Affirmative Action Ban Challenged in U.S. Circuit Court

By: Anna Bliss

On Nov. 16, opponents of the 2006 Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) had their day in court, in the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The MCRI was a ban on affirmative action in public institutions. The amendment barred state institutions, agencies and universities from showing preference or discrimination against anyone based on race, sex, ethnicity, gender or national origin.

In 2006, the ballot initiative was passed to amend the state’s constitution by a 58-42 margin.

The proponents of the lawsuit included University of Michigan students, faculty, applicants and various civil rights groups such as the ACLU, NAACP and Immigration Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) who opposed the amendment on the basis that minorities are being underrepresented on the job and in the university because of unfair hiring preferences.

Attorney George Washington, representing BAMN believes that the law is discriminatory, racially-based and does not promote equality.

“It results in creating second-class citizenship for black and latino citizens,” Washington said. “It passed because white people outvoted black people. Black people voted against it by 90 percent. If you put all those things together, this is the most racist law passed in Michigan in many decades.”

Attorney General Mike Cox prosecuted on behalf of the state of Michigan. In 2006, Cox was the only statewide official to support Proposal 2.

“Three years ago, Michigan families spoke loud and clear when they overwhelmingly voted to amend our constitution and end the use of preferences in public institutions,” Cox said. “Today my office is defending that choice at the Court of Appeals and I am confident the court will again reject this attempt by activists to overturn the will of the people.”

International Relations junior Geoff Levin opposes the passage of Proposal 2.

“I think that our society needs to place a value on ensuring that those with academic potential and motivation of every ethnic and racial background get a fair opportunity at a higher education,” Levin said.

Political Theory and Constitutional Democracy junior Aaron Majorana believes that the lawsuit was meritless.

“I think it’s wrong that a small amount of people are tying to overturn the democratic decision of the majority,” Majorana said. “Michigan wanted to eliminate affirmative action and it did, end of story.”

The hearing on Nov. 16 was an appeal from the March 18, 2008 decision by the Federal District Court in Detroit which ruled that the amendment was constitutional and did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the state constitution.

While a decision is not expected for several months, it is likely that the case will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. As the case challenges the constitutionality of the amendment, it may be plausible that it will be heard. If the Supreme Court were to rule the ban unconstitutional, this state amendment of the Michigan Constitution would be struck down.