Tuesday, January 30: This post is closed to commenting. Continue the discussion at Has “White Guilt” Run Its Course?
Update II: Affirmative action for pastors?
Update: Commenter Michael Burrow writes:
“If we want to keep AA [t]hen it should go full circle. I want to see the rough percentages of our population on all the sports teams, both professional and college. That way nobody is left out. It’s not my fault that I was born a slow white man with no athletic talent.” 
Later…In response to Proposal 2, the law that bars race and sex preferences in government hiring and admissions, the city of Grand Rapids, Michigan, created the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise. It’s a way to get around the law, but it will have unintended consequences. An administrator at the Equal Opportunity Office said the designation disadvantaged could refer to any business, without regard to the color of the owner’s skin.
Writes John Rosenberg, “Imagine that! The ‘Equal Opportunity Office’ has discovered that equal opportunity can be promoted without racial discrimination!”
——————————————————————————————————–
Updates on Michigan’s fight to end skin color preferences
After 58 percent of Michigan voters said “No more preferences!” last November, three state universities requested and received permission to delay the implementation of Proposal 2, a measure that bars race and sex preferences in government hiring and admissions.
Last month Jennifer Gratz, a plaintiff in the Gratz v. Bollinger case, left a comment on the blog to let me know the 6th Circuit lifted the injunction against Proposal 2, which means state universities must carry out the voters’ wishes immediately.
As expected, skin color-preference proponents appealed to the Supreme Court, which decline to reverse the 6th Circuit’s order. Taxpayer-supported universities in Michigan, how ever begrudgingly, must not admit students based on the color of their skin.
Bummer. 
But these are merely procedural matters. The Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (don’t laugh), aka BAMN, and others are seeking to overturn Proposal 2.
It’s important for people to understand that race preferences by design discriminate on the basis of race. If a school’s admissions policy is to accept a certain number of blacks, other races must be excluded to accommodate those admittees. In order for any school to maintain academic standards, they are allowed to discriminate against students based on grades and test scores. There’s nothing repugnant about that. But race is different, as our country’s history clearly indicates.
BAMN and others are determined to knock Proposal 2 off the books, and the Supreme Court may end up hearing the case. The lower-standards-for-blacks group is challenging Proposal 2 on three shaky grounds:
- Proposal 2 is preempted by the Civil Rights Act of 1964
True, but this fact hurts BAMN’s cause. BAMN and others want to maintain racially discriminatory government policies, which are prohibited by the Act. In that regard, it’s difficult to tell which part of the Act BAMN is relying upon, in light of statements like this: “…shall be entitled…without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
- Proposal 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
False. According to the Equal Protection Clause I read, “no state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” That means all people in Michigan, regardless of color, are protected by law from racial discrimination, which is the purpose of Proposal 2. Which Equal Protection Clause are BAMN’s lawyers reading?
- Proposal 2 violates the First Amendment as affirmed by the Supreme Court decision, Grutter v. Bollinger
Depends. The Grutter court cited Justice Powell’s assertion in Bakke that schools have a First Amendment, “academic freedom” interest in admitting underqualified black students. Powell said the “nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure’ to the ideas and mores of students as diverse as this Nation.”
No one has shown that “wide exposure to ideas and mores” justifies circumventing the Constitution and discriminating against people based on race, or how so-called wide exposure to diverse “ideas and mores” is beneficial, or any correlation between good leadership and “wide exposure” to diverse “ideas and mores”…you get the point.
Maybe some smart person out there can explain something to me. What’s the worst that could happen if schools admitted students based on grades, test scores, and perhaps extracurricular activities, without regard to skin color?
Addendum: Those who believe skin color and legacy admissions are equivalent, morally or otherwise, should read the following articles:
- Alumni Preferences:They’re different
- College Preferences by Race, Sex and Legacy Status
- Transparent Discrimination
- Racial preferences more harmful than legacy policies in college
