July 1, 2011

6th Circuit says Michigan's ban on affirmative action violates Equal Protection.

"The court’s 2-to-1 ruling, which is likely to be appealed, said the voter-approved ban 'unconstitutionally alters Michigan’s political structure by impermissibly burdening racial minorities.'"

Here's the opinion (PDF). Excerpt:
[Washington v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 458 U.S. 457 (1982), and Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969),] expounded the rule that an enactment deprives minority groups of equal protection of the laws when it: (1) has a racial focus, targeting a goal or program that “inures primarily to the benefit of the minority”; and (2) works a reallocation of political power or reordering of the decisionmaking process that places “special burdens” on a minority group’s ability to achieve its goals through that process...

Proposal 2, like Initiative 350, has a “racial focus,” because the Michigan universities’ affirmative-action programs “inure[] primarily to the benefit of the minority, and [are] designed for that purpose,” for the reasons articulated by the Court in Seattle. Just as the desegregative busing programs at issue in Seattle were designed to improve racial minorities’ representation at many public schools, race-conscious admissions policies increase racial minorities’ representation at institutions of higher education, see, e.g., Grutter, 539 U.S. at 316, 328-33 (describing the University of Michigan Law School’s minority-student-enrollment aims); Gratz, 539 U.S. at 253-56 (describing admissions policies at the University of Michigan regarding underrepresented minority groups).
I thought the "diversity" interest counted as compelling in Grutter was for the educational benefit of all of the students in the classroom. Under Grutter and Gratz, an interest in benefiting the minority would not support the state's choice to have affirmative action, so how can it work as the basis for saying that the state can't choose not to have it? The Seattle and Hunter cases are a bit strange, and I would not be surprised if the Supreme Court took this case and not only reversed but reframed the doctrine.

114 comments:

Pogo said...

Seriously, Althouse, why do we even bother anymore?

The Constitution says whatever the hell they want it to say to meet the Progressive agenda.

I don't even pay attention anymore. All it is is blah blah blah and to each according to his needs.

KLDAVIS said...

Yes, framing the doctrine to something better than, "We know discrimination when we see it," would be fantastic.

wv. Redrup (not really, but that'd have been funny).

traditionalguy said...

That is opinion is 100% pure shameless sophistry. They declare that making a law race and gender neutral deprives the preferred population groups of their special advantages over all other groups. Yes it does! And that is why it is unconstitutional not to end it, rather than unconstitutional to end it. Boy, they really do think we are stupid.

Shouting Thomas said...

So, racism is all right, so long as the guy who gets it in the ass is a white hetero guy.

Why should I have any fucking respect for the law or for government institutions?

I have none. Zero.

rhhardin said...

Hang on, I've lost track of what equal protection means.

mesquito said...

So, racial discrimination is not only permissible. It's mandatory.

Elliott A said...

Why have "official" affirmative action when everyone practices unofficial affirmative action anyway. I'm sure the African american females amongst Ann's students get much more attention from prospective employers than the white males of the same class rank. Everyone wants to look diverse, so they hire minorities (or accept them into their school) with a preference that is not official policy.

george said...

Jim Crow is alive and well in Michigan.

There is simply no decision which a court will not arrogate to itself.

mesquito said...

The Seattle and Hunter cases are a bit strange, and I would not be surprised if the Supreme Court took this case and not only reversed but reframed the doctrine.

It damned well better.

mesquito said...

[Washington v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 458 U.S. 457 (1982), and Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969),] expounded the rule that an enactment deprives minority groups of equal protection of the laws when it: (1) has a racial focus, targeting a goal or program that “inures primarily to the benefit of the minority”; and (2) works a reallocation of political power or reordering of the decisionmaking process that places “special burdens” on a minority group’s ability to achieve its goals through that process...

Un;ess you're Asian-American. Then you're shit out of luck.

Alex said...

Conservatives are very fearful of everything around them.

Chip S. said...

Still think that Jon Stewart was being "incredibly cynical about courts"?

Yesterday the 6th Circuit ruled that "inactivity is activity." Today it's "discrimination is equal protection."

They've decided that a legal fig leaf is no longer necessary.

Fen said...

Here's a test: lets elect a guy president because of his skin color and see what happens.

enactment deprives minority groups of equal protection of the laws unless that minority is asian or white

/fixed

nevadabob said...

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is out of control.

