Zarko Research enjoyed 2007.

It was a year in which the Michigan Education Association (MEA) sued (May 8) to stop us from using FOIA to uncover misuse of taxpayer-funded resources by union leaders in the Howell Public School system during a collective-bargaining battle. Nothing wrong with aggressive bargaining - just don't use public resources to tip the hand in your favor. The Detroit News opined in our favor here.

Since that litigation began, Zarko Research has properly joined the matter. The story related to the Howell e-mail FOIA lawsuit spawned this whole category here, and has already resulted in a limited production of e-mails.

In July, this blog again set trends in publishing the salary databases, with serious statistical analysis of employee growth rates and salary increases, of the University of Michigan and Michigan State University. The data debunked the notion that higher-education tuition increases were a result of lack of legislative appropriate or "cuts" by the legislature. The increases are explained by grotesque growth rates in bureaucracy and administration at all universities - where competition is either perverse or non-existent. Here is The U-Michigan analysis and the
MSU analysis.

Finally, in August and September, Zarko Research spawned new blogs, with the idea of increasing the penetration and prominence of our publishing business to more niches, locally and statewide. This blog remains intended for the issues we've focused on in the past, and for a "hodgepodge" of other miscellaneous issues not easily fit into the boxes of "OutsideLansing.com" and "OaklandPolitics.com".

OutsideLansing has broke significant original news, including the filing of a campaign finance complaint against billionaire Jon Stryker in November, and FOIA'd e-mail from Central Michigan University on the Dennis Lennox case cited by Dawson Bell in the Detroit Free Press just this month. OaklandPolitics tapped into the presidential election news cycle, breaking the story of Paul Garfield's termination from the Ron Paul campaign, covering Duncan Hunter's speech here in Pontiac with original video, and covering a number of other issues.

And the force is with both blogs as the statewide columnist Jack Lessenberry has equated Zarko Research to "Zark-Vader".

Of course, there are a thousand little threads leftover I haven't mentioned, and several of them will wind their way into 2008, but look forward to more of the same and some curveballs. Full speed ahead.

Time to revive an old ZR analysis of U-M data manipulation. Read that along with with last week's ZR exclusive on U-M administrative growth, and yesterday's piece by Marisa Schultz of the Detroit News who writes here about the statewide wave of tuition increases.

And guess who's allegedly to blame again - anybody but the administrators at the schools. The legislature isn't appropriating enough of your money.

Hammered by six years of state appropriations reductions, U-M has taken considerable cost-cutting measures, from motion sensors that activate lights only when someone's in a classroom to reducing the number of deans in the College of Engineering, said U-M Provost Teresa Sullivan. "But finding additional things to cut is getting harder and harder."

In 1960, state funds comprised nearly 80 percent of U-M's budget; now that's 24 percent, and tuition is the largest stream of revenue, she said.

"We are in a situation in which our state appropriation has been under considerable pressure," Sullivan said.

Wait, there hasn't been "six years of state appropriations reductions" - there have been six years where legislative appropriations have stagnated or modestly increased. More importantly, that quote on the 1960 comparison of "relative % of legislative funding" is an extension of the fabulous lie first perpetrated by former president James Duderstadt in the mid-90s, when he pointed out that U-M's 1986-1996 "share" of state funding as a percentage of U-M's overall funding fell from 18% to 12%, and blamed the legislature for the "cut". Sullivan deserves credit for the novelty of expanding the time-frame to 1960 to increase the magnitude by a factor. Still, ZR debunked the original horrible twisting of statistics which applies today, pointing out that U-M averaged 17% growth in administration over the same time while the legislature gave 8% more over the time. That's twice the rate of inflation (quadruple for expenditures and other revenues including tuition increases and federal sources) - the legislature lived up to its end of the bargain, yet U-M blamed it on them in the bustling 90s and still uses the same old saw today.

Although the Detroit News writer is doing the best she can with the beat she's assigned, the problem is when you're forced to take the word of U-M officials you're in for some surprises.

"Time and time again we've made the cuts and we've done the reforms," said Regent S. Martin Taylor, noting U-M has slashed $120 million in costs in five years. "We've done those things and then we recognized that (in order) to keep Michigan great, we have to increase revenues."

Just last night State Senator John Pappageorge told a Rochester gathering a story. You go into your boss's office and ask for a $5,000 raise. After much discussion about your value and productivity, and the budget of the company, your boss gives you a $2,000 raise. You walk out of the office and tell your office-mates you just took a $3,000 pay cut.

