Affirmative action in Michigan

in  Michigan

* Fiscal
* Budgets
* Michigan state budget and finances
* Tax policy in Michigan
* Finance
* Financial regulation in Michigan
* Pensions
* Public pensions in Michigan
* Pension health in Michigan
* Civil liberties
* Affirmative action in Michigan
* Campaign finance requirements in Michigan
* Campaign finance requirements for Michigan ballot measures
* Nonprofit regulation in Michigan
* Education
* Charter schools in Michigan
* Higher education in Michigan
* Public education in Michigan
* School choice in Michigan
* Elections
* Ballot access
* Ballot access requirements for political candidates in Michigan
* Ballot access requirements for political parties in Michigan
* Political parties in Michigan
* Ballot access requirements for presidential candidates in Michigan
* Redistricting in Michigan
* Voting in Michigan
* Energy and Environment
* Energy policy in Michigan
* Fracking in Michigan
* Oil and gas extraction on federal land in Michigan
* Endangered species in Michigan
* Environmental policy in Michigan
* Healthcare
* Healthcare policy in Michigan
* Medicaid spending in Michigan
* Effect of the Affordable Care Act in Michigan
* Immigration
* Immigration in Michigan

* * *

On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court reversed lower court decisions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, effectively ending the use of affirmative action in college admissions. This article does not receive scheduled updates. If you have any questions or comments, contact us.

* * *

Affirmative action in Michigan

General information
Public four-year schools:

Number considering race:

State affirmative action law:
Article I, Section 26, Michigan Constitution
State agency:
Michigan Department of Civil Rights
Affirmative action in other states
Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming

* * *

* * *

Affirmative action • Gratz v. Bollinger • Grutter v. Bollinger • Fisher v. University of Texas

## Contents

* 1 Background
* 1.1 Michigan Civil Rights Amendment
* 1.2 Key terms
* 2 University admissions
* 3 Employment
* 3.1 Federal requirements
* 4 Court cases
* 4.1 Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education
* 4.2 Gratz v. Bollinger
* 4.3 Grutter v. Bollinger
* 4.4 Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action
* 5 Public opinion
* 5.1 Support
* 5.2 Opposition
* 6 Agencies
* 7 Affirmative action and anti-discrimination legislation
* 8 See also
* 9 External links
* 10 Footnotes

Affirmative action in Michigan refers to the steps taken by employers and universities in Michigan to increase the proportions of historically disadvantaged minority groups at those institutions. Historically, affirmative action nationwide has taken many different forms, such as strict quotas, extra outreach efforts, and racial and gender preferences. However, racial quotas in university admissions were banned in a 1978 United States Supreme Court case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.[1]

On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court reversed lower court decisions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, effectively ending the use of affirmative action in college admissions.

As of March 2015, 109 out of 577 public four-year universities across the country reported that they considered race in admissions. This practice has been banned in eight states. Meanwhile, 28 states require affirmative action plans in either public employment or apprenticeships. Affirmative action programs that grant racial preferences have come under scrutiny in the courts for potentially violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.[2][3]

The following information details the use of affirmative action in universities and employment in Michigan, as well as notable court cases originating in the state.

HIGHLIGHTS

* Michigan is one of eight states that have banned racial preferences in university admissions and public employment.

The effects of affirmative action policies are contested. Proponents argue that affirmative action diversifies selective institutions and provides more opportunities to minorities. Opponents argue that implementing policies that favor some groups requires discrimination against others and that these policiesmay harm individuals they are meant to help.

