Michigan voters banned some affirmative action programs last week, but Georgetown administrators say that the ballot initiative’s victory will not influence racial admissions policies on the Hilltop.

The victory of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, also known as Proposition 2, drew mixed reactions from educational institutions, students and lobbyists.

The initiative, which was supported by 58 percent of voters during last Tuesday’s election, will amend the state constitution to prohibit public educational institutions and state agencies from giving preferential treatment to students based on race and gender. The initiative’s victory makes Michigan the third state to forbid affirmative action programs, following California and Washington.

Critics – including several colleges and lobbying organizations – argue that the ban may jeopardize programs that help minority students attend Michigan’s public colleges. By Any Means Necessary, a civil rights advocacy group, filed two lawsuits against the proposal last Wednesday.

University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman said in a public statement last Wednesday that although she plans to abide by the law, she would initiate legal actions and continue the university’s programs to promote diversity.

“I am deeply disappointed that the voters of our state have rejected affirmative action as a way to help build a community that is fair and equal for all,” Coleman said in the statement. “But we will not be deterred in the all-important work of creating a diverse, welcoming campus. We will not be deterred.”

John Nagle, senior assistant director at Georgetown’s Office of Undergraduate Admissions, said that the ban will probably not resonate with most of the nation and private institutions will likely continue their affirmative action programs.

“[The initiative] would not affect anything we would do here,” he said. “I think that private universities will continue to use their policy in regard to affirmative action.”

Marjorie Powell, an employee in the university’s Affirmative Action Office, agreed when she said that Georgetown “will maintain its course.”

While the ban will not have a direct impact on Georgetown, it may disadvantage the university’s minority students who wish to apply to colleges and educational programs in Michigan. She said that such programs may include state-funded scholarships for students studying in certain fields and applying to certain research programs.

This is not the first time that Michigan has been at the forefront of the affirmative action debate. In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled, in two joint cases, to uphold the affirmative action admissions policies of the University of Michigan’s law school. In the same rulings the court rejected the university’s affirmative action policy for undergraduates.

Nagle said that although these cases did not affect Georgetown’s admissions policies because the university was already in compliance with the law, he added that Georgetown does significantly consider race as a factor in assessing applications.

“At the same time, we do encourage our admission committee to look for students who come from minority background and who can bring diversity to Georgetown,” he said.