By Paul Egan and David Jesse, Detroit Free Press –
LANSING, Mich. — The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday declared unconstitutional Michigan’s ban on affirmative action in university admissions approved by voters in a 2006 ballot initiative.
The majority opinion in a divided court said the state ban on affirmative action violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution by making it more difficult for a minority student to get a university to adopt a race-conscious admissions policy than it is for a white student to get a university to adopt an admissions policy that considers family alumni connections.
The 2006 ballot initiative banned affirmative action in university admissions and government contracting and hiring. Lawyers said Thursday’s opinion struck down only what they described as the most significant piece, dealing with university admissions.
“Ensuring a fair political process is nowhere more important than in education,” the court said.
“This is a tremendous victory for students,” said attorney George Washington, who represented the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action in the case. “It means that thousands of black students and Latino students will have the chance to go to college they never would have had.”
Attorney General Bill Schuette said Thursday that he will appeal the 8-7 decision by the 6th Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Proposal 2, which was called the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, “embodies the fundamental premise of what America is all about: equal opportunity under the law,” Schuette said in a news release.
“Entrance to our great universities must be based upon merit. We are prepared to take the fight for quality, fairness and the rule of law to the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Proposal 2, the 2006 ballot initiative, was pushed by Jennifer Gratz, who was earlier denied admission to the University of Michigan, and by Ward Connerly, a former University of California regent who backed a similar voter initiative in that state. Michigan voters approved the ban 58 percent to 42 percent.
Gratz, who now lives in Florida, said she’s confident the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case.
“The people of Michigan overwhelmingly voted in favor of equality, and the 6th Circuit, with all due respect, does not have the right to determine that equality is not constitutional in Michigan,” she said in a telephone interview.
University of Michigan spokesman Rick Fitzgerald said university officials were studying the decision.
The university has a high stake in Thursday’s ruling. Nearly 10 years ago, the university was involved in a landmark Supreme Court ruling governing race and universities. The high court upheld the University of Michigan law school’s use of race as a consideration in admissions, as long as there were no quotas attached, but threw out the undergraduate admissions system that awarded extra points to African-American, Hispanic and American Indian students.
Then Proposition 2 erased the university’s court victory by banning the state’s universities and other public institutions from considering an applicant’s minority status or gender in their admissions or hiring processes.
Thursday’s decision does not mean all the battles over using race in admissions to universities are over.
It just means Michigan’s public universities will now join the rest of the nation in watching the U.S. Supreme Court, which earlier this fall heard arguments over a case involving the University of Texas.
The justices are looking at the University of Texas program that is used to help fill the last quarter or so of its incoming freshman classes. Race is one of many factors considered by admissions officers. The rest of the roughly 7,100 freshman spots automatically go to Texans who graduated in the top 8 percent of their high school classes.
A white Texan, Abigail Fisher, sued the university after she was denied a spot in 2008.
It is only fair that ALL potential students be considered the same regardless of race. Using a quota is unfair to the majority students. Students should be granted admission based only on their qualifications. Not on the color of their skin or where their parents came from.