Federal Court Overturns Anti-Racism Law in Michigan
(Above) Even well funded Seattle Public Schools can't close the diversity gap.
Update April 22, 2014: The Supreme Court has overturned a lower court ruling against the voter approved ban on affirmative action racism in Michigan. While it's hoped we can finally end institutionalized anti-white racism it's not over yet. Even before this ruling the liberal racists were already at work.
As the Michigan school system continues to be embroiled in mass failure and what to do with low-achieving non-Asian minorities, voter initiatives to end racism has been undermined by a federal court. Another federal court upheld a nearly identical law in California on the books since 1996.
In a 2-to-1 ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, said the voter-approved ban on state-sponsored racism "unconstitutionally alters Michigan's political structure by impermissibly burdening racial minorities." Those fighting the ban on affirmative action racism claim, "This is a tremendous victory. We think we'll win in the end, however many appeals there are."
This "coalition" fighting anti-racism laws are a collection of special interest groups including the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigration Rights, and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary.
Michigan attorney general Bill Schuette said, "The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative embodies the fundamental premise of what America is all about: equal opportunity under the law. Entrance to our great universities must be based upon merit, and I will continue the fight for equality, fairness, and rule of law."
This bazaar ruling was based on an equally bazaar ruling in 2003 when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of racism at the University of Michigan Law School in Gratz v. Bollinger, etc. They "could consider race in admissions decisions to promote campus diversity." Where in the Constitution is there anything about diversity? Also the "full appellate court, however, has agreed to reconsider the case."
Yet on April 2, 2012 the AP reports in Federal Appeals Court Upholds California's Affirmative Action Ban that affirmative action racists took a hit when the 9th. Circuit upheld California's Proposition 209 voter initiative of 1996 banning affirmative action racism.
The Pacific Legal Foundation who fought to protect citizens rights says, "The bottom line from both decisions by the 9th Circuit - today's and the ruling 15 years ago - is that California voters have every right to prohibit government from color-coding people and playing favorites based on individuals' sex or skin color."
Four other states besides California and Michigan have adopted bans on affirmative action racism in state college admissions including Arizona, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Washington.
Diversity racists claim equal treatment under the law is in itself racist and to those unqualified monorities. They note, "In California, the year after ban was adopted, the number of black, Latino and Native American students at the University of California's most prestigious campuses - Berkeley and Los Angeles - plummeted by 50 percent..."
Here too racist' educators have resorted to a variety of tactics including some nonsense called "comprehensive review" allowing admission to the top 4 percent of graduates from any high school and discounting merit. These scams have had limited success.
According to the AP, "Although blacks, Latinos and Native Americans comprise about half of California's high school graduates, they make up only 19.5 percent of the current freshman class at UC Berkeley. Whites compose roughly 30 percent and Asians 48 percent. The remainder is out-of-state students."
The problem for the race industry is Asians: their clear success undermines claims of white racism and proves it's lack of ability with blacks and Hispanic applicants, not racism.
The AP notes more danger for the advocates of affirmative action racists: "In February, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear another case against the University of Texas, alleging that use of affirmative action is discriminatory. If the court decides against the university, the ruling could definitively end consideration of race in public university admissions."
Extracts from the Michigan ruling:
Following these decisions, Ward Connerly, a former University of California Regent who had championed a proposition in California similar to the one at issue here, and Jennifer Gratz, the lead plaintiff in Gratz, mobilized to place on Michigan's November 2006 statewide ballot...
The initiative-officially designated Proposal 06-2 but commonly known as "Proposal 2" was characterized as a proposal "to amend the State Constitution to ban affirmative action programs..."
(1) The University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, and any other public college or university, community college, or school district 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.
(2) 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.
(3) For the purposes of this section "state" includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the state itself, any city, county, any public college, university, or community college, school district, or other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State of Michigan not included in sub-section 1.
And what was the asinine reason this was turned down?
It took effect in December 2006 and wrought two significant changes to the admissions policies at Michigan's public colleges and universities. First, it forced them to modify the policies they had in place for nearly a half-century to remove consideration of "race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin" in admissions decisions.
No other admissions criteria-for example, grades, athletic ability, or family alumni connections-suffered the same fate. Second, Proposal 2 entrenched this prohibition at the state constitutional level, thus preventing the public colleges and universities or their boards from revisiting this issue without repeal or modification of Proposal 2.
Because racist policies had been in force for decades was reason not to change them? Then for not leaving a small minority that instigated the racist' criteria to begin with an opportunity to reinstate it? The opinion is really fascinating to read. Read the entire 6th Circuit Opinion
Ref. Federal Appeals Court Upholds California's Affirmative Action Ban April 2, 2012, AP
Court Overturns Michigan Affirmative-Action Ban New York Times July 1, 2011
- Michigan Education Ruined by Diversity
- Education Ruin in Michigan For Diversity
- Federal Court Overturns Michigan Anti-Racism Law
- Origins of Socialist Racism
- Critical Race Theory is Irrational
- Western-American Culture is Superior - Get Over It
- Remapping Class Warfare to Racial Warfare
- Intelligence Predicts Economic Social Outcome
- Baltimore Schools Another Diversity Failure
- Crime Rates Proportional to Diversity
- Black Boys Can't Read in California
- School Violence Hidden in Virginia Schools
- African Americans Worth $8 in Liberal Boston
- Liberal California Poverty Capital of America
- Working Class Whites Banned by Harvard Elite
- Jews Over Represented at Elite Colleges?
- Working Poor in Southwest Virginia Bristol
- Violence Rocks Philadelphia and Norfolk Virginia
- National Elite Use Race to Cover Greed, Class Conflict
- Disproportionate Black Crime
- Progressivism is a Cult
Web site Copyright Lewis Loflin, All rights reserved.
If using this material on another site, please provide a link back to my site.