What's next, ruling that the sky is NOT BLUE?

nevadabob said...

I don't want to live on this planet any more.

Fen said...

Alex: Conservatives are very fearful of everything around them.

Or... Alex is being phobic again. You decide.

Hey Alex, whats with your irrational fear of conservatives?

AllenS said...

Conservatives are going to kill all of the polar bears.

Pogo said...

The next Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision will be Arbeit Macht Frei.


Ha!
Firstest Godwin!!1!

LarsPorsena said...

"Blogger Chip S. said...

Still think that Jon Stewart was being "incredibly cynical about courts"?

Yesterday the 6th Circuit ruled that "inactivity is activity." Today it's "discrimination is equal protection."

..and bombing does not equal
hostilities.

Welcome to our brave new world.
Hug a lawyer to show your appreciation.

Chip S. said...

Conservatives are going to kill all of the polar bears.

No, conservatives obviously want to kill all the black bears. They hate diversity.

Alex said...

Conservatives are fearful of their god-given utopia being taken away from them. They refuse to share their wealth with all the non lily-white people.

Sam Hall said...

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Roadkill said...

Inactivity is Activity.

Discrimination is Equal Protection.

War is Peace.

Freedom is Slavery.

Ignorance is Strength.

Chip S. said...

@LarsP, Yes--that too. Thank G-d for the Rule of Law.

Elliott A said...

There can be no good conservatives blogging because they are too busy pushing old ladies in wheel chairs off cliffs or in front of cars.

This is not a matter of political ideology, just fairness. Governments which institutionalize "unfairness" create revolutions.

Shouting Thomas said...

So, when will some court apply the 3/5 rule to white hetero men?

Or have they already?

Fen said...

PhobicMan said: Conservatives are fearful of their god-given utopia being taken away from them. They refuse to share their wealth with all the non lily-white people.

John. Edwards.

"Two Americas. My house and the one across the street" - Letter to zoning board

XWL said...

Viewpoint discrimination is far, far, far worse within academia now than skin color bias.

If 'diversity' is a goal worth trampling the available opportunities of otherwise equally qualified folks, then seems like viewpoint diversity would be a more worthy goal given the biases exhibited in schools and where our society is headed, rather than where it has been.

Elliott A said...

George Orwell would be very distraught if he knew the level of indifference to his warnings, even after watching what transpired in the last century

Larry J said...

Proposal 2 was a successful ballot initiative that provides that the state, including state educational institutions, may 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.” Judge Cole, joined by Judge Daughtrey, held that the proposal is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.

So, in order to provide equal protection for everyone, we have to discriminate against some people, particularly white males and Asians. Do I have that right?


All of this sounds familiar.

"In order to perserve Equal Protection under the Law, we have to destroy it."

Paging Mr. Orwell.

Shouting Thomas said...

So, Althouse, I'll ask these questions for the third time.

Can a candidate for a tenured position at WI law possibly be hired if he openly opposes the quota systems?

Can a candidate for a tenured position at WI law possibly be hired if he calls the quota systems what they are, instead of the BS euphemism, AA?

Answer to both: No.

Chip S. said...

The problem of discrimination doesn't stop at the admissions office.

White students uniformly earn higher grades than students of color at all types of institutions.
--Beyond Grade Inflation (2005)

I can't wait for the case in which it is determined that course grades have a disparate impact.

Jay said...

What's next? Female=male? It would make as much sense as this ruling.

windbag said...

I'll take someone with an ounce of common sense and no law degree over these idiots with a law degree and no common sense any day.

traditionalguy said...

Alex...Where are these Lily White conservatives? Maybe in Wisconsin? Down here in Georgia we love all ethnic non-lilies who join our culture of work and respect for PRIVATE property rights rather than empowering the Welfare State collectionists. Join our fight and Vote for my neighbor Herman Cain. That will send a message to the northern Lilies that you hate.

Shouting Thomas said...

Oh, well...

So, there you have it.

My entire working life constrained by the quota systems designed specifically to punish me.

Too late for that to change.

Chip S. said...

What's next? Female=male?

Funny you should ask.

Ann Althouse said...

"Can a candidate for a tenured position at WI law possibly be hired if he openly opposes the quota systems?"

I don't even know anyone who openly supports "quota systems." They are unconstitutional, and we do know that.

Michael K said...