In the University of Michigan shadow world of budgeting, an increase can be a cut. A look at the Provost's data reveals how words can be twisted - but ZR's favorite is when James Duderstadt tried to play the same trick in the mid-90s and ZR broke it down with this analysis showing that the decline was really an increase but decline relative only to outrageous 17% annual growth by U-M bureaucracy.

If U-M "cut $120 million" in expenses, it doesn't mean that it reduced its overall bureaucracy by that size. Either they cut a hypothetical $120 million that they might have spent in ideal circumstances, they cut something they were going to cut anyway or was at a natural end, they cut something but spent twice as much elsewhere, or any number of explanations. Regardless, I'd like to see the documentation of exactly what their cuts were, and methodology. And even if they saved a $120 million in future costs, its nearly a $3 billion dollar budget. Compare these explanations with last week's ZR statistical analysis of the last five years of U-M administrative growth.

Flip S. Martin Taylor's statement around. Instead of, "(in order) to keep Michigan great, we have to increase revenues," it should be "to keep Michigan great, we have to decrease costs." Does it really matter whether a student pays for his university education in tuition - or through his or her parents and future taxes. It's just a shell-game either way. The key is to reduce costs and provide better value. And with the salary analysis ZR has done, clearly that isn't happening.

Zarko Research again provides insight into the vaunted, but bloated, University of Michigan.

Like the ZR analysis of Michigan State University salary database trends over the last two years when it asked for a 9.6% tuition hike last week, ZR has been collecting U-M databases. An analysis of five year trend data provides a clear insight into why U-M tuition rates explode. There are 38,000 employees at U-M - and 3500 of them make more than 100K annually, a number itself that has an impressive growth rate.

The engorging is top-heavy - an outlandish growth rate among $100,000/year employees, percentage increases in the "Top 1000" by two measurements that are consistently in the 5% range (with a 7.5% average spike, and 20% total spending spike in 2001-2002, reflecting probably a "preparation" for bad times given the strong economy the previous year and the obvious signs of crisis down the road. But there has been no "crisis" for the purses and wallets of U-M bureaucrats, even as the Michigan economy has crashed. They keep churning out nickel increases while the Governor wants to appropriate extra pennies from the plebes to make up the difference.

Education is important. But out-of-check, unaccountable cost increases for top-level administrators do not guarantee any student a fair education. Check the tables yourselves. It's all there - or actually, its' all in Mary Sue Coleman's $600,000 (plus hidden benefits) salary. Imagine if that money went to students instead!

A google news search shows that no mainstream media outlet appears to have covered the change public comments policy at today's University of Michigan Board of Regents meeting. ZR chastises the media for its complicitly - although the public comments doesn't affect a media right (speaking is typically not done by the media), any assault on access rights is bound to come back and later hurt the media.

The Detroit Free Press first look at the Board meeting was this positive look at the two race-neutral scholarships the Board adopted to comply with Proposal 2. No doubt this was newsworthy, but as a capsule of the meeting woefully incomplete (both the stadium controversy and the Open Meetings Act issue must). It is possible we'll see more detailed analysis in the slower non-wire news cycle.

But in searching for open meetings issues, we found this interesting, now two-week old piece, about guess who? The MEA and a quorum of school board members illegally meeting in March over a teacher complaint.

Four Ypsilanti school board members violated the Michigan Open Meetings Act when they attended a March 8 meeting of teachers and staff who complained about then- High School Principal Layne Hunt, according to the Washtenaw County Prosecutor's Office.

Criminal charges, however, will not be filed, Deputy Chief Assistant Prosecutor Steve Hiller said in a memo released Wednesday to The News. Hiller wrote there is not enough evidence to prove that Amy Doyle, Andy Fanta, Cameron Getto, and Tom Reiber intended to violate the state law.

Hiller's nine-page memo dated June 5, stemmed from a meeting the board members attended at the Michigan Education Association's office on Carpenter Road in Pittsfield Township. Doyle and Getto have since resigned from the board. After much controversy at the high school, Hunt resigned as principal March 28.

It's nice to know a County Prosecutor got involved (that's one of the great things about the OMA, they do have that discretion although we rarely see it used), and that the ultimate outcome was two board members doing the right thing and resigning. Here, the MEA used its own offices, not to subvert FOIA but rather OMA. It's unknown as to whether Principal Hunt should or shouldn't have resigned, but its clear the pressure was on him, to the point of illegal secret meetings.

UPDATE on Ypsilanti secret meeting.