## Background[edit]

The first reference to affirmative action was made by President John F. Kennedy (D) in 1961 in an executive order directing government contractors to take "affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin." While there had previously been efforts by the federal government to end racial discrimination, the order marked the first instance of an active approach to promoting equal opportunity.[2][4][5][6]

Lyndon Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act, July 2, 1964

As the Civil Rights Movement grew, the federal government took on an increasing role in preventing discrimination and bolstering minority numbers in workplaces and universities. President Lyndon Johnson (D) signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a landmark piece of legislation that prohibited discrimination against any individual based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. However, some still felt that preventing discrimination was not enough, so President Johnson issued an executive order that created the means to enforce affirmative action policies for the first time. Of their own initiative, many colleges and universities nationwide also adopted affirmative action policies to increase minority enrollment.[2][4][6][7][8]

The use of affirmative action programs was initially intended to be temporary. However, over time the goals of affirmative action policies shifted from equality of opportunity to the achievement of equal representation and outcomes for minorities at all levels of society, a more ambiguous target. Furthermore, lawsuits have been brought against institutions utilizing affirmative action policies, citing violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the Supreme Court ruled that promoting diversity, rather than compensating for historical injustices, is the constitutional goal of affirmative action. In its 2013 ruling on affirmative action in Fisher v. University of Texas, the court also placed the burden on universities to prove that no viable race-neutral alternatives exist when they use racial preferences in admissions to increase diversity.[4][5][9]

In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, the Supreme Court effectively ended race-based considerations in college admissions in a June 29, 2023, decision. The ruling explicitly allowed national service academies to continue considering race as a factor in admissions for reasons of national security.[10][11]

### Michigan Civil Rights Amendment[edit]

The Michigan Civil Rights Amendment appeared on the ballot in the November 7, 2006 election. The question was referred to the ballot as a citizen initiated constitutional amendment, proposing to ban preferential treatment and discrimination in public education, employment and contracting. Voters approved the amendment by over 550,000 votes, making Michigan the fourth state to enact such a measure. The approved ballot measure added a new section to Michigan's state constitution, Section 26 of Article I.[12]

The amendment was challenged by the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. In 2011, a three-panel federal appeals court overturned the amendment, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. In April 2014, the United States Supreme Court overturned the decision of the two lower courts, ruling that voters had the right to prohibit preferential treatment and affirmative action in the public sphere.[12]

### Key terms[edit]

The following terms are helpful in understanding affirmative action policy:

* Discrimination refers to the unequal treatment of some individuals or groups based on federally-protected traits, such as age, race/ethnicity and gender.[13][14]
* Preferential treatment occurs when an applicant is more likely to be selected than another applicant with similar or better qualifications due to other factors, such as race and ethnicity.[15][16][17]
* Reverse discrimination is, according to Dictionary.com, unequal treatment or discrimination based on protected traits of "members of majority groups resulting from preferential policies" favoring historically disadvantaged groups, with the intent of remedying past societal discrimination.[18][19]
* Equal employment opportunity is a commitment employers make to refrain from employment practices that are discriminatory, either directly (disparate treatment) or indirectly (disparate impact). According to Study.com, an equal employment opportunity policy is intended to ensure that "certain classes of people who have been discriminated against in the past are not subjected to adverse treatment" based on protected traits.[20][21]
* Diversity means the representation of individuals of a variety of backgrounds in terms of characteristics such as national origin, race and ethnicity, gender and socioeconomic status.[22][23][24]
* The mismatch effect refers to the theory that when an elite school extends a large preference to a student due to his race, athletic ability or connection to alumni, that student is less prepared for the rigor of the classes and suffers academically, though that student would perhaps thrive at a somewhat less elite school.[25][26]
* Racial quotas are hiring or admissions policies requiring that a specified number or percentage of minority group members be hired or admitted. In 1978, the United States Supreme Court outlawed the use of strict racial quotas.[27]
* Ratchet effect/cascade effect refers to a phenomenon in which actors do not have an incentive to improve a situation even if they easily could.[28][29][30]

## University admissions[edit]

See also: Higher education in Michigan

Affirmative action in university admissions is a separate matter from affirmative action in employment that operates under different rules and regulations. Federal law requires government contractors and other departments and agencies receiving federal funding to develop and implement affirmative action plans for the hiring process. Public colleges and universities are considered federal contractors and must utilize affirmative action in their employment practices. However, many private colleges and universities across the country have also implemented similar measures in their admissions processes. These actions are typically voluntary, although a handful of states have adopted rules that require state universities to take affirmative action in admissions.[2][4][31]

