Sharing is caring!

michiganU.S. Supreme Court Rules Michigan’s Proposal 2 is Constitutional

WASHINGTON – In a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court overturned a lower court and ruled that Michigan’s Proposal 2 is constitutional. Proposal 2 is a 2006 ballot initiative that led to a state constitutional ban on race-conscious college admissions policies in Michigan. It specifically barred students from lobbying universities to consider race as one of many factors in admissions.

“Proposal 2 unfairly keeps students from asking universities to consider race as one factor in admissions, but allows consideration of factors like legacy status, athletic achievement and geography,” said Mark Rosenbaum, the American Civil Liberties Union attorney who argued the case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, before the Supreme Court in October. “This case is ultimately about whether students of color in Michigan are allowed to compete on the same playing field as all other students. Today, the Supreme Court said they are not.”

National Action Network President Rev. Al Sharpton had this to say about the ruling.

“The Supreme Court decision upholding the state of Michigan’s ban of using race as a factor in affirmative action is a devastating blow to the civil rights community. The ramifications of this will be far reaching and could tie us up in endless battles,” he said. “We must mobilize immediately for state referendums to counter this decision to protect the ongoing battle to redress the historic needed repairs to racial discrimination.”

According to Shapton, the National Action Network is not only disappointed in the outcome in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, but is extremely concerned that the decision will uphold a Michigan voter initiative prohibiting the use of race in admissions to the state’s public universities further heightens barriers of inequality for minority enrollment at colleges and universities.

Also, states that have banned affirmative action in college and university admissions have tended to enroll fewer Black and Hispanic freshmen.

Sharpton added that with this decision, the number of underrepresented minority students admitted to universities would fall significantly and the concept of Equal Opportunity policies ensure that no person is disadvantaged or treated unfairly when applying for college, employment, or other application processes because of their race, ethnicity or gender.

“The National Action Network will work to mobilize our members to the polls to vote in local and state elections to combat discriminatory laws that further stifle the advancement of people in our communities,” he said.

In 2006, the ACLU, ACLU of Michigan, NAACP, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the law firm of Cravath, Swaine and Moore, LLP, filed a lawsuit on behalf of students, faculty and prospective applicants to the University of Michigan challenging Proposal 2.

In 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found Proposal 2 unconstitutional for placing an unfair burden on those seeking to have race considered as one of many factors in university admissions.

“This decision gives donors, athletic officials, and alumni unencumbered access to university officials when lobbying for their constituents, however completely shuts out supporters of greater diversity on campus from the admissions process,” said Kary L. Moss, executive director of the ACLU of Michigan. “In order to have their voices heard, students of color must now take on the arduous task of overturning the constitutional amendment. This is the definition of a separate and unequal system that will result in Michigan continuing to lose students and faculty of color to states that have the flexibility to consider the whole person before them.”

There has been a notable decline in minority enrollment since Proposal 2 took effect. For example, African-American enrollment plummeted 33 percent at the University of Michigan/Ann Arbor between 2006 and 2012, even as overall enrollment grew by 10 percent.

“While this decision is a setback for diversity efforts in Michigan, it is important to note that this case did not address the merits of race-conscious admissions, which have been previously upheld by the court, as the justices emphasized in today’s ruling,” said Leticia Smith-Evans, interim director of the Education Group at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

Plaintiff Kevin Gaines, a professor of history and African-American Studies at the University of Michigan, said he is concerned with how today’s ruling will impact the quality of education students receive at Michigan universities.

“Students deserve a robust education where a variety of viewpoints are shared and debated,” he said. “Proposal 2 has meant less diversity in our universities, which has had a chilling effect on the quality of discourse in the classroom. Unfortunately, that will continue, at least for the time being, in Michigan.”

When will Black people awake.

Things are being reversed right before our eyes.

The Clock is ticking backwards and we are marching at a quicker pace back towards slavery.