Editors of The State News, Michigan State University’s “Independent Voice,” might as well be speaking in tongues for all the understanding of the Supreme Court’s Grutter revealed in their recent editorial.
They were discussing an amendment added to the educational budget bill by the lower house (but unlikely to survive), discussed here, that would cut off state funds to any institutions that favors or disfavors any applicants because of their race. The earnest but ill-informed editors wrote that those favoring this restrictions showed “blatant contempt of our nation’s highest court.” These conservatives, the editorialists continued,
succeeded in steering an amendment through the state House that would sever state funding to public universities who factor race into admissions policy. Conversely, the Supreme Court legalized race preferences in college admissions last summer, so long as a point system – like the University of Michigan formerly employed – is not utilized. Should this amendment see the light of day, it appears that public institutions of higher learning will be financially crippled for adhering to the rulings of the Supreme Court.
In this warped view, failing to do something the Court allows but does not command amounts to “usurping the Supreme Court.” What will all these people do if the Court ever allows assisted suicide?
John,
Give the students a break. After all, an activist Circuit Court judge made exactly the same logical error as the editorial. Fortunately the Court of Appeals saw through that error on Friday.
Chetly Zarko
MCRI
I wonder how the kid reconciles the idea that Howard University or Grambling State University have no commitment to diversity, do not see diversity as a compling interest of the state, and believe that their students receive a good education without any exposure to a diverse student body.
Once again, someone has define diversity as meaning more blacks and fewer whites.