• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mich. Ban On Race In College Admissions Illegal

Hicup

Hicup

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
9,081
Reaction score
2,709
Location
Rochester, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
A federal appeals court on Friday struck down Michigan's ban on the consideration of race and gender when enrolling students at public colleges, saying it burdens minorities and violates the U.S. Constitution.

The 2-1 decision upends a sweeping law that was approved by voters in 2006 and had forced the University of Michigan and others to change admission policies. The court said it violates the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

[Snip]

The ban was placed in the Michigan Constitution after getting 58 percent of the vote nearly five years ago. It affected government hiring as well as college admissions.


(Excerpt) Read more at clickondetroit.com ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to expand...

Link: Mich. Ban On Race In College Admissions Illegal - Education News Story - WDIV Detroit


Umm.. What? So treating people as equal violates the eqal protection clause?

Insane..

Tim-
 
MrVicchio said:
"Judge a man by the merit of his character, not the color of his skin!"

Except of course it's for college, government jobs or assistance...
Click to expand...

I've never understood why affirmative action is not considered a violation of the 14th??


Tim-
 
Affirmative action had its day. It is no longer needed, and IMO, is racist.
 
I think affirmative action may have it's place, however if you are applying for a college and this college has never seen you, you shouldn't have to answer what your race is. I also think that social services should be done by way of computer, similarly to how many services are done in the unemployment office.
 
As long as we continue to institutionalize racism, we will always have racism.
 
This is a stupid decision. A person should get into college based on their merit, not their race or gender, especially public schools.

Ways to get around biases, even subconscious ones include:

Have a panel decide who gets in based on individual applications. Then pick the applicants who have the best applications.

Identify applications with assigned numbers, not names. Try to find ways to eliminate any identifying information about these applicants through their clubs/organizations by using generalized club descriptions, such as applicant was involved in scouts (without referencing boys or girls) or cultural club (without specifying which culture), with any organization that could identify a person's race or sex or even religion.

If you have interviews and/or personal essays, have a few people evaluate them individually, then incorporate their individual evaluations to determine the best candidates.

One of the most important things to do though is to hold people reasonably responsible if it is noticed that there is some bias going on in the process, but it should be only after the determination of a legitimate investigation and not due to a discrepancy in numbers from a specific group alone. It should be based on a discrepancy in how the person is judging individuals with certain characteristics over others, for example, candidates that can be identified as being of a certain sex are given more credit toward their involvement in certain activities than candidates who can be identified as the other sex are given for those same activities or activities that should be equivalent.
 
In a perfect world, rogue.. but even that leaves much room for discrimination towards one group over another. Why do I say that? Because of the composition of academia. Who would be the panel? Find me a panel of academics that would pick a... say... white guy.. over a purplepolkadotted woman.... who are equally qualified. Still-- your idea is better than what we currently have.
 
krickitt said:
In a perfect world, rogue.. but even that leaves much room for discrimination towards one group over another. Why do I say that? Because of the composition of academia. Who would be the panel? Find me a panel of academics that would pick a... say... white guy.. over a purplepolkadotted woman.... who are equally qualified. Still-- your idea is better than what we currently have.
Click to expand...

Of course. There is no perfect solution for the situation, not with the nature of humans, atm. However, we have to work on reasonable ways to get equal treatment without having to have quotas (which I really don't see as equal treatment at all). The closest we can get to ensuring that people who deserve to get into and go to college is my goal (of course, ensuring everyone can reasonably afford college without having to pay it off for their first 5-10 working years would be a close second). A person's race or sex should not be a determining factor in deserving to go to a public college, in any way, whether it is because of racism or quotas.
 
the problem isnt affirmative action its people using it improperly and abusing it or people improperly practicing it in way NOT intended because of extreme groups who will attempt to improperly use the 14th against them.


Fact is ALL the 14th and affirmative action does force equal treatment of minorities and women etc. and doesnt allow you to discriminate based on THOSE things

there is no law which mandates a QUOTA or RATIO.

Things like these are made up by unions, business or people themselves not by law.
 
Just more proof that liberals are racist. Now it's considered unconstitutional if you don't discriminate.
 
Hicup said:
I've never understood why affirmative action is not considered a violation of the 14th??


Tim-
Click to expand...

how would it be?
 
There are too many cases in the news of plain old white people, especially men, getting passed over for non-white people of lesser ability and qualifications. Sorry, but tis true. Affirmative Action is racist, IMO. Those are just cases in the news where people were IN the workplace and could see it in action. There are no stories about people over-looked for jobs because they are not the right race because they have no idea WHY they were not hired... I live in AZ, where you really can't get many jobs--- GOOD jobs-- unless you speak Spanish and can relate to the Latino community. Fact. The ads may say bi-lingual "preferred", legal stuff.. but reality is don't even bother applying if you don't speak Spanish.
 
Back to main topic-- now that Obama has basically passed the Dream Act using ICE as his cover-- will AA put minority kids above non minority kids in college acceptance, and military acceptance?? SO... ICE (OBAMA) says they can stay IF.. lots of things... then they get preferential treatment in college acceptance?? Yes, No, don't know?? PLUS-- illegals can get money from MALDEF for college... that is racist, too, of course..
When will it end?
 
krickitt said:
There are too many cases in the news of plain old white people, especially men, getting passed over for non-white people of lesser ability and qualifications. Sorry, but tis true. Affirmative Action is racist, IMO. Those are just cases in the news where people were IN the workplace and could see it in action. There are no stories about people over-looked for jobs because they are not the right race because they have no idea WHY they were not hired... I live in AZ, where you really can't get many jobs--- GOOD jobs-- unless you speak Spanish and can relate to the Latino community. Fact. The ads may say bi-lingual "preferred", legal stuff.. but reality is don't even bother applying if you don't speak Spanish.
Click to expand...