Alex said...
Conservatives are fearful of their god-given utopia being taken away from them. They refuse to share their wealth with all the non lily-white people.


Sharing the wealth is important to you, isn't it. ? Anybody wonder why "sharing" is so important to the lefties ? I remember years ago during a big fuss about whether a doctor's ex-wife had any property rights in his medical degree. A friend of mine named Mark Sullivan took the case to the Supreme Court. He's now dead.

At a medical convention shortly after, a group of women doctors were raising hell about the case, wanting the medical association to intervene. Of course, they wanted it to intervene to support the ex-wife. I asked them in a debate on the subject what would be their attitude if ex-husbands could also claim a property right in their degree.

Shock and horror followed. The subject was dropped. It had never occurred to them that the law could apply to them!

Those, like Alex, always assume that any sharing will benefit him because he will always have less than those compelled to "share." There are some hilarious stories about Hollywood lefties whose belief system flipped 180 degrees when they were in the cross hairs of the mandatory "sharers."

Maguro said...

I don't even know anyone who openly supports "quota systems." They are unconstitutional, and we do know that.

Don't be so coy. You can't possibly be naive enough to believe that college affirmative action programs are anything but quota systems in drag.

In the workplace, disparate impact lawsuits and the 4/5 rule produce hiring and promotion systems that are even worse than quota systems, but that's another conversation altogether.

If you call your quota a "goal"' does that mean it's not a quota anymore?

Cedarford said...

Pogo said...
Seriously, Althouse, why do we even bother anymore?

======================
The courts indeed have little credibility anymore.

For the most part, judges are political proxies to the party that appointed them and the tribe and culture they come from. And any that harbor a desire for independent thought are sometimes forced to take sides because they know that the black judge next to them will vote for affirmative action everytime as a Carter appointee, the Alabaman evangelical against any abortion rights in any case.

This 2-1 decision involved a black guy and a Vassar grad both appointed by Clinton and opposed by a UV Law School grad that worked for a Republican governor.

Why bother even having "arguments" when you know where the judges votes are going?

andinista said...

1. A one-way ratchet. Once We the People choose to start a program that benefits a temporarily disadvantaged group, we can never turn the d*** thing off. No matter whether it's too expensive, or a complete waste of money.

2. What shocking bigotry these Judges have. What is this "special burden"? It's this: because certain cultural groups do not highly value education in their children, kick their kids in the a** to get good grades, do their schoolwork, and behave in school; and demand the teachers and school districts to their jobs: then that is a special burden that must be overcome by abandoning merit, and forcing the schools to accept sub-performing students: because credentials are all that is necessary to be successful in this country, and not achievement.

This is what happens in a prolonged recession: the fault lines that divide us become exposed open wounds for all to see.

Seeing Red said...

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as “bad luck.”

— Robert Heilein



So what's the world gonna do when they don't that the white (Christian) to drain dry, Alex?

If they/we get sooo sick of it we say NUTS to you & the world?


Just a case of "bad luck?"


They didn't give the world the Magna Carta. The dead white guys did.

Cedarford said...

Sam Hall said...
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

=================
It's a stupid cliche of Republicans who "Have a Dream" of co-opting MLK while joining Dems in elevating the man to Sainthood as the Greatest American ever.

It is stupid because anyone who has read King knows he had great moral flaws, thought it too risky to fight communism, plagarized much of his stuff, believed in socialism, quotas, and reverse discrimination.

It's like conservatives embracing Stalin for some wonderful lines Stalin had in speeches and "how inspiring he was" to his peeps.

SteveR said...

Why do people get charged up on any of this stuff, the judges will rule is a very predictable way. Working from the answer backwards. If this isn't very high on your priority list for who you vote for in a presidential election, it should be.

I can't remember the last time I was surprised.

X said...

let's be clear, the people who support AA in college admissions aren't saying we need AA because admissions officers (a subset of AA cheerleaders) are racist, they're saying the groups they wish to benefit are inferior and that everyone else is racist.

it's all so unnecessary too. we have the internet, the greatest information sharing invention in history and the education industry is still dealing in limiting slots as though it's 1950 and bricks and mortar are the limiting factors. it's especially shameful at public universities. what is your mission?

Darleen said...

What's next? Female=male?

Um, we already have that in places like New York. Face it, the fundamental, underlying assumption of same-sex marriage is that sex is insignificant; that there is no difference if a man marries a woman or another man. Mothers and fathers are irrelevant.