This Ypsilanti Courier piece gives us far more detail on the issue of the secret meeting:

Washtenaw County Deputy Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Steven Hiller ruled last week that a March 8 meeting with Ypsilanti High School teachers and staff who had concerns and complaints about then-principal Layne Hunt was in violation of the law.

Hiller said he would not prosecute the matter, however, because he could not prove there was intent to commit the violation.

In a nine-page memo, Hiller outlined the case against the four trustees, Amy Doyle, Andrew Fanta, Cameron Getto and Thomas Reiber, who attended the meeting after a communications snafu. Doyle and Getto have since resigned from the board.

Hiller then concluded the board members had broken the law by deliberating on the issue of firing Dr. Hunt. If the trustees deliberated and/or made a decision regarding the issue, the meeting would have been a violation of the OMA because no notification was given and no minutes were taken.

But, attendees at the meeting insist the session was for information-gathering only and no deliberations or discussions were held.

"It was for information-gathering purposes only," insists Kelly Powers, president of the Ypsilanti Education Association. "That's what they [the trustees] said at the beginning of the meeting and that's what happened. They listened and took notes."

Big things come in small packages. One of the great things about little newspapers is they cover their local stories in better detail than the regional newspapers we are all accustomed to seeing. And the internet finally picks most of them up now.

You have to love that Orwellian spin coming from Kelly Powers, of the YEA (Ypsilanti Education Assocation). "Information-gathering purposes only". "Deliberations" on the other-hand is a pretty big thing to define. I suggest that if you gather information - or prostrate yourself in front of a union leadership group who is feeing it you your daily dose - you are deliberating (perhaps in a non-meaningful way, but ... ). Deliberating is the act of working toward a decision. Collecting information is a vital and integral component of working toward that decision. The difference that YEA alleges is superficial.

The reason we have an open meetings act is so that no "special" (interest) sub-set of the population has secret access to our public official in the decision-making process. The Michigan Education Association, NEA, and its satellites (HEA, YEA, etc), fight long and hard for their special privileges and access. And whether its unions or corporations, it's time to say no more.

David Boyle, a liberal Democrat who has fought in favor of race preferences but is now fighting the University of Michigan Athletic Department's expansion and commercialization of seats (luxury) at the historic Michigan Stadium, has sent me this hat tip. While ZR takes no formal position on Michigan's move to change the feel of the Stadium, we sympathize with the treatment and strong-arming of those who have objected. As usual, Michigan "leaders" have ignored public input and engaged in tactics to avoid debate and public engagement.

The University of Michigan Board of Regents, a body dominated 6-2 by Democrats, is considering a policy change on its public comments rules. The plan is to reduce the number of comments from 12 maximum to 10 maximum - retaining the 5 minute limit per person. They've also added a clause that gives priority to individuals who have not spoken to the Board in the previous two months.

This is yet another disgusting, anti-Democratic move by an administration and institution that seeks every bit of control and governmental edge it can obtain. Reducing public comments is just a visible symptom of the large disease infecting the university's administrative process.

The Michigan Open Meetings Act would seemingly come to the rescue in such a situation, and it may, but its not entirely clear. MCL 15.263(5) is the key section of the OMA here:

(5) A person shall be permitted to address a meeting of a public body under rules established and recorded by the public body.

U-M would argued that its established rules (which now require a 24 hour advance sign up and max out 12 "first-come, first-serve" speakers) are recorded, and that's the end of the story. A variety of common-law requirements however, including the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, require such policies to be reasonable. For example, what if U-M kept lowering the number of speakers, in a "slippery slope", say to 8 then 6 or 1? What number is reasonable? Obviously a policy that allowed zero people to speak would be illegal, and a policy allowing say, only 1 speaker per meeting, would be unreasonable. 12 speakers - the current policy - seems to ZR to already be an unreasonably small number for a statewide body with a constituency of 7 million registered voters and thousands of out-of-state alumni, donors, and stakeholders.

Another consideration here would be the plain word and grammatical reading of section (5). Is not the phrase, "A person shall be permitted to address a meeting ...", even if under rules, not clear in its requirement that any person seeking to address a meeting entitled to address the meeting? It would seem that even the current U-M rule restricting the number of speakers to 12 is in violation of that requirement. While the law would seem to allow the public body almost complete flexibility in such things as time limits and other rules to insure order, it would seem that any restriction on number would violate the rights of persons to address a meeting.

If anyone has 11 people who want to speak at the next meeting, it would certainly be an interesting legal challenge to set up!

