Anti-Discrimination Laws are Discriminatory: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action

Today the Supreme Court will be deciding if Michigan has the right to outlaw race discrimination in their universities.

Yeah, you read that right.

You know a case is going to be interesting when even the oppositions attorney is questioning whether the entire court case is obtuse.

Affirmative action opponents persuaded Michigan voters to outlaw any consideration of race after the Supreme Court ruled a decade ago that race could be a factor in college admissions.

That state’s constitutional amendment is now being examined by the high court to determine whether the change the voters sought is in fact discriminatory.

It is a proposition that even the lawyer for civil rights groups in favor of affirmative action acknowledges is a tough sell, at first glance.

“How can a provision that is designed to end discrimination in fact discriminate?” said Mark Rosenbaum of the American Civil Liberties Union. Yet that is the difficult argument Rosenbaum will make on Tuesday to a court that has grown more skeptical about taking race into account in education since its Michigan decision in 2003.

– Fox News

I have a very low opinion of affirmative action myself. Race should never be a factor in a job application or university admissions application. Never. 

How in the world can you say that it’s okay to discriminate in favor of a minority, but then turn around and sue someone for discriminating against a minority? A bit hypocritical don’t you think.

Oh wait, liberals are the ones who love Affirmative Action. Why am I surprised by hypocisy?

So I applaud Michigan’s decision on this. The voter’s chose and now, somehow, it’s being said that this decision is discriminatory.

Discriminatory against who exactly?

People argue that minority enrollment has gone down since the amendment was passed in Michigan, but what they don’t talk about is the real question.

What was the quality of the students that were turned down? Their GPAs? Their SATs and ACTs? Their recommendations and extracurriculars?

Why should a school consider anything other than the above when deciding who is a good fit for their schools?

How is it discrimination to say “your race does not matter to us, we don’t care what your skin color is, the only thing that matters is your merit”, that’s racist?

No, no it’s not.

So here’s hoping that the Supreme Court will make the smart decision tomorrow.

I’m keeping my fingers crossed.

Advertisements

2 Comments

  1. How do we apply the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning to laws that ban racial segregation by the government?

    It is important to remember that Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), did not sweep away all racial segregation nationwide. Brown only overruled Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) to the extent it applied to public education. 347 U.S. at 495. Under current Supreme Court precedent, the 14th Amendment permits the state to racially segregate other facilities like parks and rail cars. Any lower court hearing such a challenge must follow Plessy, because the Supreme Court never struck down racial segregation as a violation of the 1r4th Amendment outside the public education context.

    Thus, if a state banned racially segregated streetcars in local public transportation, it would require segregationists to appeal to at least the legislature (if not the state’s constitutional amendment process), instead of the local government to obtain their preference for racially segregated streetcars. And under the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning, this restructures the political process to disfavor segregationists from obtaining a racial preference still permitted by the 14th Amendment. (Again, Brown is only applicable to public education.) And as such, a state banning especially segregated street cars in local public transportation violates equal protection under Sixth Circuit precedent.

Comments are closed.