The Center for Individual Rights has moved to intervene in the lawsuit filed against Michigan Proposition 2 (MCRI), and it strenuously objects to the recent decision of the judge to approve a delay sought by the University of Michigan, Michigan State, and Wayne State in implementing the color-blindness required by Prop. 2 until after the current admissions/financial aid cycle.
Read CIR’s motion for intervention; its brief in opposition to the request for delay; and its press release describing its actions. Separately, CIR president Terence Pell explains in an email:
The gist is this: On Tuesday, the Michigan Attorney General brokered an agreement with all parties but us to postpone Prop. 2 for six months. Then he got a federal judge to give it the force of federal law. This notwithstanding the fact that the federal court has no authority to suspend a state constitutional provision unless and until it concludes at least there is strong likelihood that it violates the federal constitution. The judge made no such finding here, but just decided that the interests of the people were adequately represented by their elected officials and rubberstamped the agreement worked out by them.
These elected officials manifestly did not represent the interests of individuals applying to Michigan schools this year and who have every right to have their applications judged without regard to race, as explicitly provided by Prop. 2, effective December 22. Such individuals include our client, Eric Russell, a current applicant to the University of Michigan Law School. We are representing Russell in an effort to intervene in the federal case filed a month ago by BAMN. Without even acting on our motion to intervene, the Judge decided the one issue that directly affects the concrete and personal interest of our client.
Hilariously, the UM claims that it would be unfair to judge applicants by two different standards during the same admissions cycle. Of course this is what the UM has been doing for years on the basis of race. The voters of Michigan just decided what’s fair and unfair in this area and concluded by a large majority that it’s unfair to judge applicants differently on the basis of race. So in order to prevent the relatively minor unfairness of having some applications read a second time, the UM is perpetuating a much more onerous type of unfairness, one just repudiated by the voters.
Chetly Zarko, meanwhile, has been covering the debate over Michigan Attorney General Cox’s role in the deal described above. Check it out.
Why not get a few applicants to file suit in a favorable Michigan court of general jurisdiction seeking a mandatory injunction to enforce the constitutional amendment?
Dueling jurisdictions might be a lot of fun.
Actualy, vnjagvet, its a very good idea for someone to go to a Michigan court (probably on Dec. 23) and start that process rolling, even though it can’t trump the federal courts, its a process that needs to be begun and would have definite impact on future federal decisions since they will look to the Michigan courts for interpretations of non-federal Michigan issues.
Terence Pell of the also dubiously named “Center for Individual Rights” writes:
>>>”So in order to prevent the relatively minor unfairness of having some applications read a second time, the UM is perpetuating a much more onerous type of unfairness, one just repudiated by the voters.”
So adversely affecting underrepresented minorities at the UM is a “relatively minor unfairness?”
LOL. Why of course it is! Because, apparently one can construe, just as Pell goes on to explain that there is FAR WORSE “unfairness” when it’s presumed to apply to the white majority…read for yourself.
Cobra Argument #2: Selective Outrage.
As far as Terence Pell standing up for the white majority in Michigan that put Prop 2 over? Not surprising again. White majorities have been making all kinds of anti-minority acts and legislations since this nation was founded.
The real surprise is that these anti-affirmative action types expect minorities to just shut up and take it, just like back in the “good ol’ days.”
Ward Connerly can call on God to bless the KKK or any other white supremacist group he wishes. That’s his right as an American.
I say God bless the NAACP and the ACLU for standing up to those who would attempt to make life even MORE DIFFICULT for minorities in the State of Michigan.
–Cobra
So adversely affecting underrepresented minorities at the UM is a “relatively minor unfairness?”
Actually, treating all applicants without regard to their race or ethnicity is not “adversely affecting” them at all. It is treating them equally, with the respect they should be demanding, and thus is not even a “relatively minor unfairness.”
“I say God bless the NAACP and the ACLU for standing up to those who would attempt to make life even MORE DIFFICULT for minorities in the State of Michigan.”
Cobra seems to assume that a minority who is not admitted to an elite, highly selective university like the U of Michigan will have an “even more difficult” life. The implication is that the outcome is college or no college.
But this is not so. Minorities who are not admitted to elite highly selective universities are still able to attend universities with less rigorous admissions standards.
Thus, also implicit in Cobra’s statement is the contention that minorities who are not qualified to attend elite institutions but instead have to attend non-elite and non-highly selective universities (which includes all but a tiny handful of state universities) are condemned to a “difficult” life.
But, then, is that also not true of majority students who have to go to non-elite schools?
John writes:
>>>”Actually, treating all applicants without regard to their race or ethnicity is not “adversely affecting” them at all. It is treating them equally, with the respect they should be demanding, and thus is not even a “relatively minor unfairness.”
But again, you would only hold the GOVERNMENT and GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS to this “theory”, while leaving the rest of society free to discriminate as it always has. Even your hero, Terence Pell acknowleged this here:
>>>”Question to Pell: What Hopwood was coming out and saying was, we want color blind admissions. But we don’t have a color blind society.
I don’t think anybody disagrees or disputes the proposition that we don’t live in a color blind society. Of course we don’t. The question though is not whether society is color blind, but whether the government, in making official decisions and handing out benefits–like admission to elite institutions–whether the government should be color blind.”
http://www-c.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/interviews/pell.html
In other words, Pell, like you, doesn’t really seem to care that these actions only act to the detriment of minorities in an admittedly anti-minority nation.
Do you consider that a “relatively minor unfairness”?
Bill writes:
>>>”Thus, also implicit in Cobra’s statement is the contention that minorities who are not qualified to attend elite institutions but instead have to attend non-elite and non-highly selective universities (which includes all but a tiny handful of state universities) are condemned to a “difficult” life.
