PDA

View Full Version : Court Strikes Down Michigan Ban on Race in College Admissions



Elspeth
07-01-2011, 04:07 PM
DETROIT (AP) A federal appeals court on Friday struck down Michigan's ban on the consideration of race and gender in college admissions, saying it burdens minorities and violates the U.S. Constitution.

The 2-1 decision upends a sweeping law that forced the University of Michigan and other public schools to change admission policies. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the law, approved by voters in 2006, violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

The court mostly was concerned about how the affirmative action ban was created. Because it was passed as an amendment to the state constitution, it can only be changed with another statewide vote. This places a big burden on minorities who object to it, judges R. Guy Cole Jr. and Martha Craig Daughtrey said.

The ban's supporters could have chosen "less onerous avenues to effect political change," the judges said in the court's opinion.

Michigan pledged to appeal. Arizona, California, Nebraska and Washington state have similar bans, but they won't be affected by the decision because the court ruling is limited to states in the 6th Circuit, which includes Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee.

The judges cited two U.S. Supreme Court cases, one in 1969 involving the repeal of a fair housing law in Akron, Ohio, and the other in 1982 involving an effort to stop racial integration in Seattle schools.

"They provide the benchmark for when the majority has not only won, but also rigged the game to reproduce its success indefinitely," Cole and Daughtrey said.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which was part of a coalition that challenged the Michigan ban, hailed the court's decision.

The "ruling has kept the door open for thousands of academically qualified students of color to continue to pursue the American dream through our state's colleges and universities," said Kary Moss, an ACLU spokeswoman in Detroit.

A dissenting judge, Julia Smith Gibbons, said there was nothing wrong with the ban or the way it passed.

"The Michigan voters have ... not restructured the political process in their state by amending their state constitution; they have merely employed it," she said.

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, whose office defended the law, said he will ask the full appeals court to look at the case, a request that's rarely granted.

"Entrance to our great universities must be based upon merit, and I will continue the fight for equality, fairness and rule of law," said Schuette, a Republican.

Gov. Rick Snyder, a Republican who opposed the 2006 constitutional amendment, had no immediate comment. He was elected last year.

The ban, which also affected government hiring, was approved by 58 percent of voters. In 2008, a federal judge in Detroit upheld it, saying it was race-neutral because no single race can benefit.

Jennifer Gratz, a Michigan native who successfully sued the University of Michigan over racial preferences before the 2006 referendum, predicted Friday's decision eventually will be thrown out.

"It's just a blip. The full 6th Circuit or the Supreme Court will take it," Gratz said. "Judges are not supreme rulers. The people voted."

A business group, Michigan Roundtable for Diversity and Inclusion, praised the ruling.

"This is one place where government should be acting more like a business, and the 6th Circuit court decision gives governments and universities the tools they need to improve diversity and inclusion," said Debbie Dingell, a former General Motors executive.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/07/01/us/AP-US-College-Admissions-Race.html

noonwitch
07-01-2011, 04:26 PM
Although I voted against the ban on affirmative action, it kind of pisses me off that a court would overrule the voters' decision.

Elspeth
07-01-2011, 04:27 PM
Although I voted against the ban on affirmative action, it kind of pisses me off that a court would overrule the voters' decision.

Makes me wonder if this is headed to the Supreme Court.

fettpett
07-01-2011, 06:20 PM
Makes me wonder if this is headed to the Supreme Court.

since the State is appealing the ruling, my guess is that it will be. It's pretty much bull as it makes the admissions more fair because people are judged on their academics rather than on race

Madisonian
07-01-2011, 06:33 PM
So some asshat judge says that a state adopting a law that does not allow preferential treatment is violating an amendment that guarantees equal protection.

We are so fucked.

NJCardFan
07-01-2011, 09:26 PM
Although I voted against the ban on affirmative action, it kind of pisses me off that a court would overrule the voters' decision.

You mean sort of like California's Prop 8 vote?

Novaheart
07-01-2011, 10:18 PM
You mean sort of like California's Prop 8 vote?

If the Michigan law had been discriminatory, then you would have a point. The Michigan law didn't say that black people can't go to college, it said they couldn't be given preference. It didn't not favor whites over blacks. The California law took away the ability of gay people to be married while allowing straight people to continue to get married.

Articulate_Ape
07-01-2011, 10:27 PM
Although I voted against the ban on affirmative action, it kind of pisses me off that a court would overrule the voters' decision.

Yeah, that's a new thing. :rolleyes:

Novaheart
07-01-2011, 10:34 PM
Yeah, that's a new thing. :rolleyes:

A majority vote is irrelevant if the law is contrary to the US Constitution. I disagree that this law was, in fact the judge's reasoning seems especially sloppy. But this was just a three judge panel, the full court will probably decide otherwise.

