Voters in Nebraska approved a measure that will ban affirmative-action programs based on race, gender, and national origin at public institutions, including colleges, while a similar vote in Colorado was too close to call, and Michigan residents relaxed that state’s restrictions on embryonic-stem-cell research.
Those measures were among 19 referenda related to higher education that voters in 15 states were deciding on Tuesday. The ballot questions included proposals to create state lotteries to finance scholarships and questions about whether to issue bonds to pay for campus construction.
In 11 states, voters also elected governors. Democrats won seven of those races, and Republicans four. Among the new state executives voted into office was Jay Nixon, a Democrat of Missouri who proposed to offer scholarships worth four years of tuition to students who begin their education at a community college, maintain a certain grade-point average, and perform community service; and Beverly E. Perdue, a Democrat of North Carolina who has called for significantly expanding a need-based scholarship program for community-college students.
Bans on Preferences
The affirmative-action measures in Colorado and Nebraska, which were advocated by the same organization that won passage of a similar measure in Michigan two years ago (The Chronicle, November 17, 2006), called for prohibiting the use of race, gender, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.
Many higher-education leaders in Colorado and Nebraska had publicly opposed the proposals, and university officials in both states said a ban would force them to consider significant changes in their operations, such as eliminating or altering financial-aid programs that benefit women or minority students.
“We believe the impact could be quite broad,” said James B. Milliken, president of the University of Nebraska system. “We’re not prepared to say any of these programs would have to be eliminated, but we will have to review any policies related to race or gender.”
The Nebraska proposal, however, faces a legal challenge. A lawsuit alleging that signatures needed to get the measure on the ballot were illegally obtained has yet to be decided. Should the challenge be upheld, it would invalidate the vote. Both sides in the case have said they would appeal an unfavorable decision to the state’s Supreme Court.
Preparing to Alter Programs
If the Nebraska measure does take effect, and the Colorado measure passes, college leaders in those states say they will have to at least adjust some of their programs.
The University of Colorado at Boulder is the only public institution in either Colorado or Nebraska that uses race as a factor in undergraduate admissions, although graduate programs at several institutions in both states do. Bans on use of race and gender in those states may, therefore, would have their greatest effect on how institutions award financial aid and operate outreach programs.
Such was the case at some institutions in Michigan after that state’s ban took effect. Grand Valley State University, for instance, a public institution that does not consider race in admissions, saw its minority enrollment decline by 30 percent following the passage of the ballot measure, because the university had to eliminate a full-tuition scholarship program for minority students who met certain academic requirements.
Administrators in Colorado and Nebraska are still determining which of their programs might need to be discontinued or altered. Mr. Milliken said programs at Nebraska that encourage women to pursue mathematics, an open-house event that had been used to recruit Hispanic students, and the medical center’s partnership with historically black colleges in Virginia would probably have to be either discontinued or altered to include a broader group of students.
A study conducted by the University of Colorado found that many of its efforts to recruit students, and many of its student-services programs as well, would be able to continue even if the ban passes. But officials are unsure about the fate of more than 100 donor-sponsored scholarships that are awarded to minority students and women.
Colorado has held off on awarding that aid until after the results of the vote on the ballot measure were known. The scholarships are financed by outside individuals but administered by the university, which says it plans to work with donors to “preserve the spirit of their financial contributions.”
Nancy McCallin, president of the Colorado Community College System, which enrolls 48 percent of all minority students who attend public colleges in the state, said the law would probably require the system to eliminate programs that seek to help minority students. She mentioned one effort that focuses on improving the retention rates of black males. The program, she said, helped increase the retention rate of such students by 41 percent in one year.
“We know these programs make a difference in whether these students complete their education,” Ms. McCallin said. “We will have to change the way we do business.”
Bans in Other States
Higher-education officials in Colorado and Nebraska can look to their colleagues in California, Michigan, and Washington—the three states where similar bans already exist—to get a sense of how their programs and enrollments might change. The effects of changes in university admissions practices in those three states have been mixed.
The University of California’s campuses in Berkeley and Los Angeles saw declines in minority-student enrollment of 65 percent and 45 percent, respectively, in the 10 years following the state’s approval of a ballot proposal, in 1996, that banned the use of race in admissions.
The University of Michigan, however, saw just a 2-percent decline in minority enrollment this year, the first full admissions cycle since voters approved a ban on affirmative action in 2006.
