Questions and comments ricocheted between two experts Tuesday night at a campus debate over a controversial ballot measure that would ban most forms of affirmative action in Michigan.

The debate, hosted by the Residence Halls Association, or RHA, focused on the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, or MCRI, which will appear on the November ballot.

Carl Cohen, a University of Michigan professor in favor of the MCRI, and Tim Wise, an author against the initiative, were the panelists in the formal debate. Education junior Tim Hillman, a student leader of the Multi-Racial Unity Living Experience, or MRULE, moderated the discussion.

"Race preference is not only wrong, it is bad for us, and bad for the very minorities who are to be helped by it," Cohen said during his opening statement.

He argued that affirmative action "accentuates racial tensions."

Cohen said affirmative action in Michigan labels minorities in education and the workplace as people who only attained those opportunities because of preferential treatment. He used the example of black U-M students he has spoken with who feel they are viewed as a product of affirmative action and not their own abilities.

Cohen's argument also referenced the Michigan Civil Rights Act of 1964, which he said the MCRI supports and defends.

Wise, who supports affirmative action, said eliminating the practice will not eliminate racial discrimination. On the contrary, he argued, it will solidify it.

Wise said racial discrimination is "cemented into the history of your state and this country." He added that there are only enough affirmative action monitors to double-check institutions' practices every 46 years, so it's impossible to keep up on whether institutions actually follow it. Because of this, he said, people should rally for the hiring of more monitors rather than the banning of affirmative action.

In rebuttal to Cohen's defense of the Michigan Civil Rights Act of 1964, Wise said there were extensions to the act that actually allow for affirmative action.

After listening to the speakers' opening remarks and rebuttals, human biology junior William McIntosh felt the need to dig deeper into the debate.

"It solidifies that I really need to learn more so I can make an informed decision when it comes time to vote," McIntosh said.

Physiology senior Joe Griffith had a similar reaction.

"It really made me question what I felt on the issue," Griffith said.

The goal of the debate, said Vic Maurer, RHA's director of Racial, Ethnic and Progressive Affairs, was to educate students so they can make enlightened decisions when they go to the polls in November. He said RHA feels the issue is "detrimental to our campus community and to the state of Michigan."

He added that RHA, its constituents and the university took a stance against the measure at its Dec. 8 meeting.

"As RHA, being a major student governing body, we (will) stand behind our university's decision to be an equal opportunity employer and an equal opportunity educational institution," Maurer said.

Paulette Granberry Russell, senior adviser to the president for diversity and director of the MSU Office for Affirmative Action, Compliance & Monitoring, said the student forum would help students better understand the issue and its complexities.

"Our goal is to create and maintain a diverse campus community," Granberry Russell said.