Novaheart
07-01-2011, 10:38 PM
check out the DU comments:



bluestateguy (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-01-11 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. I don't follow the logic

Affirmative action has been upheld as a valid use of the state's power to try to achieve a diverse student body. But that is a far cry from saying that the state must be required to have an affirmative action policy. The latter is a very different thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

svsuman24 (8 posts) Fri Jul-01-11 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. yes, this vote concerns me.

Articulate_Ape
07-01-2011, 10:56 PM
A majority vote is irrelevant if the law is contrary to the US Constitution. I disagree that this law was, in fact the judge's reasoning seems especially sloppy. But this was just a three judge panel, the full court will probably decide otherwise.

The same full court of nine members that passed the Kelo v. City of New London decision? A decision that essentially redefined the 5th Amendment's taking cause: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." to mean that private property may be taken by eminent domain if the 'government' finds that one private entity/citizen is likely to provide more tax revenue than another private entity/citizen who owns the property will.

Possibly the worst decision of the SCOTUS since its establishment under the very Constitution it presumes to rewrite for political expedience these days.

Short answer, Nova? I would refer you to the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution:


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

What part of that do you not understand without an intent to distort? It cannot be stated any more clearly. Unfortunately, clarity of thought is not a trait commonly found among "progressives" (aka communist wannabes).

jnkbortka
07-01-2011, 11:59 PM
If the Michigan law had been discriminatory, then you would have a point. The Michigan law didn't say that black people can't go to college, it said they couldn't be given preference. It didn't not favor whites over blacks. The California law took away the ability of gay people to be married while allowing straight people to continue to get married.

no gay people have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, no one's withholding them any rights that anyone else has :rolleyes:

Novaheart
07-02-2011, 12:29 AM
The same full court of nine members that passed the Kelo v. City of New London decision?

No. The Sixth Circuit.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (in case citations, 6th Cir.) is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:

Eastern District of Kentucky
Western District of Kentucky
Eastern District of Michigan
Western District of Michigan
Northern District of Ohio
Southern District of Ohio
Eastern District of Tennessee
Middle District of Tennessee
Western District of Tennessee

Novaheart
07-02-2011, 12:41 AM
Short answer, Nova? I would refer you to the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution:



The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And I would refer you to the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Articulate_Ape
07-02-2011, 12:46 AM
And I would refer you to the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Elaborate, if you can.

Novaheart
07-02-2011, 01:18 AM
Elaborate, if you can.

First Amendment - Freedom of religion. The basis for discrimination against gay people is religious.

Fourteenth Amendment - Equal protection clause. Despite the disingenuous refrain that gay people are as free to enter heterosexual marriages, the principle of equal protection is abridged by such a law. The state needs a compelling state interest to infringe in such a way, and it doesn't have one. In fact whether one is arguing reproduction, religion, or anything else they have come up with thus far, it still comes down to a violation of equal protection because straight people are able to enter into legal marriages despite the prohibitions of various religions which might forbid any given heterosexual marriage or whether it's possible for them to reproduce as a couple. In fact, Utah has a marriage law especially enabling infertile couples to marry.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act - Sex discrimination. Reduced to simple terms, Prop 8 forbids a man from marrying a man but does not forbid a woman from marrying a man.

Novaheart
07-02-2011, 01:23 AM
Elaborate, if you can.

I'm going to stop with this post, because this is derailing the thread.

Rockntractor
07-02-2011, 01:32 AM
I'm going to stop with this post, because this is derailing the thread.

It has all been pertinent to the conversation, I suspect ulterior motive.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/chicken-shit.jpg

MrsSmith
07-02-2011, 08:51 AM
If the Michigan law had been discriminatory, then you would have a point. The Michigan law didn't say that black people can't go to college, it said they couldn't be given preference. It didn't not favor whites over blacks. The California law took away the ability of gay people to be married while allowing straight people to continue to get married.
The California law continued thousands of years of recognition that "gay marriage" isn't marriage, overturning the decision of a few leftists that desperately want to change the definition of a once well-understood foundation of society...and the will of the people was then overturned by a crooked judge that stands to make a financial gain from his decision. It all makes an absolute mockery of the phrase "of the people, by the people, for the people."


A decision to overturn a law that makes it illegal to deliberately consider race in the granting of public ______________ (funds, education, treatment, whatever), is in every way against the intent of every Constitutional right. The entire point to the Constitution was the intent to bring about a country where all people, all people, are granted the same rights and privileges, not where one race or lifestyle choice is granted special privilege above and beyond the majority. Our courts have completely lost sight of this fact with their insane decisions to set the "rights" of minorities above the rights of the majority and outside the will of the majority. And further by backing minorities in their insistence that "wishes" should be equal with "rights."

txradioguy
07-09-2011, 03:50 AM
Although I voted against the ban on affirmative action, it kind of pisses me off that a court would overrule the voters' decision.

Just out of curiosity...did you feel that way about the courts overturning Prop 8 in California?

txradioguy
07-09-2011, 03:52 AM
And I would refer you to the First Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

"I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.