Affirmative action admissions programs were undertaken by public and private universities alike, beginning in the late 1960s and 1970s. Some universities initially established quotas in order to achieve a demographically diverse student body; these quotas were outlawed by the United States Supreme Court in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke in 1978. Today, a common form of affirmative action in college admissions is that of racial preferences. A preference occurs when a group of applicants is more likely to be admitted than other applicants with similar or better qualifications due to other factors, such as race or ethnicity. Preferences are also sometimes extended towards women, athletes, and children of alumni. The use of racial preferences may be related to college selectivity: scholars such as law professor Richard Sander have found that preferences are strongest at elite institutions.[2][32][33][34]

Eight states have enacted laws banning the consideration of race in university admissions. As of March 2015, Michigan was one of these states. In 2006, voters approved the Michigan Civil Rights Amendment, which amended Article I of the Michigan Constitution to prohibit preferential treatment or discrimination in public university admissions. Due to the ban, of 15 public four-year universities in Michigan, none reported considering race in admissions, as indicated in the chart below.

Consideration of race at public four-year universities in Michigan

School  | Race/Ethnicity is...  | School selectivity*
Very important  | Important  | Considered  | Not considered
Central Michigan University |  |  |  |

| Somewhat selective
Eastern Michigan University |  |  |  |

| Somewhat selective
Ferris State University |  |  |  |

| Less selective
Grand Valley State University |  |  |  |

| Less selective
Lake Superior State University |  |  |  |

| Less selective
Michigan State University |  |  |  |

| Somewhat selective
Michigan Technological University |  |  |  |

| Less selective
Northern Michigan University |  |  |  |

| N/A
Oakland University |  |  |  |

| Somewhat selective
Saginaw Valley State University |  |  |  |

| Less selective
University of Michigan |  |  |  |

| Very selective
University of Michigan: Dearborn |  |  |  |

| Somewhat selective
University of Michigan: Flint |  |  |  |

| Less selective
Wayne State University |  |  |  |

| Less selective
Western Michigan University |  |  |  |

| Less selective
Sources: The College Board, "Big Future," accessed March 30, 2015. Reproduced with permission.
College Data, "College 411," accessed March 30, 2015
*Note: This scale of college selectivity comes from The College Board and is measured as follows: Most selective, less than 25 percent admitted; Very selective, 25 percent to 50 percent admitted; Somewhat selective, 50 percent to 75 percent admitted; Less selective, more than 75 percent admitted; Open admission, all or most admitted.

About the data

Information on which colleges consider race in admissions came from individual college profiles provided by two websites that aim to assist students in choosing a college: The College Board and CollegeData. Such information was reported to The College Board by the colleges themselves. Note that schools may have updated their policies since reporting them. To see the data:

1. College Board: Click the link to the college's profile provided in the table below. Click "Applying" on the side menu and scroll down. Listed will be several criteria of admission into the college, separated by importance. If Race/Ethnicity is not listed, it was not reported as considered by the college's admissions officers.
2. CollegeData: Click the link to the college's profile provided in the table below. Scroll down to the section titled "Selection of Students" to see a chart of admission criteria ranked from "Very Important" to "Not Considered."

| Click for links to school profiles

School  | School profiles  | School  | School profiles
College Board  | College Data  | College Board  | College Data
Central Michigan University | Link | Link | Eastern Michigan University | Link | Link
Ferris State University | Link | Link | Grand Valley State University | Link | Link
Lake Superior State University | Link | Link | Michigan State University | Link | Link
Michigan Technological University | Link | Link | Northern Michigan University | Link | Link
Oakland University | Link | Link | Saginaw Valley State University | Link | Link
University of Michigan | Link | Link | University of Michigan: Dearborn | Link | Link
University of Michigan: Flint | Link | Link | Wayne State University | Link | Link
Western Michigan University | Link | Link |

## Employment[edit]

According to Business and Legal Resources, 28 states have passed their own laws requiring the development of affirmative action plans by state employers or apprenticeship programs. Affirmative action plans are management tools that outline efforts made to increase the proportions of minorities at a company or institution. Such plans typically contain the following:[35][20]

* numerical analysis of the percentage of minorities employed versus the percentage in the labor pool,
* identification of areas where there is "underutilization" of minorities, or a discrepancy between the above percentages, and
* "specific practical steps" the employer will take to correct this discrepancy.

