Bush's decision to try to dismantle the University of 
Michigan's admissions policy comes at a very tough time for our 
Nation's minority community. Over the past month, the Republican Party 
has undergone a makeover--a change in leadership. But it would be very 
unfortunate if it is a change in style and not of substance.
  Despite the White House's recent proclamation of issues that impact 
our minority community, I was very disheartened to see that they 
immediately renominated Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of 
Appeals despite his controversial record on civil rights and his 
defense of someone convicted of burning a cross on the lawn of an 
interracial family.
  There has been no commitment by this administration to support hate 
crimes legislation or legislation to prevent racial profiling. There 
has not been a commitment to fully fund election reform measures to 
ensure that minority voters are not disenfranchised as they were in the 
2000 election.
  Unfortunately, this administration seems to be all talk and no 
action. We need to come together in a bipartisan way to act and not 
just to talk. On the one hand, the President talks about the importance 
of expanding opportunities to all Americans. And we all talk of that, 
and that certainly is something with which I agree, but the 
administration's policies do not back up this rhetoric.
  There is still time for the President to file a brief in the Supreme 
Court case--one that supports the University of Michigan's admissions 
policy. I urge him to do so. Now is the time for us to come together 
and work together to make sure there is opportunity and access to our 
great institutions of higher learning in this country and that 
educational opportunities are available to every young person and to 
every American. I urge the President to reconsider the course that he 
appears to be taking and to join with us who understand the policy of 
the University of Michigan and to understand the importance of every 
young person having the opportunity to go to college.
  I yield the floor.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time

[[Page 550]]

during further quorum calls be evenly divided on both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________