The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (1 comment)

  1. Actually, the enrollment data from UM shows that when comparing 2004 [pre-amendment] to 2013 [post-amendment], there has been virtually no change in the percentage of whites, Asians, and Hispanics. What has changed is that the percentage of blacks and native Americans has dropped… offset by the new ethnic category “two or more.” Blacks and whites are both “underrepresented” if representation means having a student mix equal to the state mix.

    I’d guess that the “over-represented” Asian student population is a result of the significantly higher tuition paid by foreign students which is simply good business on the part of the University. So it appears that the only group to have benefited from the amendment is “two or more” and that happened abruptly in 2010… three years after the amendment.

    Of course, another explanation could be that the University of Michigan simply created a false “problem” with the change to how students are categorized.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:


Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Refine Content