Ohio policy group wants information about University of Michigan’s potential race-based standards

A Columbus-based policy group continues to push the University of Michigan for public records related to race-based requirements related to the school's law and medical schools.

In the wake of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that eliminated race from admission decisions at colleges and universities, The Buckeye Institute used the Freedom of Information Act to request documents related to what diversity requirements are used in both schools.

The institute requested the documents in late July, and Michigan denied the request, saying the ask was overly broad.

"Disappointingly, the Office's response appeared to be nothing more than a boilerplate denial. It incorrectly stated that our response was 'overly broad' despite Buckeye's request being as specific as possible," David Tryon, director of litigation for The Buckeye Institute, wrote in a letter threatening a lawsuit dated Thursday to university officials.

The Buckeye Institute's request included:

Documents relating to the University of Michigan School of Law's American Bar Association accredited status.Documents provided to the ABA to maintain or support accredited status.Correspondence between the university and the ABA regarding the university's accredited status.Documents relating to the University of Michigan Medical School's Liaison Committee of Medical Education accredited status.Documents provided to the LCME to maintain or support accredited status.Correspondence between the university and the LCME regarding the university's accredited status.

Following Michigan's denial, the institute responded the next day with case law and claimed the request was within standards. Michigan did not respond.

"On October 4, 2024, over two months following the initial request, Buckeye again reiterated that its response was precise and requested that the Office comply. Buckeye also warned that failure to comply would result in legal action. The Office did respond on October 8, 2024, but this email contained nothing substantive and only assured another response was forthcoming, which response has not been received as of October 17, 2024," the letter reads.