In Michigan, Article I, Section 26 of the Michigan Constitution prohibits preferential treatment and discrimination in state employment and contracting. The section was added by Michigan Civil Rights Amendment in 2006. The amendment does not, however, prevent agencies and organizations that receive federal funding from utilizing affirmative action programs according to federal law.[36]

See law: Article I, Section 26, Michigan Constitution

In addition, Michigan has a nondiscrimination law, which identifies the following as protected traits in addition to those protected by federal law:[37]

“  |

* Race
* Color
* National origin
* Religion
* Sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions)
* Disability: physical or mental
* Age
* Genetic information
* Marital status
* AIDS/HIV
* Height or weight
* Misdemeanor arrest record[38]

| ”

|
|

The state's nondiscrimination law applies to all employers with at least one employee and is enforced by the Michigan Department of Civil Rights.[37]

### Federal requirements[edit]

Federal contractors and agencies in Michigan that receive funding from the United States government are subject to federal law that requires them to adopt affirmative action plans.[36]

Additionally, the following federal laws may apply to any company that meets certain conditions:[37]

* Employers with at least four employees must adhere to the Immigration Reform and Control Act.
* Employers with at least 15 employees must adhere to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.
* Employers with at least 20 employees must adhere to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
* Employers with any number of employees must adhere to the Equal Pay Act.

Federal nondiscrimination and affirmative action laws in Michigan are enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.[37]

## Court cases[edit]

### Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education[edit]

In the 1980s, the contract between the school board of Jackson, Michigan and the teachers' union (a) protected teachers with the most seniority from layoffs and (b) prevented the percentage of teachers laid off who were minorities from being greater than the percentage of minorities employed under the contract. During layoffs over subsequent years, some nonminority teachers were laid off, while minority teachers with less seniority were kept on. Wendy Wygant, a nonminority teacher who was laid off, filed suit against the board with the allegation that such layoffs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan found in favor of the board, upholding the contract on the grounds that the board's racial preferences "remedied discrimination by providing 'role models' for minority students." On appeal, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.[39][40]

The United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in 1985. In its opinion issued May 19, 1986, the court struck down the decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the board laid off Wygant for reasons related to her race and in doing so, violated the Equal Protection Clause. The court found that the school board's layoff policy did not meet the two standards of strict scrutiny: (1) its justification for the policy (that "the percentage of minority students exceeded the percentage of minority teachers") did not serve a compelling state interest, and (2) the policy was not narrowly tailored (applied in such a way to fulfill only very specific goals) because it did not correctly remedy historical discrimination: the loss of a job due to discrimination was more harmful than denial of a job due to discrimination, the court said.[39][40]

### Gratz v. Bollinger[edit]

University of Michigan undergraduate campus

The University of Michigan used points scale to rank applicants, with 100 points needed to guarantee admission. The niversity gave an automatic 20-point bonus toward admission to underrepresented minorities. For comparison, the university awarded five points to applicants with extraordinary artistic talent. Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, both white residents of Michigan, applied for admission to the University of Michigan's College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA). Gratz applied for admission in the fall of 1995 and Hamacher in the fall of 1997. Both were subsequently denied admission to the university.[41][42]

In October 1997, Gratz and Hamacher filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the University of Michigan and Lee Bollinger, the university president at the time, claiming the policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court ruled that the admissions policy in effect from 1995 to 1998 was not narrowly tailored, but that the policy in effect during 1999 and 2000 was. Furthermore, it ruled that the latter policy served a "compelling interest" in increasing the diversity on campus.[41][42]

The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in conjunction with Grutter v. Bollinger. In its opinion issued June 23, 2003, the court upheld diversity as a compelling state interest that can justify the consideration of race in admissions. However, it struck down the rigid points system of the university. Because such a points system was not individualized, it did not meet the qualification of being "narrowly tailored" to achieve its purpose and was therefore unconstitutional. The court held that the policy violated both Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause.[41][42]

