Image via WikipediaSome years back we battled the issue of using race to grant preferential treatment in university admission policies; affirmative action.
In Michigan
So why did the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals declare Proposal 2 and what it stands for “unconstitutional”?
I did not know that the NAACP and ACLU of Michigan (no more support from me) filed a lawsuit in 2006 to overturn Proposal 2 and it has taken all this time for the court to finally make a decision.
At the time of passage of Proposal 2, people worried that minorities would be eliminated from entering universities since they could not compete with better educated “white” students. Well that turned out to be total bullshit and minority admissions are on the rise after falling for a few years.
The very thought of giving preference in university admissions due to race or gender is absurd and unfair; merit should be the only determinant in an admission policy and I think minorities and non-minorities would tend to agree.
Anyway, we voted in 2006 and the Supreme Court agreed with us so what in the hell is this all about.
It appears that the court based its argument on AMENDMENT XIV and the “EQUAL PROTECTION” clause. This amendment is one of a batch of amendments passed after the Civil War to protect the rights of newly freed Negro slaves as well as other matters.
The section of the amendment in question was phrased in a vague manner specifically so as to give each generation room for interpretation as it pertains to their specific issues…what?
“…No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
To the court, Proposal 2 somehow abridged the privileges of specific individuals; minorities. BUT privileges are NOT granted to just specific individuals, they have to be shared by ALL citizens. So Proposal 2 is not taking away anything from anybody, it is making sure all is fair and equal for ALL citizens.
The fact that the Court of Appeals has decided to base their arguments on bullshit instead of common sense makes me have less and less regard for judges that try to push a personal agenda, “activist judges”, by trashing what the Constitution writers intended EVEN given the wide latitude of interpretation offered by the generality of the amendment.
The Detroit Free Press, as liberal as they come, said the court’s ruling does not hold water…
No comments:
Post a Comment