Detroit Free Press: 6th Circuit Was Wrong To Overturn MCRI, But We Support Racism Anyway

As most of you probably know by now: Activist Judge Strikes Down Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) Passed By 58% Of Voters In 2006. Michigan voters overwhelmingly (by almost 60% of the vote) passed the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) back in 2006 (called proposal 2 on the ballot) that was supposed to have removed any discrimination in the public square based on race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, etc. That included the so-called affirmative discrimination action programs in public schools and universities and in hiring. It stood for the better part of 5 years until a single aristocrat in a black robe decided it didn't meet his worldview:

The Detroit Free Press took its time in getting this editorial on the issue together: A mistaken ruling on affirmative action: State law is bad policy, but not unconstitutional

Like many who believe that the thoughtful application of affirmative action policies has advanced the educational interests of all students, we were dismayed when, in the 2006 general election, Michiganders voted to ban the consideration of race and gender in college admissions.

But it is quite a leap from our conviction that banning affirmative action was bad policy to the contention that such a ban is unconstitutional.

And we are not persuaded that Michigan voters violated the equal protection rights of minorities when they adopted Proposal 2.

The equal protection clause is supposed to install color-blindness into the law such that burdens and benefits aren't handed out on the basis of race, sex, national origin, ethnicity, etc. Affirmative action by its very existence does the opposite of that and is therefore patently unconstitutional in view of the 14th. Just so you know how utterly backwards judicial activists wee things.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit said otherwise last week, ruling that Michigan's 2006 ban on affirmative action "unconstitutionally alters Michigan's political structure by impermissibly burdening racial minorities."

Why is it a burden on minorities  (read: blacks) to not be favored versus other skin pigmentations? Are whites burdened because they are no longer favored? Oh right - that was racism. If minorities are advantaged by consideration of skin color, that somehow doesn't count.

The 2-1 decision reversed an earlier ruling in which U.S. District Judge David Lawson upheld the constitutionality of Proposal 2, which prohibited universities and other public institutions from giving "preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin."

...Michigan voters have clearly signaled their belief that affirmative action's time is up. We still think that's bad policy.

So that gets me to the question for the freep editorial board: why is it bad policy to ban "preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin"?

Activist Judge Strikes Down Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) Passed By 58% Of Voters In 2006

Liberals love social engineering in college admissions, but for some reason not in sports: Video of Campus Liberals: No Affirmative Action for Basketball

The whole point of the admissions process in higher ed is to make sure that an applicant meets certain minimum standards for that school. Liberals hate merit and instead want unqualified people into prestigious schools, and thus invented the unconstitutional principle called "affirmative action" to basically have skin color count towards college admission. I should point out that Michigan voters overwhelmingly (by almost 60% of the vote) passed the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) back in 2006 (called proposal 2 on the ballot) that was supposed to have removed any discrimination in the public square based on race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, etc. That included the so-called affirmative discrimination action programs in public schools and universities and in hiring.

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.

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.

And this part is simply absurd:

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 PURPOSES

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?

Again, what of the compromise language is inconsistent with the 14th amendment?

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