### Grutter v. Bollinger[edit]

University of Michigan Law School

In 1996, Barbara Grutter, a white woman with a 3.8 grade point average and 161 Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) score, applied to the University of Michigan Law School. Unlike the undergraduate school, the law school did not award a fixed number of points for race and ethnicity on applications. However, the law school did consider race in order to achieve a "critical mass" of diversity in the student body. When Grutter was rejected, she filed a lawsuit against the law school, claiming its consideration of race violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The law school, represented by Lee Bollinger, the university president at the time, claimed its policy was within the legal bounds set in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.[43][44][45]

Lee Bollinger

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that there was no compelling interest in achieving diversity and that Bakke had not set a binding precedent. To the court, the "critical mass" goal was the equivalent of a quota, and it ordered the university to end its consideration of race. The case was appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed all parts of the district court's opinion and upheld the university's consideration of race. The case was further appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to hear oral arguments in conjunction with Gratz v. Bollinger.[43][44][45]

While striking down the policy of the undergraduate school in Gratz, the Supreme Court upheld the law school's consideration of race. The court ruled that the law school's policy was highly individualized and therefore not in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. As long as the law school considered race as one factor among many to determine the "possible diversity contributions of all applicants," the admissions policy was legal.[43][44][45]

### Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action[edit]

The Michigan Civil Rights Amendment, a ballot initiative, was approved by voters in the November 2006 election. The amendment banned discrimination and preferential treatment in public education, employment and contracting. In response, the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigration Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary filed a lawsuit the very next day against then-Governor Jennifer Granholm (D) and "the regents and boards of trustees of three state universities" in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The group claimed that the prohibition of racial preferences in public education violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mike Cox (R), Attorney General of Michigan at the time, intervened as defendant for the state.[46][47]

The district court upheld the Michigan Civil Rights Amendment as constitutional in its decision, which was appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. By the time of the appeals trial, an election had taken place so that the state was now represented by Attorney General Bill Schuette (R). The court of appeals reversed the decision of the lower court, stating that the amendment altered the political process in an impermissible way. As part of its reasoning, the court compared the process of effecting change for a student seeking to enact legacy preferences at a public university, and a black student seeking to enact racial preferences. According to the court, the student seeking legacy preferences had several courses of action available, including lobbying the admissions committee or appealing to the school's governing board. By contrast, due to the amendment, a black student seeking racial preferences had only one course of action: amending the Michigan Constitution. The court declared this to be an unfair burden that violated the "Equal Protection Clause's guarantee that all citizens ought to have equal access to the tools of political change." Furthermore, the court stated that voters cannot take away the right of universities established by Grutter to "even consider using race as a factor in admissions decisions."[46][47]

The United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on appeal, and issued its opinion on April 22, 2014. The court ruled that the amendment was not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and that voters have the right to allow or prohibit the use of racial preferences and race-conscious admissions. It was not up to unelected members of the court to restrict the right of citizens of a state to make decisions through the democratic process. An attempt to "protect interests based on race" would subvert such a process and perpetuate racism rather than dismantle it.[47]

## Public opinion[edit]

National public opinion polls on affirmative action have yielded mixed results over the past few years. Results found by researchers seem to depend largely on how the question is worded. In particular, support drops considerably when the word "preferences" is included in the question. Supporters of affirmative action are more likely to do so to increase diversity rather than compensate for past injustice.[48][49]

Opinions also change when the question refers to college admissions specifically, and support and opposition are somewhat divided on racial lines, with black Americans being far more likely to favor affirmative action. In general, support for affirmative action has dropped since its peak in the early 1990s, when a poll by NBC News/Wall Street Journal found that 61 percent of Americans thought that affirmative action policies were still needed, compared to 45 percent in June 2013.[50]

### Support[edit]

Common reasons stated for supporting affirmative action include the following:[4][51]

* Diversity is valuable for any workplace or college campus.
* Minority enrollment in college would fall dramatically without affirmative action.
* Affirmative action provides the extra push to disadvantaged students that is needed to succeed.
* By providing minorities with new opportunities, affirmative action may introduce them to other interests they would not have discovered otherwise.
* Affirmative action is necessary to break stereotypes.
* Affirmative action compensates for past injustices.

