Liberals in higher ed thumbed their noses at the decision by Michigan voters and have instead went to a "holistic" method of admission where they can discriminate freely. The downside is that some applicants are being allowed into institutions of higher ed where they don't belong. There are several tiers of higher ed institutions after all. Predictably, the Detroit Free Press lamented not a lack of minority admissions, but rather a lack of minorities succeeding, as if the result of people being admitted into college must be the same across racial lines (Detroit Free Press pushes affirmative action, then is disappointed that black graduation rates lag). But now, a full 4 1/2 years after Michigan voters passed the MCRI, a single federal judge took it upon himself to thwart the will of the people and turn the 14th amendment on its head:
It was a 2-1 decision so once again a single aristocrat in a black robe took it upon himself to legislate from the bench. And from the Detroit News: State to fight ruling against ban on race in college admissions
Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said today he will appeal a court ruling that overturned the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which bans the use of race and gender preferences in college admissions and government hiring and contracting.And this part is simply absurd:
Schuette said he will make a formal request for a rehearing with the appeals court, a move that will keep the civil rights initiative — known as Proposal 2 — in place at least temporarily.
"MCRI embodies the fundamental premise of what America is all about: equal opportunity under the law," Schuette said in a statement. "Entrance to our great universities must be based upon merit, and I will continue the fight for equality, fairness and rule of law."
A federal appeals court today overturned Proposal 2, saying the voter-approved measure harms minorities and is unconstitutional.
The 2006 law forced the University of Michigan and other state schools to revise their admission policies. In a 2-1 decision, the judges ruled that the law violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.It is absurd because it is the direct opposite of what the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment actually says in plain English. The 14th amendment to the US Constitution expressly prohibits discrimination based on race. The equal protection clause of teh 14th amendment reads in part:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.How is favoring one race over another in handing out burdens and benefits equal protection, exactly? Yet liberals and activist judges are insisting that discrimination is necessary to eliminate discrimination. My guess is this will not stand. Teh SCOTUS is clear on this and as chief Justice John Roberts has said, "to stop discrimination by race, stop discriminating by race." With the 14th amendment in tow, here is the original language in the MCRI:
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO PROHIBIT PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OR DISCRIMINATION BY STATE GOVERNMENT
The proposal would amend the state constitution to prohibit preferential treatment or discrimination by state government, state universities, colleges, community colleges, school districts, counties and local governments to any individual or group based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.Liberals here in MI didn't like the language even though it was perfectly consistent with the 14th amendment to the US Constitution. Since the Board of Canvassers here in Michigan were split between Republicans and Democrats, there was a compromise that changed the original language above to this:
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO BAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS THAT GIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO GROUPS OR INDIVIDUALS BASED ON THEIR RACE, GENDER, COLOR, ETHNICITY OR NATIONAL ORIGIN FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION OR CONTRACTING PURPOSESAgain, what of the compromise language is inconsistent with the 14th amendment?
The proposed amendment would:
Ban public institutions from using affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes. Public institutions affected by the proposal include state government, local governments, public colleges and universities, community colleges and school districts.
Prohibit public institutions from discriminating against groups or individuals due to their gender, ethnicity, race, color or national origin. (A separate provision of the state constitution already prohibits discrimination on the basis of race,color or national origin.)
Should this proposal be adopted?
UPDATE: From The Volokh Conspiracy via Instapundit:
I am quite confident this is not the last we have heard of this case, and will be quite surprised if this decision is ultimately sustained. Given the panel and the holding, I think there is a reasonable likelihood of it going en banc, and if this opinion is not overturned en banc, I would think that this case — or perhaps the similar case challenging the equivalent California initiative — will go to the Supreme Court.UPDATE #2: Ironically, The Detroit Free Press editorial this morning focuses on equality, which the 6th circuit judges just flushed down the toilet: Liberty and equality: Two reasons to celebrate this weekend, and to rededicate ourselves