Kirk Parker said...

"Conservatives are going to kill all of the polar bears. "

Nah, they're white.

Cedarford said...

Seeing Red - "Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty."
===========
Heinlein is as full of shit as MLK was on certain matters. This is just his Ayn Rand "John Galt" drivel.
That the only way the masses make it is by the genius and wisdom of a small minority "Ruling Elite" - that we must all obey.

Where people succeed and a good standard of living is achieved by most, not just a Top 1% of aristocrats or owner-banker-lawyer classes...it is when people share a common culture and common belief system in hard work and spreading the fruits of that hard work broadly.

The old saying that the Swedes have a horrible socialist system, and the only reason Sweden works is because it has Swedes there. Or, Japan's democracy is a corporatist mess...but Japan, even when it was imitative and without "the small minority of Great Titans creating wealth for all" - was after the Meiji Restoration - a land of common culture and shared beliefs.

So too America. Our wealth, dissapating rapidly, was not the result of a small tiny minority despised but "gifting America with all the wealth creation". It was created by the nimbleness the American system once had, the Protestant work ethic, and conviction you got to keep the rewards of your hard work while having a duty to help others.

nevadabob said...

"Inactivity is Activity.

Discrimination is Equal Protection.

War is Peace.

Freedom is Slavery.

Ignorance is Strength."


We are going to end up having to slit every one of their throats.

Sorry, I just don't see any way around it.

Seeing Red said...

Define "good living."

The 6th circuit doesn't believe that.


The duty is now The State's.

See Olde Europe.

Seeing Red said...

That's not how I took his comment.


All producers aren't billionaires or multimillionaires.

AllenS said...

Once all of the polar bears have been killed off, wouldn't there be a lot more baby seal pups to club? I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd like a nice soft pair of slippers.

David said...

"The train has arrived at its final destination! Debark and obey! You--white people, this line. Black people, line up over there. Shuffle along. You will be provided for."

The opinion concludes that equal protection under the law requires unequal treatment of certain racial groups, largely African-Americans.

Underlying assumption: African Americans are inferior and need special help.

Underlying philosophy: Paternalism.

The inferiority of blacks and the paternal duty of their white betters to "protect" them was the central justification of African slavery in the United States. The "protection" did not work out well in the 19th century, and is not working out well now.

Fellow Americans of African descent: The liberal activist government of the United States is not your friend. Wittingly or unwittingly, it will press you down because it needs you down. Your only true friends are yourselves. Only you can actually shape your destiny.

The Crack Emcee said...

I got my fingers in my ears, my John Phillip Souza turned up WAY LOUD, and I'm dancing, people, I'm dancing!!!

Fucking idiots.

Skookum John said...

@Alex: "Conservatives are fearful of their god-given utopia being taken away from them. They refuse to share their wealth with all the non lily-white people."

Fuckin' A right. I refuse to share my wealth with anyone who does not provide me with goods or services I value more. Their skin color is of no concern to me.

nevadabob said...

"Underlying assumption: African Americans are inferior and need special help."

They are, I'm now convinced. Especially after 2.5 years of their first president.

Black people are inferior.

200 years of American jurisprudence has reduced us to this.

I do not want to live on this planet any longer.

It is redeemless.

rcocean said...

Thank you Grandma O'Connor. And special thanks to Bush I (Souter) and Ford (Stevens) for making this all possible.

Yes, the constitution now mandates racial discrimination, gay marriage, and Abortion.

I assume this will be appealed and it will all depend on how Anthony Kennedy feels that day.

Skookum John said...

@Cedarford: "It's a stupid cliche of Republicans who "Have a Dream" of co-opting MLK while joining Dems in elevating the man to Sainthood as the Greatest American ever. "

No it's not. It's using Alinsky Rule #4.

Rabel said...

Powell saw this coming in his dissent on Seattle:
"Thus, if the admissions committee of a state law school developed an affirmative-action plan that came under fire, the Court apparently would find it unconstitutional for any higher authority to intervene unless that authority traditionally dictated admissions policies."

Shouting Thomas said...

I don't even know anyone who openly supports "quota systems." They are unconstitutional, and we do know that.

Yes, we certainly do know that.

Darleen said...

cedarflux spews That the only way the masses make it is by the genius and wisdom of a small minority "Ruling Elite" - that we must all obey.

