Supreme Court affirms affirmative action ban in Michigan

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a voter initiative in Michigan that banned racial preferences in admissions to the public universities. The high court said that race-based admissions policies are constitutionally permissible in states that wish to utilize them. The April 22 decision concerned the question of whether and how voters may prohibit affirmative action programs. 
 
Known as Proposal 2 in Michigan, the voter initiative was in response to a 2003 Supreme Court decision in Grutter v. Bollinger which upheld the use of race as one factor among many in law school admissions to ensure educational diversity at public institutions.
 
In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court had upheld that affirmative action taken by the University of Michigan Law School to ensure class diversity was constitutional. At that time, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor – who was named to the bench by President Ronald Reagan – wrote for the majority that the University of Michigan had a compelling interest in promoting diversity in a process that favored "underrepresented minority groups."
 
The constitutionality of Proposal 2, which the Supreme Court ruled upon today, had been challenged variously in federal courts. A ruling in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals was appealed to the high court by Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette. In its April 22 announcement of its finding, the Supreme Court statement said "that there is no authority...for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit to the voters the determination whether racial preferences may be considered in governmental decisions, in particular with respect to school decisions."
 
In an emailed reply to Spero News, University of Michigan spokesman Rick Fitzgerald wrote “The ruling has no effect on our policies, which already are consistent with Proposal 2 of 2006. We remain committed to the goal of a diverse, academically excellent, student body, and will continue to seek to achieve that goal in ways that comply with the law.”


Spero News editor Martin Barillas is a former US diplomat, who also worked as a democracy advocate and election observer in Latin America. He is also a freelance translator.

Filed under politics, law, politics, michigan, civil rights, racism, us, Americas

Comments

Book review: My Battle Against Hitler

Dietrich von Hildebrand's memoir of his life of heroic consistency of belief and action in Germany in the midst of the Holocaust.

Cowboys and Indians allied against Keystone Pipeline

Political expedience may rule in the U.S. Senate, where Democrats who have opposed the Keystone pipeline project may change their minds to keep incumbent Louisiana Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu in office.

Tainted tetanus vaccine stirs a row in Kenya

A Kenyan teachers union, and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, have called for an investigation into fears that a UN-sponsored tetanus vaccine is causing miscarriages among Kenyan women.

This page took 0.1250seconds to load