Executive Summary
In 2006, Michigan voters adopted Proposal 2, a constitutional amendment banning affirmative action
programs designed to increase race and gender diversity and inclusion in education, government
employment and state contracts in Michigan.
Key Findings:
A lack of data being
maintained by state and
municipal government,
hampering adequate
examination of Proposal
2’s effect.
Extensive outreach has
allowed some
organizations to maintain
past levels of diversity,
such as in undergraduate
enrollment.
Diversity has dropped
dramatically in some
areas, particularly in
contracting and in
enrollment in some
professional schools.
The constitutional amendment ended efforts by university,
state, and local government officials to overcome a legacy of
discrimination against people of color and women in a variety
of arenas. It left standing, however, affirmative action
programs in the private sector, where smart business leaders
have long recognized the value of diversity and inclusion in
creating companies that better meet the needs of the
marketplace they must operate in every day.
The Michigan Roundtable for Diversity and Inclusion was
selected by the leaders of the campaign against Proposal 2,
One United Michigan, to become the repository for
information and a touchstone for organizations engaged in
the campaign. Michigan Roundtable has convened sessions
with supporters of affirmative action, academics and political
campaign experts to examine the aftermath of other
affirmative action ballot proposals.
A consensus evolved that data showing the changes in hiring,
enrollment and contracts is vital to determine the real impact of eliminating affirmative action and to
allow policymakers to consider actions that may be needed to address ongoing discrimination. To that
end, Michigan Roundtable enlisted the assistance of Data Driven Detroit and Martin Waymire Advocacy
Communications to seek information about racial and gender diversity in state and local government
agencies. There is no central repository for this information unfortunately; meaning the search for
records was time consuming. Therefore the data obtained is not exhaustive – some likely remains that
could add to the picture being drawn. Having said that, this paper represents a good start by the
Michigan Roundtable in examining the impact of Proposal 2 on Michigan.
In general, it finds:
A lack of data being maintained by state and municipal government, hampering adequate
examination of Proposal 2’s effect. This was particularly true when it comes to determining
diversity in police departments around the state – an impact that may be particularly important
given recent evidence of disproportionate arrests of African Americans compared to whites
when it comes to marijuana-related charges.
Some areas where extensive outreach has allowed organizations to maintain past levels of
diversity. Undergraduate enrollment diversity has remained relatively steady as universities
have redoubled their campaigns to continue attracting well-qualified applicants, particularly
from urban communities with high proportions of people of color.
Some areas where diversity has dropped dramatically, particularly in contracting and in
enrollment in some professional schools. The decrease in diversity in the executive office of the
State of Michigan is particularly noticeable.
Efforts by some communities to continue obtaining good data should be applauded. The City of Grand
Rapids is one of those. Other communities seem to want not to know the answers to difficult questions,
and avoidance of data collection seems to be a useful way to escape tough scrutiny.
The report is intended to offer policymakers, academics, and others who may wish to continue following
these trends a baseline of diversity and a short snapshot of the first years following the end of
affirmative action in state and local governments. The report also takes into account the state’s history
of segregation and discrimination, as well as the recent effects of the 2008 Great Recession which hit
people of color particularly hard partially because of this history.
Ideally, others will use this data in years to come as they engage in discussions about how best to
address discrimination that, by most accounts, continues to affect hiring, contracting and educational
opportunities in our state, and whether affirmative action is a tool that should be returned to the box of
policy alternatives needed to fight discrimination and inequality.
For more information visit: www.miroundtable.org/affirmactiondenied.htm