It just seems like a policy that is past it's use by date at this point & if the We've had what Michigan wants in California for a long time now. After all, ever since the racial preference part of it was effectively negated By upholding a Michigan law nearly identical to California's, the ruling left ballot initiative — route for allowing racial and gender preferences in public stance on affirmative action, dating back to its ruling upholding a. preferences: women of all races exhibit strong same-race preferences, while men of larger fraction of inhabitants of a particular race are less willing to date American College Students in California”, Psychological Report, 87, –
US supreme court upholds Michigan law that bans affirmative action | Law | The Guardian
This case isn't about whether state universities may provide preferential treatment in their admissions policies. Rather, the question is whether the voters of Michigan violated the U.
Constitution when they amended the state Constitution to say that universities "shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. This page supports affirmative action and opposed Propositionthe California ban on racial preferences on which the Michigan amendment was modeled.
Racial preferences at highly selective public universities ensure a modicum of racial diversity at those institutions, and they make it possible for students from groups that historically have been victims of discrimination to move into leadership positions in society.
Affirmative action's latest test - latimes
The value of such policies is demonstrated by California's experience after the adoption of Proposition in Affirmative action policies also have passed muster at the Supreme Court. In June, in a case involving the University of Texas, the court made it clear that judges must scrutinize affirmative action programs to ensure that "no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity.
They are not, however, constitutionally required. So how can Michigan's ban on racial preferences violate the Constitution, as affirmative action proponents argue — a conclusion accepted by the U. Can it possibly be the case that the people of the state don't have the option of banning affirmative action?
The problem with the Michigan amendment, the 6th Circuit ruled, was that it "reorders the political process in Michigan" in a way that discriminates against racial minorities. The appeals court noted that although a student seeking preference in admissions based on family connections had only to lobby university officials, an African American student hoping to benefit from a race-conscious admissions policy would have to try to amend the state Constitution, "a lengthy, expensive and arduous process.
Twice the Supreme Court has struck down measures that made it harder for minorities to achieve their goals by placing an onerous political burden on them that doesn't apply to others. One evening before the election, dining with two friends in their Connecticut home, the husband, whose credentials as a conservative Ronald Reagan Republican were unimpeachable, announced that he would be voting for Barack Obama. His wife and I reacted with surprise.
I made a slightly feeble attempt to dissuade him, arguing that I considered Obama to have socialist views.
Affirmative action's latest test
His response was a well-reasoned argument that we could survive his philosophy, but his election could contribute to racial progress in a way that no other event could accomplish.
He often seemed bent on hiding his biracial bona fides in favor of promoting his identity as an African-American. I want to know where you want to go as Americans, not hyphenated Americans.
Significantly, those who are considered Americans are white. We do not diminish their American identity with a hyphen.
Why, then, do I need to be African-American? Or, others identified as Asian-American or Mexican-American? Most proponents of race-based affirmative action argue that America is systemically racist. Americans are dating and marrying across racial lines and raising their families to love each other without regard to their differences of skin color, hair texture or other features.
Diversity accentuates physical differences while equal treatment before the law diminishes this factor. Every campus should abandon its quest for racial diversity, stop discriminating, primarily against those of Asian descent who are being handicapped by their own success, and embark upon the journey of getting beyond race.
This is not to suggest that all is well for all blacks, especially the underclass, but it is not hateful and oppressive whites who are holding them back. It is the lure of drugs, criminal activity, broken families, the lack of spiritual guidance, dropping out of school, and a host of other decisions, most of which are controlled by blacks themselves.
Affirmative action, as I see it, must be viewed in the context of our Constitution and our laws about race. Equality is the law and a constitutionally guaranteed right; diversity is social science advocacy. Even the Supreme Court has often misunderstood the difference.
Only a clear and bold decision by the Supreme Court, reaffirming the constitutional guarantee of equal rights for every individual, can mitigate the dangerous national threat caused by the diversity rationale.
US supreme court upholds Michigan law that bans affirmative action
Although it would be my enduring hope that the Supreme Court would render a decision that would decisively resolve the individual rights vs. The reason for my pessimism is that the high court, beginning with the case of Grutter vs. Bollinger at the University of Michigan law school, set itself upon a course that embraced and strengthened the diversity rationale as a matter of case law. We know that once established, it is exceedingly difficult for the court to reverse its course.
Thus, the court has created a constitutional crisis for our nation and itself.