In response to a November ruling from the U.S. Sixth Circuit
Court of Appeals that overturned the Michigan Civil Rights
Initiative (MCRI), state Attorney General Bill Schuette is
petitioning the U.S Supreme Court to revisit the constitutionality
of preferential policies. A new non-profit group, the XIV
Foundation (as in 14th Amendment), has filed an amicus brief on
behalf of Schuette, calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse
the 6th circuit ruling. A definitive ruling on affirmative action
in college admissions and government hiring could be in order for
2013.
Jennifer Gratz, the plaintiff in the 2003 Gratz v.
Bollinger Supreme Court decision that struck down the
quota system in place at the University of Michigan’s undergraduate
school, co-founded the XIV Foundation shortly after the 6th circuit
court ruled against the MCRI.
“Much progress has been made over the past 15 years in
challenging the discriminatory policies that are errantly described
as ‘affirmative action’ policies,” Gratz said in press release.
“Eight judges put this progress at risk when they decided to
overturn MCRI and the will of over 2.1 million Michigan voters who
chose equality over discrimination.”
The MCRI is closely modeled on California’s Proposition 209,
which states: “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant
preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of
race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of
public employment, public education, or public contracting.”
Similar measures have also passed in Washington state, Nebraska,
Arizona, Oklahoma, Florida, and New Hampshire.
Since the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has twice upheld
California’s Proposition 209, the XIV brief argues that “lower
courts need firm, clear direction” on this issue. “Without such
clarity,” XIV insists, “States and federal courts will continue to
struggle with race and gender equity and, in so doing, stymie
citizen-led progress toward racial equality.”
Up until now, the Supreme Court has split the difference in its
rulings on affirmative action policies.
The Gratz decision was issued in conjunction with
Grutter v. Bollinger. Writing for the majority in
Bollinger, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor ruled that it was
permissible for the University of Michigan Law School to use race
as one of many factors in a “narrowly tailored” fashion to achieve
student diversity.
Since the high court is already taking up the constitutionality
of race conscious admissions policies in
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, now would be
an opportune time to strike down preferential policies with an
unambiguous ruling rooted in the principles of the 14th
Amendment.
Redfray | 1.3.13 @ 5:08PM
You don't really think they will strike this law, do you? These judges love making decisions of power that completely destroys the American society. They can't even stay awake long enough to read a long case, much less listen to it. The law profession has manipulate our laws right into choatic order for the love of money. Stop hoping for a miracle, and start getting ready for a civil war.
JD| 1.3.13 @ 6:18PM
The suggestion that "diversity" is a merit is the suggestion that, all other things being equal, having one black man and one white man is better than having two white men or two black men. This implies that there are characteristics inherent in race that equate to differences in value.
This is a racist implication.
The suggestion that "diversity" is a merit is thus a racist suggestion.
All acts at all levels of government which use the advancement of "diversity" as a rationale are in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Bob Grant| 1.3.13 @ 8:34PM
Racism For the Sake of Diversity.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Occam's Tool| 1.3.13 @ 9:45PM
Well, I don't see our current Chief Justice losing his Liberal Strange New Respect, Bob.
This will be upheld. Of course, both my kids are adopted Mayan Indians, and I got accepted to two US medical schools as a white Jewish kid.
spike59| 1.4.13 @ 5:34AM
“The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”
================================
makes perfect sense; therefore, the Left opposes it
Stan Redmond| 1.4.13 @ 12:41PM
I will define it right now.
Racist, Sexism, and Bigotry.