Michigan was able to limit the reduction, officials there said, in part because it adopted alternative strategies to award financial aid and recruit students from underrepresented backgrounds. Administrators in Colorado and Nebraska said they hope to pursue similar approaches.
The University of Michigan, for instance, focused its recruiting efforts on high schools that traditionally cater to minority groups, as well as to students in single-parent homes and other indicators of socioeconomic class. Michigan created two scholarship programs that use similar criteria. Mary Sue Coleman, the university’s president, and other administrators made personal calls to prospective students from those demographic groups.
The alumni association, for its part, created a fund that gives out 25 scholarships to students from minority groups. The group can do so because the scholarships are entirely financed and administered by the association, not the university.
Advocates of the anti-affirmative-action ballot measures say Colorado and Nebraska will probably not be the last states to consider such proposals. Although supporters failed to gather enough signatures to get the proposals on ballots in Arizona, Missouri, and Oklahoma this year, this year’s victory in Nebraska and close vote in Colorado, along with the Michigan measure’s success in 2006, could embolden efforts infuture elections.
Ward Connerly, president of the American Civil Rights Initiative, the group that has campaigned for each of the affirmative-action bans, suggested he is prepared to push similar measures in other states.
“If the success of Senator Obama is not the most visible example of the right time to pull the plug on this, I don’t know what is,” Mr. Connerly said in an interview before the final votes in Colorado and Nebraska were tallied. “If both pass, then we will really place other states on our radar.”
Stem-Cell Vote in Michigan
Meanwhile, in Michigan, several research universities stood to benefit after voters passed an amendment that eases restrictions on stem-cell research in the state. The measure allows researchers to create stem-cell lines from human embryos that otherwise would have been discarded at fertility clinics in the state. Michigan had previously been one of just five states that banned the creation of embryonic stem-cell lines for research.
“Perception is reality,” said Stephen Rapundalo, executive director of MichBio, a nonprofit advocacy group that focuses on expanding the life-sciences industry in the state. “When investors look at Michigan and see that the state has these kind of restrictive laws on its books, it’s not a very welcoming environment.”
While the measure does not include provisions for state money to finance stem-cell research, a change in public perception could bolster life-sciences fields at the state’s universities. Both the University of Michigan and Michigan State University have some of the top researchers in the field of adult stem-cell research but have had trouble soliciting grant money and recruiting researchers who work with embryonic stem cells.
“Right now Michigan’s laws are so restrictive that people who specialize in embryonic stem cells won’t even apply to the university,” said Sean J. Morrison, director of the University of Michigan’s Center for Stem Cell Biology. “There are existing faculty that have projects that are dead in the water here.”
State law had previously allowed research on embryonic stem cells only if they were obtained from elsewhere and not created within the state. It was a situation that created headaches for researchers. For instance, Mr. Morrison said, one research group at the university is hoping to study Huntington’s disease but has been unable to find the necessary stem-cell lines, even after months of searching out of state.
Under the new state law, researchers in Michigan will be dependent on the supply of embryos from fertility clinics, but the lifting of the stigma associated with the restrictions may help academic research efforts in Michigan. Mr. Morrison said one researcher had left for Stanford University in part because of Michigan’s restrictive laws. At a symposium this year at the University of Michigan, Larry Goldstein, director of the stem-cell program at the University of California at San Diego, said he would “do his damnedest” to recruit Michigan researchers if the ballot issue did not pass.
“Our institution is always looking to recruit the very best,” Mr. Goldstein said in an interview, adding that he had already been in contact with several researchers at Michigan about moving to California. “Every time a state chooses to have scientific policies that prevent scientists from doing research at their own institutions, we’re interested.”
Michigan’s public universities were not allowed to take an official position on the initiative. But a few days before the election, Ms. Coleman, of the University of Michigan, who has been a vocal proponent of stem-cell research, wrote letters to the editor that were published in multiple Michigan newspapers, encouraging voters to “educate” themselves on stem-cell research.
The amendment’s enactment is not a done deal. Tom George, a Republican state senator, has said he would attempt to block it in court.
Researchers could also face challenges like those that have occurred in other states. In Missouri, where a similar proposal passed with 51 percent of the vote two years ago, state legislators who oppose such research helped turn back a proposed $87-million research facility at the University of Missouri.