Yet, higher education admissions are discussed as if they address this complex landscape of issues, when the scope of affirmative action policies in higher education is limited, though the two are interrelated.

Obama, who is a proponent of affirmative action, described these forms of legalized discrimination in his speech on race, saying that “…blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, …which meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations.”

Thomas Shapiro’s 2004 text “The Hidden Costs of Being African American” discusses racial inequalities between whites and blacks with respect to housing that ultimately impact education. He coins the term “transformative assets,” which can be defined as the “inherited wealth from previous generations that lift families beyond their own achievements.”

By the same logic, families can also ‘inherit’ poverty. Shapiro argues that a lack of these assets combined with racial discrimination, in areas like home ownership, crucially impact the everyday lives of many black families. This in essence perpetuates a “cycle of poverty.”

By the same logic, families can also “inherit” poverty. Shapiro argues that a lack of these assets combined with racial discrimination in areas such as homeownership impact education because the monetary value of homes translate directly into public school funding. And adequate public schools translate into adequate collegiate preparation that makes students competitive for admission into institutions such as the University of Michigan.

MICHIGAN AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

The University has a long legacy of trying to obtain diversity that extends far beyond Supreme Court hearings and ballot measure battles. In “Defending Diversity,” a text on the University of Michigan’s journey to acquire a diverse environment, it notes that prioritizing the educational value of students from different regions or different socio-economic backgrounds can be dated as far back as 1879 to initiatives led by former University President James B. Angell.

It wasn’t until the late 1960s that race and gender started to be considered in the admissions process. However, it’s seldom acknowledged that affirmative action at the University has always considered race among many other factors that, for better or for worse, have not been afforded the same scrutiny. The objections to the 1996 “quota” system exemplify the difference between the negative attention that race preferences garnered in comparison to the indifference shown to other criteria.

During the life of the University’s point system, points were given to students based on numerous identity categories. Simply living in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula awarded prospective students 16 points; 4 points were given to students with alumni parents or grandparents; 10 points were even awarded to students coming from top high schools. Yet, this Supreme Court ruling did not question the constitutionality of other admission policies, such as geography, in this decision.

"I don't understand why race is [only] talked about in terms of preference in the admissions process when athletes and those who have legacy status are given extra consideration,” said Lishaun Francis, Chair of Students of Color in Public Policy. “An attack on race and not the other categories is just racially biased."

In the aftermath of the 2003 Supreme Court decision, the undergraduate office of admissions espoused an approach that took on the policies of the law school’s holistic process. The 2003 decision appeared as a compromise for those on all sides of the debate. Yet, those who sought to end affirmative action continued on and eventually succeeded.

Since Prop. 2’s implementation in 2007, ones geographic, legacy or athletic status, among other factors, can be counted in the admissions process. But to be clear, nothing has changed since 2003 except for the exclusion of race, ethnicity, gender or national origin. The tool that has been used to aid in the University’s quest for the ideal education environment calls upon the late president Angell’s commitment to prioritizing geographic and socioeconomic factors.

The new system, Descriptor Plus, is a computer software program that allows the Office of Admissions to identify geographic areas as they correlate with demographics that are underrepresented at the University. This system provides information on the racial and gender break down of an area, however application reviewers are not allowed to proactively utilize race and gender information when making decisions on admissions.

But on the University’s “Diversity Matters” Website, the University fully discloses the limitations of this tool.