Talk:Mary Sue Coleman

message: I don't have time to properly fix this article or find sources, but I'm hoping someone can. The information presented in the article is blatantly biased and incorrect with regards to affirmative action and the Supreme Court case. Whatever your opinion about Mary Sue Coleman, she was NOT the president of the University of Michigan at the time the SC cases began, and she did not originate the University's previous affirmative action policies or admission policies - she took over the university with these policies already in place, and with the court cases already in progress for several years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.235.33 (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added a NPOV tag to the article, and will second the anonymous comment posted immediately above. The piece on affirmative action does not objectively describe the policy, the rationale of supporters, or its intent and execution; implies that quotas were used when in fact they've been illegal since Bakke; is entirely factually inaccurate with regard to Coleman's role vis-a-vis Bollinger's; and quite blatantly violates NPOV guidelines with statements such as: "It is generally agreed that her actions have set back race relations in the state 50 years." Ropcat 23:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've attempted to address the NPOV issues. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 03:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks everyone who's worked on the NPOV issues over the last week or two. IMO, there are still a few problems we should work on. First, this sentence -- "After assuming the presidency of the university, she embarked on one of the most ambitious social engineering programs in the US" -- is both inaccurate and POV; the U-Mich policies were begun long before she took the helm (i.e. she didn't "embark" on these policies), and also it's rather POV to dub these admissions preferences "one of the most ambitious social engineering programs in the US." Second, this sentence -- "Admission policy was changed from one based on academic achievement to one that would make the racial makeup of the student body mirror that of local demographics." -- has problems, since the U-Mich affirmative action policies were never keyed to "local" demographics, and also since this implies that academic achievement was eliminated from admission criteria, which isn't the case. Third, it's inaccurate to say that the constitutional amendment "bann[ed] race-based quotas in education and hiring," since quotas have been illegal since Bakke in the late 1970s. Fourth, although Coleman did state that "she intends to challenge the initiative and any potential implications it may have for the university," as the article has it, she publicly abandoned that strategy several days later. Ropcat 01:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the followup. I saw those three first sentences added yesterday (or was it today? it's been a long day) but wasn't sure how true they were so I was going to leave them in for someone more familiar with the situation to address. I couldn't find a follow-up source so if you have one we can amend that fourth sentence. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 01:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: My memory of this comes from that of an 1978 alumni and a long time donor who heard this person's (Mary Sue Colemen's comments) after the ballot initiative passed--her comments basically said (please someone, find the audio of this) that "I'm not going to follow the will of the voters and we're going to do this anyway so f you voters"--admit based on racial preferences.  It was a blatant, in-your-face-endorsement of discrimination.  I wrote the University that day and told them I will not send them any more money--that their President's disregard for the wisdom of the people of their state was disturbing and disgusting.  This is my memory that came from actual behavior of having given this institution money for years only to be shocked by the behavior of this elitist individual who plainly had a disdain and disregard for the people who entitled her through their taxes.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.197.127.64 (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

text: If it was a properly-sourced quote, then it would be an appropriate inclusion. Your comparison is flawed. PSUMark2006 talk | contribs 02:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: I think there should be a separate section that shows that she was the interim president. Other interims had designated sections titled “Interim President of the University of Michigan” Gregcar195467 (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interim