See the inspiring stories Come meet us Time to legalize weed?
OPINION
Supreme Court of the United States

Affirmative action vs. voters: Opinionline

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette discusses the affirmative action case Monday in Washington.

Stephen Henderson,Detroit Free Press : "Provisions such as Michigan's constitutional ban on affirmative action simply extend the rest of society's racial imbalances — unequal access to K-12 resources, segregated housing patterns and economic isolation — into higher education. ... Michigan would undoubtedly be better if we put the constitutional ban aside and had a real discussion about how to expand educational liberty. ... But don't expect the U.S. Supreme Court to force that discussion."

The New York Times,editorial: "The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that race-conscious admissions policies may further a compelling governmental interest in educational diversity. While the court does closely analyze how such policies are designed, it recognizes that universities have 'experience and expertise' in judging the need for a diverse student body. ... The court should uphold the 6th Circuit's decision striking down the amendment, and send a message to other states that they may not rig the game at the expense of minorities, even if they cloak it in the language of equality."

David Bernstein,The Volokh Conspiracy : "The Supreme Court's diversity rationale arguably suggests that the main benefit of achieving a critical mass of minority students through affirmative action preferences is that it improves the education of the non-minority students. ... If white students benefit from 'diversity'-based preferences at least as much as minority students, there is no particular group being disadvantaged by Proposal 2's ban on such preferences. In other words, Proposal 2 can't be unconstitutional because it makes it more difficult for minority students to lobby for benefits for themselves, given that it would be unconstitutional for the state government to respond to such lobbying by enacting racial preferences. This, in turn, undermines the entire logic of the 6th Circuit's decision."

Los Angeles Times,editorial: "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.S. 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.' ... Bans on racial preferences at state universities — while bad policy — don't violate the Constitution."

Elie Mystal,Above the Law : "The facts on the ground in Michigan since the state's ballot initiative show that without affirmative action, minority enrollment has plummeted. At the University of Michigan, minority enrollment at the college and the law school is down 30%. ... The Michigan statute prevents Michigan from taking minority students who are just off the pace over similarly low-scoring white kids. In fact, they're free to admit whatever 'low-achieving' white student they like, for whatever reason they choose."

William Peacock,FindLaw : "The Michigan initiative was pulled, word for word, from a California law passed in the early 1990s. ... Obviously, if the Supreme Court finds the Michigan initiative unconstitutional, it would require excision of the same law from California's books, and if the court really reaches, and disturbs Grutter v. Bollinger (in which the court ruled that race was one factor among many) the impact could be even more far-reaching."

Featured Weekly Ad