### Opposition[edit]

Common arguments stated against affirmative action include the following:[51]

* Affirmative action policies have caused "reverse discrimination" against whites.
* According to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, affirmative action is unconstitutional.
* Since standards are lowered by preferential treatment, minorities only aim for those lower standards.
* Affirmative action causes a "mismatch effect" of underqualified students, leading to their failure at elite schools.
* Affirmative action is demeaning and condescending to minority achievement.
* It is too difficult to end affirmative action policies after they have been enacted, even when discrimination is no longer an issue.

## Agencies[edit]

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is "responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or employee because of the person's race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information." These federal laws typically apply to workplaces with 15 or more employees. The EEOC operates field offices in 15 districts. Michigan is served primarily by the Indianapolis District Office. See the table below for further information about EEOC field offices serving Michigan.[52]

EEOC field offices serving Michigan

Office  | Location  | Website
Indianapolis District Office | Indianapolis, Indiana | Link
Detroit Field office | Detroit, Michigan | Link
Cincinnati Area Office | Cincinnati, Ohio | Link
Louisville Area Office | Louisville, Kentucky | Link

In addition, states and localities may have their own anti-discrimination laws. Separate agencies, designated by the EEOC as Fair Employment Practices Agencies, are responsible for enforcing these laws. In Michigan, the Michigan Department of Civil Rights is a designated Fair Employment Practices Agency. See the table below for further information about this office.[53][54][55]

Fair Employment Practices Agencies in Michigan

Office  | Location  | Phone number  | Website
Michigan Department of Civil Rights | Lansing, Michigan | (517) 335-3165 | Link

## Affirmative action and anti-discrimination legislation[edit]

The following is a list of recent affirmative action and anti-discrimination bills that have been introduced in or passed by the  Michigan state legislature. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title. This information is provided by BillTrack50 and LegiScan.

Note: Due to the nature of the sorting process used to generate this list, some results may not be relevant to the topic. If no bills are displayed below, no legislation pertaining to this topic has been introduced in the legislature recently.

## See also[edit]

* Affirmative action
* Affirmative action ballot measures
* Higher education in Michigan
* Fourteenth Amendment
* Civil Liberties Policy

## External links[edit]

* Michigan Department of Civil Rights
* Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

