In its "quick hits" editorials, the Detroit News opines that a 10% plan for Michigan in the wake of Proposal 2 is a bad idea. I didn't catch where this was being seriously considered, but I agree with the Detroit News here. The inflexible % plans create other issues that aren't worth it, particularly when, in Michigan, far improved local outreach and increased selectivity among the national pool of minority applicants, would be at least 75% effective. Add socio-economic tools and simply focusing on long-term repair of troubled K-12 districts, and U-Michigan should be able to accomplish what it needs in a decade. Of course, that implies that U-M policy makes will actually commit to a long-term program, rather than seek a short-term "fix", and such an implication is always dangerous in that ivory tower.