The Supreme Court has another affirmative action case on its docket for next term, as explained by Jennifer Gratz (the plaintiff in Gratz v. Bollinger / U. Michigan), The two-faced defense of affirmative action (emphasis added):
Though last week’s Supreme Court ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas was not what many people expected, it provided a firm reminder to universities that race preferences are barely tolerated and must ultimately give way to equal treatment and race-neutral policies.
This fall, the Supreme Court faces an even bigger test of its determination to support equality when it hears Schuette v. Michigan Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, a case challenging the right of a state (in this case, Michigan) to pass a constitutional ban on race preferences, or affirmative action, in its public institutions.
In 2006, Michigan voters overwhelmingly passed the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI, or Prop 2), which established:
“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 challenge to the MCRI is a different story.
BAMN insists that the amendment is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause because the legal impact of banning race preferences falls wholly upon, and thus targets, certain powerless minorities. Here, the foundation of their argument is that preferences are in fact maintained not for society as a whole but for the benefit of specific minorities.
Supporters of race preferences now have conflicting arguments. They’ve argued before the Supreme Court that race preferences are primarily for the benefit of everyone. But in the fall they will argue in front of the same court that race preferences are primarily for the benefit of minorities.
(ScotusBlog page for the Schuette case here)
That’s right folks, the Supreme Court will decide whether prohibiting racism is, in effect, racist.
I have bemoaned the pernicious effects of race-based preferences here many times. The Schuette case demonstrates how the racial preference industry has turned everything on its head.
To be non-racist will get you accused of being racist.
To want to live Dr. King’s Dream that each child be judged on the content of his or her character not skin color now will find you on the defensive end of a lawsuit.