Michigan AA ban struck down

[RedRamage]

US court strikes down Mich. affirmative action ban | wzzm13.com

DETROIT (AP) -- A federal appeals court has thrown out Michigan's voter-approved ban on affirmative action in college admissions and public hiring.

The court says the 2006 amendment to the Michigan Constitution is illegal because it presents an extraordinary burden to opponents who would have to mount their own long, expensive campaign to protect affirmative action.

The Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati said Thursday that the burden undermines a federal right that all citizens "have equal access to the tools of political change."

Michigan voters amended the constitution to ban the consideration of race in college admissions and government hiring. It forced the University of Michigan and other public schools to change policies.

Okay, on one hand I think there is room for and a need for AA still. I'd like to see it slightly minimized compared to what it was, so I'm kinda happy about it.

That said, that seems like a total ******** explanation for over turning it. Couldn't this be said about many, many laws, rules, or referendums? I suspect defeating Obama-care would be a long, expensive campaign, and therefore it would be banned. Stupid.

[Gehringer_2]

US court strikes down Mich. affirmative action ban | wzzm13.com


Okay, on one hand I think there is room for and a need for AA still. I'd like to see it slightly minimized compared to what it was, so I'm kinda happy about it.

That said, that seems like a total ******** explanation for over turning it. Couldn't this be said about many, many laws, rules, or referendums? I suspect defeating Obama-care would be a long, expensive campaign, and therefore it would be banned. Stupid.

OTOH, if that rationale began to stick as precedent, at some point in the future you might be able to force neutral redistricting. That is something that might revolutionize US politics.

[sub rosa]

here is the opinion, if anyone wants to read it:

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions...2a0385p-06.pdf

there are several strong dissents included in the document linked above. basically the court majority is saying that it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the u.s. constitution for michigan voters to use the democratic process to disallow the use of racial preferences in college admissions. the reasoning is that racial minorities face more difficult obstacles in advocating for policies that benefit them than would white people. i think if the legislature had done this rather than a direct vote of the people, then it may have been upheld.

i'm wondering - does this assume that minorities opposed proposal 2? did they? i can see an argument from the minority student perspective that affirmative action is damaging to minorities.

[Gehringer_2]

i'm wondering - does this assume that minorities opposed proposal 2? did they? i can see an argument from the minority student perspective that affirmative action is damaging to minorities.

So I take it this was the full court? The opponents already got a favorable ruling from a sub panel last July I thought.

And yes, I think contemporaneous reports were that minorities opposed prop 2 in the vote 90/10.

[shabba4detroit]

I find that this rationale rubs me the wrong way. I will ponder it further to clearly explain why before I comment further.

[shabba4detroit]

here is the opinion, if anyone wants to read it:

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions...2a0385p-06.pdf

there are several strong dissents included in the document linked above. basically the court majority is saying that it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the u.s. constitution for michigan voters to use the democratic process to disallow the use of racial preferences in college admissions. the reasoning is that racial minorities face more difficult obstacles in advocating for policies that benefit them than would white people. i think if the legislature had done this rather than a direct vote of the people, then it may have been upheld.

i'm wondering - does this assume that minorities opposed proposal 2? did they? i can see an argument from the minority student perspective that affirmative action is damaging to minorities.

Your link appears incorrect.

[hueytaxi]

Here I thought Michigan had banned anti aircraft guns.....watch out for that RCAF!

[sinister porpoise]

Your link appears incorrect.

The link works for me. http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions...2a0386p-06.pdf or US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit "Today's Opinions" the case is Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Regents of the University of Mich.

[Melody]

So let me get this straight. If the people vote to approve a law requiring equal standards applied to all without regard to race, gender, etc. that's unconstitutional?

[hueytaxi]

So let me get this straight. If the people vote to approve a law requiring equal standards applied to all without regard to race, gender, etc. that's unconstitutional?

Only in a liberal world.

[Gehringer_2]

So let me get this straight. If the people vote to approve a law requiring equal standards applied to all without regard to race, gender, etc. that's unconstitutional?

It does sound weird, but drain away all the specific subtext and consider that at least as of current Supreme court precedent (Bakke) AA is an allowable remediation. So the public in Michigan has voted to cut off access to a remedy sanctioned by the court, so in the court's eyes that is no different than if the public of the state had passed a referendum in opposition to the 14th amendment. Its the principle of who has supremacy of jurisdcition over that issue that is key.

When you look at the language of prop 2, the decision appears ironic, but if you look past the content of the particular legislation at the process only, you see the court is simply ruling that the public cannot vote to override what SCOTUS (or the by inference, the consitution) has taken on itself to have the last word on.

Of course what could get really ridiculous is if SCOTUS reverses Bakke while the Appeals court is busy upholding it.

[sub rosa]

Only in a liberal world.

this country was founded by the liberals of their time.

what would you say if the majority of michigan voters voted that black people couldn't drive cars on fridays and saturdays? i know you would oppose it. it would violate the principle of equal protection of law. that's why those who don't mind oppressing minorities do it in more subtle ways.

but, like i said, i think there is an argument to be made that affirmative action harms minorities in the long run. but, like shabba, i'm going to digest this opinion in more depth before i form any strong views about it.

[ROMAD1]

Asian Americans = AA...I'll bet they are unhappy.

[Melody]

what would you say if the majority of michigan voters voted that black people couldn't drive cars on fridays and saturdays? i know you would oppose it. it would violate the principle of equal protection of law. that's why those who don't mind oppressing minorities do it in more subtle ways.

Right. Now, I haven't read the text of the new Michigan law, but from reports it doesn't seem to deny any basic right or privilege given to all other citizens. In fact, it seems to affirm the 14th amendment.

I'll have to think a bit on how a favorable ruling on this law might affect congressional districts. First impression is that it is an entirely different matter since gerrymandering to achieve minority representation doesn't grant special privileges to any individual or group.

[chasfh]

Here I thought Michigan had banned anti aircraft guns.....watch out for that RCAF!

I wondered whether voters had banned Africans Americans!

(When I was media planning at ad agencies working on black brands, we would purchase "AA target rating points" from black radio and TV stations.)

[ROMAD1]

this country was founded by the liberals of their time.

what would you say if the majority of michigan voters voted that black people couldn't drive cars on fridays and saturdays? i know you would oppose it. it would violate the principle of equal protection of law. that's why those who don't mind oppressing minorities do it in more subtle ways.

but, like i said, i think there is an argument to be made that affirmative action harms minorities in the long run. but, like shabba, i'm going to digest this opinion in more depth before i form any strong views about it.

I've often wondered if local schools would be better -- or held to a higher standard -- if people realized neutral standards of academic success were critical to entry to the meritocracy.

On the other hand, I compare the kids in my son's cub scout den: a couple Asian American kids who are driven like they are being pursued by demons; ROMAD Jr. is sort of an honorary Asian Kid; a couple of lesser intellect white kids who seem to run around crying about what they want to do all the time; and one African American kid whose mother made special effort to get him into our school district to avoid the DC schools...he's bright, but snotty and recently has become very anti-intellect...not sure when/how that change occurred but I don't like it.

its an isolated observation...but I can't help but wonder if the cultural forces around that boy are helping him.