Proposal 2, which became a state amendment when it passed, banned public institutions from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on race, gender, ethnicity or national origin.

UCSA consulted with the University Committee on Academic Governance, or UCAG, which deals with academic governance issues, on the best approach to changing the language.

Ed Rosser, chairman of UCAG, said the committee worked with MSU general counsel and decided to change the language to say the appointees should “be selected to reflect the diversity of the student population.”

“In general, the bylaw doesn’t fit the language of how anything is written today,” Rosser said.

Of the seven student positions on UCSA, the current bylaw designates three positions for an appointee of the Black Student Alliance, a female appointee and a nonwhite representative.

Rosser said the statement was changed to encompass all students.

Sandte Stanley, an Academic Assembly representative on UCSA, said she hadn’t heard about the bylaw change in connection to Proposal 2, but feels the group should be reflective of the student population.

“I just feel like the purpose for having students on a committee like UCSA is to be inclusive,” she said.

Singling out one group such as Black Student Alliance might not provide a chance for other multicultural groups on campus to serve on academic committees, Stanley said.

“We should give the opportunity to all groups — everybody’s voice should be heard,” Stanley said.

Before the bylaw is changed, Rosser said UCSA will consider the recommendations before the Faculty Council, Academic Council and MSU Board of Trustees can approve them.

Charles Owen, a member of UCAG, said he was opposed to Proposal 2, and thinks it’s sad the language needs to be removed to ensure a diverse representation in UCSA.

“We can change the bylaws so as to be in compliance with Proposal 2, or we can wait for those who supported Proposal 2 to sue the university,” Owen said.

“Given that they have already proved quite litigious, it seemed in the best interest of the university to make the language comply with the laws of the state of Michigan, no matter how much we may disagree with those laws, while still clearly indicating in the revised language the desire that the representation on UCSA mirror the diverse population of MSU.”