But, then, is that also not true of majority students who have to go to non-elite schools?”
It is true to some degree (no pun intended). If American Society works in such a manner that all degrees are viewed in the same light and given the same qualification value when it comes to employment, there wouldn’t BE “elite” institutions in the first place, or at least such a high demand to attend one. Remember, the anti-affirmative action types are ONLY focusing their attacks on PUBLIC “ivies”, because they can’t address the admission requirements of private schools.
Of course there are many on the anti-affirmative action side who claim that a degree from a “lower-tier” school is fine…for African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans or Native-Americans. They seem to be perfectly fine with this arrangement because they understand that when the time for hiring those graduates arrives, the advantage will remain with the “elite” degree, making the road for the “lower-tier” graduate indeed, “more difficult.”
The bottom line question is this:
If you anti-affirmative action types REALLY believe that a “lower-tier” college education is “perfectly fine” then what was wrong with Jennifer Gratz’ education at the “perfectly fine” University of Michigan at Dearborn?
–Cobra
But again, you would only hold the GOVERNMENT and GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS to this “theory”, while leaving the rest of society free to discriminate as it always has.
You’re attributing to me a position to me I don’t hold, and, I’m sure, misinterpreting Pell as well.
You will not find even one example of my ever having said anything that could lead a reasonable person to conclude that I favor “leaving the rest of society [the non-government part] free to discriminate.” The Civil Rights Act of 1964, you will recall if you’ve ever read it, bars discrimination by private actors in most of its provisions. I would have made some of those provisions even stronger.
The 14th Amendment and Michigan’s Proposal 2 bar only public actors from discriminating, because neither the U.S. nor the Michigan constitution are directed toward the behavior of private organizations.
The fact is if it were up to me no one would be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. This is one of the things that distinguishes my position from yours, since you favor both public and private discrimination in favor of the group to which you belong, and one or two more.
You also ask:
If you anti-affirmative action types REALLY believe that a “lower-tier” college education is “perfectly fine” then what was wrong with Jennifer Gratz’ education at the “perfectly fine” University of Michigan at Dearborn?
Answer: Nothing was wrong with it. What was wrong was the racial discrimnation that even 6 members of the Supreme Court found had put her at a substantial disadvantage in her application to her first choice school, the University of Michigan.
John writes:
>>>”The fact is if it were up to me no one would be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. This is one of the things that distinguishes my position from yours, since you favor both public and private discrimination in favor of the group to which you belong, and one or two more.”
But it’s NOT “up to you,” John. You know EXACTLY how the system works, and how white men with power have successfully used the system they designed to maintain their power.
Sure, I’m a wishful thinker, too. If it “was up to me”, there would be no hunger, peace on earth and good will towards all mankind. But that isn’t the world we live in, the country we have, or the cards we’ve been dealt.
Do I advocate preferences for underrepresented, historically and CURRENTLY victimized minorities such as myself?
Absolutely, but I do so with the recognition–a recognition shared by most HONEST anti-affirmative action types that American Society is NOT COLOR-BLIND, and there are decidedly BUILT IN preferences for the white male majority.
How many times do I have to post here how ABYSSMAL the State of Michigan is in regards to minority and gender discrimination, John?
How many times do you have to post here how it’s the most SEGREGATED state in the COUNTRY…WORSE than any deep South old Confederate state?
How many disparities do I have to show between life for whites in Michigan versus that of minorities? Wage gaps? Law enforcement? Housing? Schools?
None of that matters apparently.
NOTHING was going to stop that victory party in Lansing, MI as this proposal passed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOw1Uiq8LYg
I wonder if this anonymous letter writer was part of that celebration?
>>>”What I am writing to ask you Mr. Duke, is to do what you can through your news letter, your website, etc. to let people know about M.C.R.I. and give out the address of our organization ( MCRI PO Box 1398 Southgate Mi.48195)
Please understand that I am not writing as an “official” representative of MCRI, but rather as an individual who believes that what you and I are fighting for is just,and that wanting a future for our children and grandchildren is worth fighting for.Please give it some thought and if you feel that there is some constructive way that you could help our cause, it would certainly be appreciated. We truly are on the front lines here in Michigan and this vote could be a great victory for us in November ! — A Michigan Supporter”
http://www.davidduke.com/?p=500
As altruistic and noble as you, Pell, Gratz and the rest of the anti-affirmative action types claim to be in your movement, there is a large, insidious dark faction that is never difficult to reveal that gains tacit, albeit silent approval from far too much of the white majority population.
You can’t dispute the history of this country regarding its treatment of minorities, and you can’t deny that Proposition 2 will make life more difficult for minorities in segregated, racially discriminatory Michigan.
Heretofore, the ONLY suggestion I recall you giving to fight minority discrimination is “vigorous application of Civil Rights laws,” while simultaneously criticizing liberal and/or Democratic politicians who maybe the most likely to follow through on your suggestion.
So do you have to WONDER why a conscious, non-think-tank-payrolled African-American like myself would continue to fight white male advocacy schemes like Prop 2?
–Cobra
Sorry, Cobra. You can scream and stamp your feet till the cows come home. The era of double standards and reverse discrimination is slowly but surely winding down.
Martin Luther King’s dream, with the help of brave African Americans like Ward, is coming true.
Mikem writes:
>>>”The era of double standards and reverse discrimination is slowly but surely winding down.”
You mean we’re slowly but surely reverting back to the PREVIOUS era, with the “white” standard and forward discrimination…just like the good ol’ days, Mikem?
–Cobra
Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock.