A state House amendment that would stop funding public colleges that consider race, religion, creed and national origin during admissions has MSU officials unsure of its impact on university policies.

The amendment, that passed Wednesday as part of the state's higher education budget, likely targets schools that consider race - such as the University of Michigan. The Senate is expected to discuss the measure on Tuesday.

"Race is one of many other factors we consider in admissions," said Pamela Horne, MSU's assistant to the provost for enrollment management and director of admissions. "We consider all aspects of students' lives, but mainly look at whether they could succeed here. I certainly wouldn't call it race-based."

MSU officials also look at areas such as grades, leadership and socioeconomic status when admitting students. More than 6,100 undergraduates at MSU this past semester came from minority backgrounds.

In a decision Friday, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative won an appeal to continue on with their petition drive to put a measure on the fall ballot that would forever forbid the use of preferential treatment based on national origin, sex, color, ethnicity or race in public schools or businesses.

Their initial drive was derailed after a Ingham County Circuit Court put the ballot on hold saying the language would confuse voters.

Paulette Granberry-Russell , the director of the Office of Affirmative Action, Compliance and Monitoring, said she isn't sure how much the amendment would affect MSU.

"We've taken the position that MSU's approach to admissions has been a holistic approach," Granberry-Russell said. "Race is one of many diversity factors we use. Our approach to admissions has been consistent with the (University of Michigan) decision."

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled last summer race could not be used as a deciding factor in admissions, but could be considered. The case stemmed off controversial admissions policies at U-M and its law school.

"Why can't we take race into consideration?" MSU Trustee Dorothy Gonzales said. "We know people of color many times aren't given equal opportunities. We know the playing field isn't level for all individuals."

Others say they were surprised to see the amendment.

"There was no indication that an amendment would be offered, no discussion and no deliberations in the House," said Steve Webster, vice president of Governmental Affairs. "It came as a surprise to everyone but the sponsor."

The amendment, which was put on the budget by Rep. Leon Drolet, R-Clinton Township, has many saying, including Gov. Jennifer Granholm, it will likely be rejected by the Senate.

"We don't believe the amendment will be in the final bill when it arrives on (Granholm's) desk," Granholm spokeswoman Liz Boyd said. "The governor finds the language in the amendment unacceptable."

Even if the amendment makes it onto the final budget, Webster said it might be possible for Granholm to override the amendment without rejecting the whole budget via a line-item veto.

While the amendment waits to go through the Senate, officials with the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative said they are happy with the Appeals Court decision, but are unsure whether the initiative will be ready for the 2004 ballot.

"The ruling is a very positive thing and we're getting a lot of momentum out of it," initiative spokesman Chetly Zarko said. "The ruling gives us a reason to go back to our volunteers and donors and say we have affirmation from a higher court. Now, when some one's signing this, they know they're signing a petition that's legal."

Opposition groups, such as the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigrant Rights And Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary say they plan to protest the amendment.

"We're contemplating a picket at the headquarters of the Republican party," BAMN national co-chairman Luke Massie said.

They also plan on appealing the ballot initiative decision to the state Supreme Court.

"This ruling gives them the green light to lie to the voters of Michigan," Massie said. "We think this is the wrong ruling by the Appeals Court and we intend to get it reversed."

The amendment's future, however, is more immediate, and MSU officials, along with those from the other public universities, await its fate in the Senate.

"It's really going to be a conversation amongst state politicians," Webster said.