4 Monday, June 16, 2008 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com EFte ffidigan &il Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. AnnArbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@umich.edu EMMARIE HUETTEMAN EDITOR IN CHIEF GARY GRACA MANAGING EDITOR KATE TRUESDELL EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR Unsigned editorials reflect theuofficial position of the Daily's editorial board. Allother signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views ofttheir authors. FROM T EALtY Tallying the damage TWo years later, 'U' data suggests fighting harder against ban W hen underrepresented minority acceptance plummeted in the first admis- sions cycle after the affirmative action ban passed in 2006, the University chalked it up as a misleading anomaly. This year's admissions class would be the one that mattered - the first freshman class admitted completely without race- and gender-based affirmative action. And the results aren't as clear as everyone had predicted. The one clear thing, though, is that Michigan's ban on race- and gender-based affirmative action continues to be an unnecessary restriction on the University's ability to maintain a diverse campus. Joble s S need ai d Unemployed require help from feds A merica's unemployed unemployment benefits was usually have just 26 first brought to the House last weeks to pick them- Wednesday, a week after the selves back up. But Thursday, national increase in unemploy- the U. S. House of Representa- ment was realized. tives passed a bill extending Ideally, each state would the time Americans can receive provide unemployment aid unemployment benefits from 26 according to its individual eco- weeks to 39 weeks. while this nomic need. State-basedunem- bill would be an encouraging ployment benefit programs are starttorejuvenatingthe national unlikely to function, however, economy, Bush and Congressio- in states that are already suf- nal Republicans have said that fering from failing economies benefit extensions are only nec- and high unemployment rates. essary when the national unem- Michigan and the other states ployment rate is far beyond 5.5 on the high end of the unem- percent. But even by these "con- ployment rate spectrum need servative" standards, Michigan's immediate federal attention to 6.9-percent unemployment rate bolster their economies. certainly qualifies. Michigan's As hopeful as this may sound jobless are in dire need of eco- for unemployed individuals nomic relief, and federal level around the country, Repub- assistance is necessary to fund licans in the Senate and offi- the benefits extension. cials at the White House have The House bill, which passed already announced that they 274 to 137 Thursday, grants an find the bill extremely waste- additional 13 weeks of benefits ful. The Bush administration to all states and another 13 has said that such federal bene- weeks on top of that to states fit expansion programs should whose unemployment rates only be implemented when exceed 6 percent. This means the national unemployment that Michigan residents would rate significantly exceeds be promised one full year of 5.5 percent. This means $300-per- week that suffering states benefit like Michigan, Cali- checks to fornia, Rhode Island aid them and Alaska will not during a get the funding difficult they need just job hunt. In because the addition to unemployment giving Ameri- °.rate for the cans more time to rest of the find new jobs, the fl country bill eradicates the 'h isn't high current precondi- jenough. tion that individu- If the als work at least federal 20 weeks before bill fails receiving any benefit to pass, it falls to checks. the state of Michigan While Michigan's unem- to pass the benefits extension ployment rate has been above legislation itself and make sure 6 percent since late 2001, the the state's jobless are helped. need for federal relief nation- With any hope, however, it wide became particularly pro- won't come to that. The Senate nounced last month when the and the President must recog- national unemployment rate nize the needs of the jobless in jumped from 5 percent in April extreme cases like these and to 5.5 percent in May. Finally, accept this bill as a necessary the spike in the unemployment part of getting the unemployed rate caught the government's - and the state economy - attention. The bill to extend back on their feet. 4 Any drop in minority enroll- ment should be considered a defeat. To ignore factors like "race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin" is to ignore certain realities about inequal- ity. The fact of the matter'is that these variables translate to struc- tural disadvantages. It's true that working on improving elementary and sec- ondary education and rebuilding theframeworkthatdisadvantages so many before they even pick up college applications is important. But acknowledging the fact that individuals don't control these circumstances and can't change them alone is equally impor- tant. That's why, when it comes to admitting students to higher learning institutes, accepting a race- and gender-blind applica- tion is tantamount to turning a blind eye to injustice. The effects Michigan's ban appear to be two-fold. First, it's evident that the number of underrepresented minority students who even bothered to apply hasn't kept pace with gen- eral admissions. Although the University saw a 15.6-percent increase in the total number of applicants this year as compared to two years ago, underrepre- sented minority applications increased at only a third of that rate, a mere 4.6 percent. More alarming, the number of underrepresented minority applications received this year dropped by 2.0 percent from last year - and that's despite the efforts to increase minor- ity recruitment that the Univer- sity says it's making. This seems to indicate that even before the applications reach the desks of admissions officers, the state's ban on affirmative action may be taking its toll by discouraging students from even applying. And that's not the last of it. Race- and gender-blind admis- sions have had an unacceptable affect on the admissions of those who do bother applying, as evi- denced by the fact that 200 less underrepresented minorities were admitted this year com- pared to 2006, although 122 more applied. Granted, overall accep- tance rates have also fallen. But any way you slice it, the numbers show that minority students are being hurt by this ban. Truth be told, the drop in minority admissions isn't as staggering as it could have been. Following the passage of similar legislation, other states saw egre- gious drops. Opponents of affir- mative action have argued that drastic drops indicate that uni- versities are making changes sig- nificant enough to comply with affirmative action bans. Viewed in this light, one can't help but wonder how much effort the University of Michigan is putting into ignoring the checkboxes it has promised to disregard. And if that effort is minimal, it should be applauded. Less speculatively, the Univer- sity has its work cut out for it. It's clear that the affirmative action ban is having an effect. If increas- ing recruitment efforts still resulted in a drop in both appli- cants and admissions for under- represented minorities, the only solution is for the University to double that effort, taking every measure possible to fight the intended affects of banning affir- mative action. The state needs to overturn the restriction. But until that happens, the Univer- sity needs to unify with students to keep fighting the good fight. 4 4