No, neither Rand or Heinlein advocate that at all. They fundamentally say that all this minority wants is to be left alone.

cedarf belongs to the masses who, like the people in Shirley Jackson's The Lottery believe in human sacrifice to ensure good crops; or like Obama and Reid, kill the corporate jet owners will improve the economy (and next year, if it doesn't improve, they'll just pick other people to sacrifice)

rhhardin said...

Richard Epstein said you can't get checks and balances when all three branches of government have the same delusion.

link.

nevadabob said...

Who's up for a Civil War?

I for one am tired of shit like this. A government that rules that discrimination is required by our constitution is a government we need to destroy.

george said...

I think we all know that AA supporters are just stone cold racists and political cynics out to buy votes. That is the real question about hiring requirements at WI or any other university. Could a person who points out AA is racism be hired and would such a person even consider working at a place with such vile practices? If the answer is no in most or all cases then there are few if any decent people working at our universities. They would be self-selecting for the weak minded and low of character.

That is why so much of America considers academics morally inferior and often just downright evil. The thought is that if these people can rationalize such bigoted actions then they can rationalize anything. And given the fact that people like Bill Ayers are considered esteemed members of the academy then it is hard to argue otherwise.

Browndog said...

The biggest threat to the Constitution?

CASELAW

...keeping lawyers and law professors gainfully employed for 200 years....

SunnyJ said...

Crack Emcee: I've been here all night dancing. This is the band's last song and it's just you and me. It's my last night before I ship out, this is urgent!!!

SunnyJ: I know, I'm dancing as fast as I can.

richard mcenroe said...

so what these fine progressive judges are saying is,expecting minorities to compete on a level field is unduly burdensome? What does that say about about these fine progressive judges' opinion of the relative merits of whites and nonwhites?

Browndog said...

Just so you know...

The day Michigan banned this blatant discriminatory and unconstitutional practice, University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman boldly and arrogantly, as only an academic elitist can, announced that the University "Would not comply".

And, they didn't.

I suspect after this ruling is overturned, they still won't.

Universities have insulated themselves from society.

rcocean said...

I hope the new site has an ignore button.

Henry said...

This is called a ratchet:

A ratchet contains a gear with two step levers called "pawls" that are spring-loaded. It uses one lever at a time for each direction, which allows it to catch the teeth and spring into a groove, making it to go one way and not go backwards.

Henry said...

In this case, a one-way ratchet.

Fen said...

Bad form. We shouldn't disrespect blacks. They can't be expected to respond like civilized folk.

Voltimand said...

The logic of this decision is that of what lefist sociologists call "relative deprivation." That means: "whatever someone possesses that I don't possess is taken from me and is owed me." The old-fashioned word for that idea was envy. The difference today is that "equality" means giving people whatever they desire when they don't possess it. But what's "relative" about "relative deprivation" is that it is always relative to the desire of the person doing the desiring. Psychologically, these people are well-described in medieval iconography by pictures of people with very long necks, who can never, ever "get enough." Envy is related as one of the Deadly Seven to Gluttony: people who can never eat "enough" because, like the envious, the only things they desire are what they don't have. When they get it, they don't desire it anymore. Another word for this state of mind (or soul) is "being in hell."

American liberal jurisprudence to the rescue! "We will give people whatever they don't have, which means that we have to take it from someone else, because the only things that are desireable are things that other people posssess." Why? because the only things that are desireable are things that other people possess, etc. (begin reading from the beginning again . . .)

Seeing Red said...

so what these fine progressive judges are saying is,expecting minorities to compete on a level field is unduly burdensome? What does that say about about these fine progressive judges' opinion of the relative merits of whites and nonwhites?




The soft bigotry of low expectations

We can fund schools to the tune of $50K per student & it wouldn't make a difference.


It's not the money.

Henry said...

Backtracking I see andinista referenced the one-way ratchet as well. Credit to andinista.

Browndog said...

David said..

Underlying philosophy: Paternalism.

I think you are being waaaay too gracious.

One could write books upon books as to why this underlying philosophy is far more than anything amicable.

Start asking "why" and "why" and "why"...

Henry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Henry said...

@AllenS - Cape Cod fishermen are very unhappy with harbor seals this summer. It's time for a season.

Patrick said...