## Footnotes[edit]

1. ↑ Oyez, "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke," accessed February 11, 2015
2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Miller Center of Public Affairs, "Affirmative Action: Race or Class?" accessed February 10, 2015
3. ↑ Business and Legal Resources, "Affirmative Action," accessed March 31, 2015
4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 National Conference of State Legislatures, "Affirmative Action | Overview," February 7, 2015
5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Infoplease, "Affirmative Action History," accessed February 10, 2015
6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Infoplease, "Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones," accessed February 10, 2015
7. ↑ The United States Department of Justice, "Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," accessed February 24, 2015
8. ↑ U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," accessed February 24, 2015
9. ↑ Legal Information Institute, "Regents of the Uni v. of Cal. v. Bakke," accessed May 28, 2015
10. ↑ Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `sffa`
11. ↑ Cite error: Invalid `<ref>` tag; no text was provided for refs named `apsffa`
12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 National Conference of State Legislatures, "Affirmative Action: State Action," accessed April 21, 2015
13. ↑ FindLaw, "What is Discrimination?" accessed May 29, 2015
14. ↑ Merriam-Webster, "Discrimination," accessed May 29, 2015
15. ↑ The Brookings Institution, "Racial and Ethnic Preference," November 1996
16. ↑ Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, "Affirmative Action: Twenty-five Years of Controversy," accessed May 28, 2015
17. ↑ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Affirmative Action," September 17, 2013
18. ↑ Dictionary.com, "Reverse discrimination," accessed May 29, 2015
19. ↑ FindLaw, "Reverse Discrimination," accessed May 29, 2015
20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Society for Human Resource Management, "EEO: General: What is the difference between EEO, affirmative action and diversity?" September 20, 2012
21. ↑ Study.com, "What is Equal Employment Opportunity? - Definition, Laws & Policies," accessed May 29, 2015
22. ↑ Dictionary.com, "Diversity," accessed May 29, 2015
23. ↑ Luther College, "What Is Diversity?" accessed May 29, 2015
24. ↑ Association of American Colleges and Universities, "Broadening Our Definition of Diversity," accessed May 29, 2015
25. ↑ The Atlantic, "The Painful Truth About Affirmative Action," October 2, 2012
26. ↑ Sander, R. & Taylor S. (2012). Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It. Basic Books.
27. ↑ US Legal Definitions, "Quota System Law & Legal Definition," accessed November 12, 2015
28. ↑ National Review, "Half a Win on Racial Discrimination," accessed November 12, 2015
29. ↑ Newsmax "Report: Affirmative Action Does More Harm Than Good," May 2, 2005
30. ↑ Investopedia, "Ratchet Effect," accessed December 19, 2017
31. ↑ Higher Ed Jobs, "Facts and Myths of Affirmative Action," accessed March 25, 2015
32. ↑ PBS, "Challenging Race Sensitive Admissions Policies," May 19, 2015
33. ↑ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Affirmative Action," September 17, 2013
34. ↑ Sander, R. & Taylor S. (2012). Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It. Basic Books.
35. ↑ MIT Human Resources: Diversity & Inclusion, "What is an Affirmative Action Plan," accessed May 28, 2015
36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 Business and Legal Resources, "Michigan Affirmative Action: What you need to know," accessed March 31, 2015
37. ↑ 37.0 37.1 37.2 37.3 Nolo, "Employment Discrimination in Michigan," accessed April 24, 2015
38. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 Oyez "Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education," accessed December 21, 2015
40. ↑ 40.0 40.1 FindLaw, "WYGANT v. JACKSON BOARD OF EDUCATION," accessed December 21, 2015
41. ↑ 41.0 41.1 41.2 Casebriefs, "Gratz v. Bollinger," accessed April 30, 2015
42. ↑ 42.0 42.1 42.2 Oyez, "Gratz v. Bollinger," accessed April 30, 2015
43. ↑ 43.0 43.1 43.2 Oyez, "Grutter v. Bollinger," accessed April 30, 2015
44. ↑ 44.0 44.1 44.2 Casebriefs, "Grutter v. Bollinger," accessed April 30, 2015
45. ↑ 45.0 45.1 45.2 FindLaw, "Grutter v. Bollinger et. al.," accessed April 30, 2015
46. ↑ 46.0 46.1 United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, "Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action," accessed April 30, 2015
47. ↑ 47.0 47.1 47.2 Oyez, "Schuette v. BAMN," accessed April 30, 2015
48. ↑ The New York Times, "Answers on Affirmative Action Depend on How You Pose the Question," April 22, 2014
49. ↑ CBS News, "Poll: Slim majority backs same-sex marriage," June 6, 2013
50. ↑ NBC News, "NBC News/WSJ poll: Affirmative action support at historic low," June 11, 2013
51. ↑ 51.0 51.1 BalancedPolitics.org, "Should affirmative action policies, which give preferential treatment based on minority status, be eliminated?" accessed February 16, 2015
52. ↑ U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "EEOC Office List and Jurisdictional Map," accessed November 12, 2015
53. ↑ U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs) and Dual Filing," accessed November 12, 2015
54. ↑ TheLaw.com, "List of State Fair Employment Practices Agencies," accessed November 12, 2015
55. ↑ Michigan Department of Civil Rights, "MDCR," accessed November 13, 2015

v • e

State of Michigan
Lansing (capital)

|

Elections |

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2026 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government |

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

* * *

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond
External Relations:  Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

* * *

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams, Managing Editor of Events • Joseph Greaney, Managing Editor of Policy • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Victoria Edwards • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Brandon McCauley • Andrew McNair • Ellie Mikus • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Heather Yates