Should U.S. Supreme Court Overturn Michigan Anti-Affirmation Action Vote

By | April 4, 2013
Will White Students be denied entrance to College Admissions Office?

Will White Students be denied entrance to College Admissions Office?

If you are a white student walking into a Michigan college admissions office, you have to be wondering whether you are going to be admitted based on your grades or denied because of your ethnicity. This may soon become the reality for a countless number of white college students across the wolverine state, or America if the U.S. Supreme Court rules to invalidate state voters that voted against using race to determine college admittance in 2006.

Of course racial discrimination is unfair, repugnant and dangerous to the social viability of a nation when it is used to deny the rights of its citizens. The problem which voters in Michigan thought had been corrected was to toss out race-conscious affirmative action admission plans with a fairer race-neutral approach.

At the core of the case is the notion that fifty-eight percent of Michigan voters were seriously in error in amending the Michigan constitution to prohibit discrimination in admission to state colleges on the basis of national origin, sex, race or ethnicity.

To most voters in Michigan this seemed like a relative no-brainer. How could anyone oppose not using discriminatory practices to deny a prospective student entry to college?

It seems that the liberals and race baiters who thrive on erecting barriers to race neutrality and color blind solutions wanted a different result. Instead of desiring to work to determine real solutions to any potential problems minorities might be experiencing in matriculating from high school to college admittance, they took the more convenient route to cry racism!

This approach taken by the civil rights organizations in the state and nationally have determined without much effort, to use a formula that strips sanity from the law and replaces it with fear and racist scare tactics. The goal is to scare the judicial community and moderates who are lukewarm on everything, to abandon common sense and support a fraud which has no foundation in law or on recent facts.

Where is the proof that there is continued discrimination against minorities since the voters in Michigan decided that reverse discrimination is unjustified and beneath the dignity of a state that wants equal treatment for all of its citizens? What about a state’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment, where the state and its citizens have a right to determine its own course in order to balance justice and equality under the law?

Another key question of law which the court must grapple with is whether or not a state amendment that bars discrimination in its constitution can be found to be unconstitutional because it does not allow discriminatory practices and remedies.

Are you confused now?

You should be, because in effect, what the advocates of affirmative action are arguing is that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment should allow a state to openly and intentionally discriminate against a race or ethnic group as a means to remedy previous discriminatory practices.

Michigan Solicitor General John Bursch, was quoted by Click on Detroit, as stressing in his brief before the U.S. Supreme Court, “Until now, no court has ever held that, apart from remedying specific past discrimination, a government must engage in affirmative action.”

This is crucial and central to the legal subterfuge which has been erected by civil rights advocates. If the U.S. Supreme Court is not trying to remedy past discriminatory practices against minorities by negating those practices as it did in the 1954 Brown case, how can it force a state to willingly and legally engage in discriminatory practices against whites as a matter of law!

What is even more mind numbing for those who desire to advocate a race-neutral color blind approach to enforcement of the law is how cavalier the opponents of race neutral solutions bemoan the difficulties of using race-based solutions. The fact is clear; the advocates of affirmative action want to continue to divide America into racial camps which perpetuate a myth of continuous inequality that is largely non-existent in 21st century America.

According to the Christian Science Monitor, The imagined legal barrier that the Michigan voters erected was illegal because it does not allow colleges to now use their “political” option to discriminate against whites. By allowing race-based solutions for admittance, suggests Michigan-based attorney, George Washington, colleges could continue their previous practices. He went on to say, “Proposal 2 deprived racial minorities of equal political rights by prohibiting the governing bodies [of public universities] from adopting by simple majority vote any plan that granted ‘preferential treatment’ to minority applicants.”

In short, attorney Washington is stressing that universities that are largely governed by liberal administrators and admission policies, should be allowed to use their liberal political mandate to discriminate against other races, as long as they are not minority.

Now here is a plan. Why not simply spend the time, money and effort used to defend legal discriminatory warfare against those who are not minorities and instead work on race neutral solutions. Sure, it might be more difficult to craft because it takes effort, imagination and tenacity.

But in the end, the color blind solution will produce a legally justifiable outcome based on America’s foundation of “One nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”

( Let me know what you think)

Category: featured opinion Opinion Politics Traditional Values Tags: , , , , ,

About Kevin Fobbs

Kevin Fobbs is the former Community Concerns columnist for 12 years with The Detroit News covering community, family relations, domestic abuse, education, government relations, education, and dispute resolution. He has written for "Michigan Chronicle," “GOPUSA”, Fobbs was government and civic affairs director for SoulSource, a Christian news magazine, and host of The Kevin Fobbs Show www.kevinfobbs.com. He has written as the Christian and Culture examiner for Ann Arbor Examiner: http://www.examiner.com/x-33782-Ann-Arbor-Christianity--Culture-Examiner, and Ann Arbor and Cleveland Conservative Examiner: http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-ann-arbor/kevin-fobbs His weekly faith-based Hearken The Watchmen column provides insight and answers on family, faith, and how to arrive at faith-based solutions to life challenges. His e-How articles range from, legal, health and education to electronic and culture and entertainment as well as home and business. Served 12 year as a gubernatorial appointee for Michigan’s Wayne County Social Services Board. He worked primarily on parenting and early childhood educational policy, domestic violence, family and children protection policy concerns. Developed programs to help parents develop healthy coping skills in the raising of their children. Was extensively involved in developing parental and child, family support networks at the local, county, and federal level. Kevin Fobbs has more than 35 years of wide-ranging experience as a community and tenant organizer, Legal Services outreach program director, public relations consultant, business executive, gubernatorial and presidential appointee, political advisor, writer, and national lecturer. He has been in the forefront of communications initiatives; devised and implemented strategies to win political and public support for client public policy issues and positions; directed electoral campaigns; and spearheaded as well as managed state and regional referendum, electoral, White House Initiatives, including Education, Social Security, Welfare Reform. Faith-Based Initiatives and many others. Kevin is co-chair and co-founder of AC-3 (American-Canadian Conservative Coalition) that focuses on issues on both sides of the border between the two countries. The American – Canadian Conservative Coalition (AC3) is a joint effort by grassroots Americans and Canadians to share information, issues, and policies that affect us individually and jointly. AC3 members are politically conservative and share the ideals of self-sufficiency, fair business competition, strong families, and joint homeland security. Above all, we believe in the right to freely exercise our chosen religion based on the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law outlined in the founding documents of our country.

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. We believe that citizens have a voice - one that should be heard above the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

One thought on “Should U.S. Supreme Court Overturn Michigan Anti-Affirmation Action Vote

  1. Jan Brown

    How is it that today so many “State” judicial decisions are sent to the Federal Courts?? Has the individual state’s constitutions & judicial systems been rendered impotent since Arizona’s 1070 was almost completely undone by the Federal Systems?? It would certainly seem that if ‘lower courts’ & state courts are so ineffective & not capable of decisions we sure spend an excess of time & tax money to keep them.
    About THIRTY FIVE years ago UCLA (medical) was sued for reverse discrimination by a white student who had higher test scores but denied admission due to this law. He won… Does this in Michigan represent progress or regression?

Comments are closed.