I thought affirmative action was dead. A 60's and 70's term since redefined. The term these days is social justice based on racial oppression. It's a never ending cycle that will never be solved as long as people are bought and sold as political victims and the buyer, sellers, and goods are never asked to improve their mindsets.

Browndog said...

This is what I mean about "precedent trumps law"

A comment on Volokh:

I was very skeptical of the plaintiff’s claims, then I read Hunter v. Erickson and Washington v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 and was much much less skeptical. Both of those cases strongly imply that the sort of government restructuring the detriment of a minority is impermissible under the EPC, whose guarantee is not merely a facially-neutral law but also a structural one.

What’s more, the facts here are so similar to Seattle that I’m dubious that the defendants can meaningfully distinguish it. The only thing left to do is ask the SCOTUS to overturn those two precedents — naturally the 6CA is not entitled to do so.


So far deep in the weeds sowing seeds sunlight is merely rhetorical

Patrick said...

Where does merit work better in getting people to see themselves in a better light? Would a Dale Carnegie course be 1000 times more effective than any legislator or judge in improving the lot of peoples lives? And at a fraction of the cost? Do all these years of black pride and black soul result in garbage or was there some noticeable effect?

Legalize pot, Legalize prostitution, there will be less black people in jail. Kids need immersion in structured creativity and their characters will form around creative goals instead of reacting to pain and violence. Reward those known people of all types who know how and are committed to help kids grow into the modern world.

Affirmative actions has no positive effect or outcome on society. Decades later the same problems exists and are perceived to be worse.

Browndog said...

"The legacy of slavery is immeasurable, but the best strategies for moving forward would be vigorously enforcing our anti-discrimination laws in education and job training."
-Barack Hussein Obama

February 2007, the CBS news affiliate in Chicago quoted Obama on the issue of reparations.

(Page not found, video scrubbed)

raf said...

Failure to discriminate is a form of discrimination, dontcha know?

mtrobertsattorney said...

The court has apparently held that a state constitutional provision that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex or religion violates the equal protection clause because it prohibits a select group from using the political process to enact a law discriminates in favor of them and against other groups.

This is the dumbest judicial opinion I have ever read.

Browndog said...

Worse.

They give policy overriding authority over law.

Browndog said...

"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."

Notable opponents of the ban on affirmative action:

One United Michigan
NAACP
Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm
Former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick
By Any Means Necessary (BAMN)
Grand Rapids Mayor George Heartwell
Rainbow/PUSH Coalition
Association of Michigan Universities (AMU)
Michigan Civil Rights Commission
Jesse Jackson
Al Sharpton
Detroit City Council
American-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee (ADC)
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
Detroit Federation of Teachers
Arab American Institute
Green Party of Michigan (GPMI)
Socialist Party of Michigan (SPMI)

Ignorance is Bliss said...

So the rule is that we can't ban discrimination because that would discriminate against those whom we otherwise might want to discriminate in favor of?

The Constitution say that?

Really?

tfmaguire42 said...

Is the 6th the new 9th?

And if so, is the 9th willing to up its game to protect the title of worst circuit in the country?

n.n said...

The only minority of consequence is the individual. Anything else, by definition, is prejudiced.

When involuntary exploitation does not quite suffice, there is always the opportunity to denigrate individual dignity.

I wonder how many people know the principle, which establishes that slavery, and other forms of involuntary exploitation, are morally wrong.

If we were to only follow the natural order, and purely rational thought, then there is no authentic premise to disregard the coerced redistribution of labor.

Well, this is an expected outcome when progressive totalitarian policies are substituded for moral knowledge. Another is progressive corruption of individuals and society. I guess we should simply accept for granted the "guidance" of mortal gods.

Ralph L said...

"Conservatives are going to kill all of the polar bears. "
Nah, they're white
Underneath that fur their skin is black as the ace of spades.

Michael K said...

I'm sure it is a coincidence that the black applicant to UC Davis who took Bakke's place has since had his license revoked and he has been convicted of second degree murder.

