Why SCOTUS Upheld Ban On Affirmative Action — With Direct Quotes

AA1

In a six to two vote, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the voter-passed Michigan amendment that prohibits using affirmative action preferences in public college admission and in state hiring practices was constitutional.

In a majority opinion Kennedy justified the Michigan amendment by writing:

?:…because the voters deemed a preference system to be unwise, on account of what voters may deem its latent potential to become itself a source of the very resentments and hostilities based on race that this Nation seeks to put behind it.??

Kennedy also suggested that more discussion and debate on this issue should be explored, and alluded to even reopening the vote in Michigan on this issue.

?Whether those adverse results would follow is, and should be, the subject of debate,? wrote Kennedy. ?Voters might likewise consider, after debate and reflection, that programs designed to increase diversity–consistent with the Constitution–are a necessary part of progress to transcend the stigma past racism.??

The majority stressed affirmative action was not deemed illegal in itself, the question was whether voters could determine when it was applied in public institutions.

?This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved, Kennedy wrote. ?It is about who may resolve it. There is no authority in the Constitution of the Unites States or in this Court’s precedents for the Judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination by the voters.??

Justice Sotomayor, who wrote the dissent, stated that the colleges and universities also have rights to use methods to promote diversity.

?Colleges and universities must be free to prioritize the goal of diversity,? she wrote.?They must be free to immerse their students in a multiracial environment that fosters frequent and meaningful interactions with students of other races, and thereby pushes such students to transcend any assumptions they may hold on the basis of skin color. Without race-sensitive admission policies, this might well be impossible.??

Sotomayor inferred that racism and discrimination still exists that needs to be combatted by certain policies, such as affirmative action.

?This refusal to accept the stark reality that race matters is regrettable,? Sotomayor wrote. ?The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.?

She added:

?As members of the judiciary tasked with intervening to carry out the guarantee of equal protection, we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society.?

The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), or known as ?Proposal 2? was passed by voters by a 58% to 42% margin on November 7, 2006.

There are two major aspect of the Michigan amendment.

The first, pertaining to public colleges, states:

?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.??

The second section, pertaining to the state of Michigan states:

?The state 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.?

The case is Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (12-682).

All quotes taken from: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-682_j4ek.pdff