Whether you're on the left like David, an opponent of race preferences like myself, or of any logical political stripe, you can find solace and agreement with David's new website, Fire Mary Sue Coleman.com. While that would be nice start, we'd note that the administrative beast that is U-M is much broader-based than its figure-head and it is only a short-term fix.

ZR sort of got the previous entry wrong (although we weren't wrong, we just commented on only part of a story) with regard to U-M's new found position. Hell is still warm.

The AP report cited in the entry places U-M's position against BAMN's doomsday scenario in proper light, but this story by Marisa Schultz at the Detroit News, captures another angle on U-M's position where they've just outright denied what should be obvious from the data. U-M's assistant law school dean Sarah Zearfoss (a memorable last name), stated that the weight of the preference before Proposal 2 ended preferences was no more than "usual," although, unfortunately, we don't have quotes on this one either:

Many of the students admitted when race was a factor would still have been admitted when affirmative action went away, Zearfoss said. Race was given no more consideration than usual before the ban took effect, she said.

This is a critical claim. If true, it leads one to wonder how there were 6 times more students admitted before the effect date than after, and it buttresses, I hate to say it, BAMN's claim that the effects would be catastrophic since the post-effect date RATE would be a good indicator of the future rates. Of course, the truth is found neither in BAMN's claims nor U-Michigan's. The data for the undergrad school showed that their first half rates, when compared to previous year's first half rates, were way out of whack. The sheer magnitude - 6 to 1 from front to back - along with the fact that the overall class of both periods combined produced roughly the same minorities (blacks are only down 4 tenths of a percent, Hispanics actually increased 2 tenths of a percent, native American fell 5 tenths of a percent [note: tribal membership is still a category which by U-M claims it can give preference so theoretically Proposal 2 should have no effect, but the magnitude of such numbers for means that even tiny "normal statistical fluctuations" can mean big differences]) - means that either U-M gamed the system early to offset some of Proposal 2's effect or that U-M has always had a "de facto quota" and they try to fill "slots" quickly and once they reach the "goal" (roughly 6.5% blacks) they start actively discriminating against later minority applicants. Maybe that's what they've been doing for years - a true hidden quota (without ever putting the measurement on paper) - that is front-loaded. While I don't doubt the quota part, I doubt U-M would have intentionally front-loaded it's quotas over the time of an application season, so I buy their claim.

Again, if that is true, U-M engaged in "traditional discrimination" for years - that is, against blacks, by setting a ceiling for them and discriminating against the individual blacks that happened to be later in the process.

The data graphic hot-linked at left is also a nice piece of information showing exactly how small the overall decline was. While BAMN's point about the drop-off after the effect-date is reason for concern, it's not reason to predict the end-of-the-admissions-world -- the most plausible explanation is that U-M so-front-loaded its admissions to compensate. When there is a normal cycle, you'll (or at least should) see a marginally greater overall decline but not an earth-ending one, but no substantive difference in time period rates.

Marisa Schultz of the Detroit News reports here on the what is allegedly the effect of Proposal 2. Before imagining the sky falling, remember that U-M predicted that in the wake of a preference elimination that numbers would fall from 12% to as low as 4%. Here's the actual picture.

African-Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans make up 10.7 percent of the freshmen who have paid enrollment deposits to reserve a place at U-M this fall, compared to previous years when minorities typically comprised 12-15 percent of each class.

The figures paint the most complete picture yet of what the first class admitted under Proposal 2 will look like. Proposal 2, the Michigan constitutional amendment that banned the consideration of race, gender and ethnicity in university admissions, took effect in January for U-M, midway through its admissions cycle.

And on cue:

"With one- half of a year with Proposal 2 and you are already seeing a drop (in minority students)," said George Washington, attorney for By Any Means Necessary, a pro-affirmative action group suing to overturn the amendment. "You are really talking about more of a drop next year."

Surprisingly, the news story uses an interesting word:

The dip in minority representation comes at a time when a record number of students applied to U-M, with applications topping 27,400. Applications from black, Hispanic and Native American students also went up, but the number accepted dropped.

Shockingly, U-M spokepeople actually something interesting:

U-M officials did not comment Wednesday on the diversity of the class. However, they said it should be one of the "most highly qualified and intellectually dynamic ever admitted."

Hmm. One wonders if there's a correlation to Proposal 2 and that.

The Michigan Daily is reporting yet another devious strategy to bypass Proposal 2 - the allegedly "independent" 501-c-3 "Alumni Association" might finance race-based scholarships on the theory that it is a "private actor."

The first thing this will cause is a decline in donations to that organization. Nonetheless, it is questionable for many reasons as to whether the association is sufficiently distinct from U-M to survive the legal challenges. We'll keep an eye on this one.

The University of Michigan just updated its "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQ) page on January 3, 2007. It's fascinating.

The second FAQ bullet:

Q: Will the University respect the constitution and follow the law?
A: The University certainly will obey the law. We recognize the voters’ decision, and will comply with Proposal 2.

Some aspects of the amendment are open to interpretation, and we anticipate there will be differences of opinion about how to interpret its application to specific programs that will require some clarification by the courts. For example, similar ballot proposals were interpreted as permitting outreach to underrepresented populations in Washington but prohibiting it in California. Over time, these uncertainties will be sorted out.

Not much interpretation there except Michigan's. Outreach is legal in California too, just not "outreach" that is exclusive to only group. I suspect an examination of the case law in Washington would reveal that the outreach that was challenged was not race or gender exclusive. But regardless, you'll hear this "open to interpretation" junk more and more. It's the new mantra.

Strategy?

This one is interesting.

Q: Are you planning to take any additional legal action?
A: We do not plan to initiate any separate lawsuits at this time. However, we will respond as needed to any legal challenges that arise. Given the experiences of California after the passage of Prop 209, we can expect litigation and legal challenges from a variety of individuals and organizations.

In the meantime, we will make our best attempt to interpret the language of Proposal 2, and continue our programs in a manner that both complies with the law and protects our diversity and our academic excellence. If challenged, the University of Michigan is prepared to defend our programs and our interpretation of the law.

At this time, two lawsuits have been filed challenging implementation of Proposal 2: the first by a coalition of groups including Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action By Any Means Necessary (BAMN); and the second by a coalition of groups including the American Civil Liberties Union. Law school applicant Eric Russell and Toward A Fair Michigan (TAFM) have intervened in the BAMN suit, and also have filed a separate lawsuit in the Washtenaw County Circuit Court, seeking immediate implementation of Proposal 2.

No new suits, but "we will defend our interpretation of the law." Why worry about "uncertainty" then. U-M has good legal minds. Of course, they are prone to stretch the law to and beyond its limits. They are uncertain whether the courts will allow them to get away with it again.

This one is real interesting:

Q: What will happen to minority enrollment?
A: U-M will do everything in its power, within the law, to make sure that the declines in minority enrollment seen in California’s top public universities following passage of Proposition 209 do not occur in Michigan following passage of Proposal 2. Part of the decline in California was the result of minority students’ choosing not to apply, or if they did apply and were accepted, choosing not to enroll. Alumni, current students, faculty, and community members will play an important role in encouraging minority students to apply to U-M, and to enroll here if admitted.

Wow!. Part of the decline was a change in minorities choices of where to apply. We haven't heard that argument in very public circles much during the pre-election debate. Of course, pro-preferentialists will "blame" that on the "environment" created by having Proposition 209, but U-M seems to be saying additionally here that the California system did a particularly bad job of being 'welcoming' by saying that it can do better. It's also an interesting admission that the world won't collapse if U-M tries harder (and formost among the reasons MCRI was a good thing is that it forces preferentialists to "try harder," in better, more productive ways).

U-M backhandedly attacks socio-economic programs:

Q: Can U-M replace race- and gender-conscious programs with ones that focus on socioeconomic status?
A: Socioeconomic status is already considered in our programs, including admissions and financial aid, and it continues to be a priority for us to make certain that opportunities are extended to all students regardless of their financial circumstances. But that doesn’t help us enroll a student body that is racially diverse. There are far more white students from low-income families applying to the university than minority students from low-income families. Socioeconomic status does not work as a proxy for race, and that has been shown clearly at other schools that have tried it. And it is not at all helpful in addressing participation on the basis of gender.

This almost contradictory statement is rough. First, socio-economic considerations were only added after the Gratz and Grutter lawsuits started, and an investigative report by Detroit Free Press writer Maryanne George, showed that U-M made no effort to make applicants aware of the points it gave for that status, excluding (unlike race and gender) mention of it on the application. The only way one could get the points was if a tenacious guidance counselor complained to the U after an admissions rejection. But it is technically written into their policy. In the wake of Grutter in 2003, all admissions are now "holistic," so we now know nothing really of how sincere U-M is on the issue. But this quote sounds pretty insincere! The rest of their quote is fraught with difficulties as well. Other schools have tried some things, but the best socio-economic measures haven't been tried according to many researchers. And gender is almost irrelevant anyway - U-M didn't give gender preferences to women until after Gratz and Grutter (both women), and really only in math and sciences types of programs. And the idea that women need preference, in an environment where women dominate men in overall enrollment already (not in certain fields, but again, that may be related to choices), is questionable.

And finally, socio-economic advocates don't advocate it as a "proxy" for race. They advocate it as an alternative method that partially accomodates race but serves an entirely different, and far more "compelling", social need. Personally, I don't even suggest that "preference" be given based on economic status - I suggest that policy attention be focused on economic and social measurements. U-M needs to give thought to how underperforming K-12 schools can be improved. It can send counselors to those schools (still, the "measure" of which schools should not be racial, it should be performance needs). A fair test would be to identify ALL the schools in Michigan that need attention, preferably by objective measures, and to target those schools (California targets the 150 lowest performing schools). Since racial performance issues are highly correlated (but not perfectly, and hence such programs help all regardless of race that are in need), such a focus will have a disproportionate impact for minorities.

And no one is saying that socio-economic criteria should be the only alternative. But it is the among the first steps.

And finally, here's another:

Q: Will U-M change its employment practices to comply with Proposal 2?
A: Employment practices at U-M already comply with Proposal 2 and therefore are not changing; ...

ZR has investigative materials on this very question. It may be that U-M's written policies are in compliance, but whether its actual practice is or isn't is another question. We may offer more as time goes on. If you know of an employment practice that is questionable, please use our contact forms.

Dave Gersham reports in the Friday Ann Arbor News of the lawsuit filed by the Center for Individual Rights (CIR) in Washtenaw County Circuit Court to enjoin the University of Michigan (U-M) to comply with the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), or Proposal 2.

It's pretty basic stuff. CIR's argument is that U-M's decision to delay all admissions puts its client, Eric Russell, the same client that won the federal appeal last week, at risk and that Michigan has been deceptive and delaying in its tactics. They are no doubt right on both counts. It's also good that CIR has started the state court process, taking initiative now rather than solely playing defense or waiting for events to unfold. Of course, the movement is in a much better position to take that initiative after the federal court ordered that a state court must make some kind of ruling first.

It's nice to see CIR charge forward again. It is however a bit surprising that they chose Washtenaw County for venue, since Russell lives here in Oakland County and the judges here would appear to be more favorable. Jurisdiction would seem appropriate in any county, and I believe venue rules would allow venue in the county of either the plaintiff's or defendant's principle location or residence. Of course, CIR may wish to avoid the inevitable stalling move for change of venue that would result and may desire a winning fight closer to the lion's den, so to speak. However, my general experience with Washtenaw County judges is that, since they are elected in a county dominated by the economic engine that is U-M, they are recitent to rule against them. Sure, there are honest judges in the county, but even subconscious bias would be understandable. Then again, since it is likely to require an appellate court, it may all only be prologue. Some prolouge is important, some is not.

Lori Higgins writes in the January 4 Detroit Free Press that the University of Michigan has temporarily halted all admissions until next at least next Wednesday, bearing fruit to a ZR prediction in our comments section.

Higgins writes:

The University of Michigan won't make any admissions decisions for the fall term until Wednesday, giving itself some time to figure out what to do now that a federal appeals court has rejected an attempt to delay the implementation of new rules that ban affirmative action programs in public hiring and college admissions in Michigan.

On December 31, responding to a commenter about the next steps following the Court of Appeals decision, ZR wrote:

They may "temporarily suspend" their entire admissions timeline for as long as they can practically do it (tops a couple weeks) to get the ear of a state court on the "meaning" of Proposal 2 (which is pretty clear). In line with their previous use of "fake delays" in "automatic denials" to Law School applicants (in the 90s, I've documented through archival research, U-M would sit on applications for an extra couple weeks even though they were in the "auto-reject" pile simply to give the individual an appearance of deliberation), they may do some temporary suspension to give the appearance of a final gasp of fight for their hard-core base.

It's a show. It's like a death scene in a Shakespearean play. U-Michigan is acting as if they have been mortally stabbed, and they bumble around the stage grimacing every nuance of pain as if it were necessary to the drama. The whole drama with OUM, BAMN, and U-M plays like a tragic farce. But in reality, ending preferences is a bare nick (indeed, a surgical improvement to a previous wound) to the system, and requires only modest concentration and work to come up with alternatives. But our actors simply can't see them.