Or recall the profile of Patrick Chavis, a black doctor who had been admitted to the UC Davis Medical School under the race-quota scheme that rejected Allan Bakke. Bakke, of course, sued and the result was the Bakke decision now under review by the Supreme Court. In a 1995 article, “What Happened to the Case for Affirmative Action,” Nicholas Lemann, a writer as talented as he is liberal, contrasted the two doctors. Chavis was a heroic obstetrician working in Compton. Bakke was a mediocrity toiling in obscurity in Minnesota. Giving Chavis an opportunity — according to Lemann and the activists and politicians who rallied to the article — was a boon not only to Chavis but to the community, the nation, humanity, indeed all carbon-based life forms. Alas, two years after the article appeared, the Medical Board of California suspended his medical license, partly on account of Chavis’s “inability to perform some of the most basic duties required of a physician.” Chavis was found to have been guilty of gross negligence and incompetence in three cases; the judge overseeing his case ruled that letting Chavis “continue in the practice of organized medicine will endanger the public health, safety and welfare.”


I'm sure this is a miscarriage of justice and will be corrected by the Obama DoJ.

Methadras said...

How does giving a preference, aka, affirmative action, equate to equal protection when bias is involved? Are these people retarded or just so failingly guilty of stupidity that they can't possibly understand what they are talking about.

Penny said...

Violates "Equal Protection"?

Skyler said...

It's an upside down and backwards world.

Skyler said...

Alex cajoled, "They refuse to share their wealth with all the non lily-white people."

I refuse to share my wealth with anyone. If I ever get any, that is.

AJ Lynch said...

Althouse - do rulings like his ever embarrass you a lawyer?

Penny said...

So somewhere along the way we moved from "Equal Opportunity" to "Equalitarianism".

Progress?

You betcha!

Penny said...

So?

Opportunitarianists an endangered species?

Penny said...

Whoa...Scarey!

Penny said...

Somebody's gotta grab for that brass ring and fall off their unicorn with rainbow colored flags flying.

SukieTawdry said...

In addition to being blatantly unconstitutional, this ruling is patronizing, insulting and, yes, racist. It plainly implies that not only are Michigan minorities too intellectually inferior to qualify for college based on academic merit, they're also incapable of coping with a state-wide vote. It's they who should be grabbing the pitchforks on this one. Talk about the bigotry of low--or no--expectations.

james conrad said...

This sort of thing is typical of govt., they pretty much screw up everything they touch. Even when a program starts out in a logical, sane, humane manner, it ends up going places no one intended at the time of enactment. Great example of why government is best when LIMITED, otherwise, freedom slips away through the constant tinkering of govt agencies.

rdkraus said...

Just one more nail in the coffin of a once great country.

The fact that they would consider this argument (nevermind adopt it) for more than 2 seconds is astonishing.

No, every day we lose a bit more freedom, we deny reality, and we are one day closer to bankruptcy (actually, we are bankrupt, but haven't admitted it - keep kicking the ball down the road).

Up next, riots in the streets. Glad I lived most of my life, but it's tough on my kids.

Hey, Happy 4th of July.

PS Did see some nice fireworks last night.

Quasimodo said...

Ddiversity? I'm not a believer. I don't think it really ever educated anyone. And if it ever does, it cuts both ways ... enlightening a few on one hand and opening eyes to the dark underbelly of some cultures on the other.

Diversity is a way of getting revenge on the innocent for the crimes of the dead, favoring those who were never victims - except at their own hands.

Quasimodo said...

Cedarford eloquently disagreed with Heinlein's position about the creative minority by speakinig in favor of the hardworking majority. The two positions are not mutually exclusive. Both a creative minority and a hardworking majority are required for widespread prosperity which has existed in very few places and times in human history

SGT Ted said...

The "diversity" argument is one of the stupidest bits of reasoning I have ever heard about, considering that some colleges allow segregated dorms for blacks, but not for whites.

Affirmative Action is racism.

Fen said...

My fav interview is still the one where I was asked "what I think about diversity"... in front of a board of 6 women. I would have been the only male in the office.

Oligonicella said...

Fen - Correct answer, "You need it."

Fen said...

Actually, I said something close to that. Although I knew it was a disqualifier - the diversity mavens hate mirrors.

Joe said...

I've heard the ninth circuit is fuming over being usurped as the nuttiest circuit court.

mariner said...

Judges, rope, trees.

Some assembly required.

cheapwowgold said...

Oh!Amazing!I've seen this first time.Wonderful!Thank you.Expecting for more surprise!I'll follow you!
wow gold us
rift gold
entretelas

JimM47 said...

Seems like a perfectly reasonable, but incorrect, reading of Romer v. Evans.