Reps. Brandenburg, Drolet, Milosch, Hummel, Stahl, Koetje, Palmer, Vander Veen, Caswell, Pastor, Garfield, Acciavatti, Nitz, Hune, Robertson, Amos, Bradstreet, Casperson, Ehardt, Gaffney, Hoogendyk, Julian, LaJoy, Law, Meyer, Nofs, Pappageorge, Richardville, Rocca, Sheen, Shulman, Van Regenmorter, Voorhees and Palsrok offered the following resolution:

            House Resolution No. 20.

            A resolution to express opposition to the University of Michigan’s admissions policies that factor race, geography, or other non-meritorious factors into the evaluation of applicants and to urge the United States Supreme Court to rule against the University’s policies in the pending case.

Whereas, The purpose of a university or any institution of higher learning is to foster academic growth through academic debate among scholars who have been selected to attend institutions of higher learning because of their excellent achievement in previous studies; and

Whereas, Granting preferential admissions to students on the basis of their race, geography, or other non-meritorious criteria neither fosters healthy academic debate nor advances the most basic purposes of higher learning; and

Whereas, Such preferential treatment in university admissions policies fails to recognize and celebrate the academic achievement of individual students, and the policies are at odds with the principle of the Declaration of Independence and the belief that "all men are created equal" and;

Whereas, Such preferential admissions policies are also fundamentally at odds with the United States Constitution’s principle of equality under law and violate the spirit of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of Michigan of 1963, which states that no person shall "be denied the enjoyment of his civil of political rights or be discriminated against in the exercise thereof because of religion, race, color or national origin"; and

Whereas, As Justice Douglas wrote in his opinion in DeFunis v. Odegaard (416 U.S. 312 [1974]): "A [person] who is white is entitled to no advantage by reason of that fact; nor is he subject to any disability, no matter what his race or color.  Whatever his race, he had a constitutional right to have his application considered on its individual merits in a racially neutral matter"; and

Whereas, The State of Michigan has a compelling interest in promoting scholarship and higher learning, as it serves to benefit the welfare of the people of this state; and

Whereas, The State of Michigan recognizes the merits of the plaintiffs participating in Grutter v. Bollinger, et al. and Gratz and Hamacher v. Bollinger, et al.; now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives, That we express our opposition the University of Michigan’s admissions policies that factor race, geography, or other non-meritorious criteria into the evaluation of applicants.  We urge the University of Michigan to end such policies, and we urge the United States Supreme Court to rule against the university’s policies in Grutter v. Bollinger, et al. and Gratz and Hamacher v. Bollinger, et al.; and be it further

Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the United States Supreme Court and the Board of Regents and the President of the University of Michigan.