At what you are not getting this has to do with the employer falsely using Affirmative Action or being scared into it by some extremist cry baby group. Its not affirmative action or the 14th itself.

And I seriously its as dramatic as you make it LOL "to many news stories" LOL

try to also realize that the REAL reality is america is 72% white so even if every minority was employed there would still be lots of jobs but of course every minority isnt because (im going to make fun of stereo typing) they are all free loaders and on welfare, drugs, unemployment and government assistance.

Now Im not saying YOU said that last part so please dont take it that way just pointing out how theres 2 sides to every coin and some people (not you) are so hypocritical and void of reality around here. Its very entertaining
 
Last edited:
Simon W. Moon said:
You should read the actual ruling and see what exactly it says.
Do you have a link?
Click to expand...

Mich. ban on race in college admissions illegal
The court mostly was concerned about how the affirmative action ban was created. Because it was passed as an amendment to the state constitution, it can only be changed with another statewide vote. This places a big burden on minorities who object to it, judges R. Guy Cole Jr. and Martha Craig Daughtrey said.

The ban's supporters could have chosen "less onerous avenues to effect political change," the judges said in the court's opinion.
Click to expand...

I don’t see the logic here. They say the law is fine the way it is written but overturned it because it would require another statewide vote to change it?

What the hell are these judges smoking?
 
The judge seems to think that minorities don't quite get this whole voting thing and that places a burden on them.
 
It seems that posters here are barking up the wrong tree. this wasn't ruled based on what some seems to think (or wish) it was based on.
Here's the actual opinion:

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0174p-06.pdf


It seems that if they had passed this in another way, ie not a constitutional amendment, it would have stood.


nothing to see here actually, people
much more boring than you had hoped

a. Hunter
The Supreme Court in Hunter addressed a situation where the citizens of Akron,
Ohio overturned a fair housing ordinance enacted by the City Council. 393 U.S. at 386.
The citizenry did more than merely repeal the ordinance, however. It amended the city
charter through a referendum to require the approval of a majority of the electorate
before any ordinance regulating real estate “on the basis of race, color, religion, national
origin or ancestry”—past or future—could become effective. Id. at 387, 390 n.6. In
other words, only ordinances based on the identified factors required approval of the
majority; ordinances based on any other factor required only a vote by the City Council:
In essence, the amendment changed the requirements for the adoption of
one type of local legislation: to enact an ordinance barring housing
discrimination on the basis of race or religion, proponents had to obtain
the approval of the City Council and of a majority of the voters citywide.
To enact an ordinance preventing housing discrimination on other
grounds, or to enact any other type of housing ordinance, proponents
needed the support of only the City Council.
Seattle, 458 U.S. at 468 (describing Hunter). The effect was not only to halt operation
of the existing fair housing ordinance, but also to erect a barrier to any similar ordinance
in the future. Hunter, 393 U.S. at 389.
The Court found that the disparity between the process for enacting a future fair
housing ordinance and that for enacting any other housing ordinance “place[d] special
burden on racial minorities within the governmental process” by making it
“substantially more difficult to secure enactment” only of legislation that would be to
their benefit. Id. at 390-91. While the enactment treated “Negro and white, Jew and
gentile” in an identical manner, the Court found that “the reality is that the law’s impact
falls on the minority.” Id. at 391. That the law had been enacted via a popular
referendum did not save it from implementing “a real, substantial, and invidious denial
of the equal protection of the laws.” Id. at 392-93​
 
Most likely if they had simply passed a law the court would have ruled that they needed to pass a amendment. In the end it should have simply been tossed because it's a racist policy and that would conflict with nearly everything in the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Centrist77 said:
the problem isnt affirmative action its people using it improperly and abusing it or people improperly practicing it in way NOT intended because of extreme groups who will attempt to improperly use the 14th against them.


Fact is ALL the 14th and affirmative action does force equal treatment of minorities and women etc. and doesnt allow you to discriminate based on THOSE things

there is no law which mandates a QUOTA or RATIO.

Things like these are made up by unions, business or people themselves not by law.
Click to expand...

An therein lies the problem because in the practical application of affirmative action dictates it all revolves around numbers and percentages. This inherently creates a quota system of sorts and no amount of obfuscation can really alter that.
 
mtlhdtodd said:
An therein lies the problem because in the practical application of affirmative action dictates it all revolves around numbers and percentages. This inherently creates a quota system of sorts and no amount of obfuscation can really alter that.
Click to expand...

no the practical app does not, the impractical way people use it does.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
It seems that posters here are barking up the wrong tree. this wasn't ruled based on what some seems to think (or wish) it was based on.
Here's the actual opinion:

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/11a0174p-06.pdf


It seems that if they had passed this in another way, ie not a constitutional amendment, it would have stood.


nothing to see here actually, people
much more boring than you had hoped

a. Hunter
The Supreme Court in Hunter addressed a situation where the citizens of Akron,
Ohio overturned a fair housing ordinance enacted by the City Council. 393 U.S. at 386.
The citizenry did more than merely repeal the ordinance, however. It amended the city
charter through a referendum to require the approval of a majority of the electorate
before any ordinance regulating real estate “on the basis of race, color, religion, national
origin or ancestry”—past or future—could become effective. Id. at 387, 390 n.6. In
other words, only ordinances based on the identified factors required approval of the
majority; ordinances based on any other factor required only a vote by the City Council:
In essence, the amendment changed the requirements for the adoption of
one type of local legislation: to enact an ordinance barring housing
discrimination on the basis of race or religion, proponents had to obtain
the approval of the City Council and of a majority of the voters citywide.
To enact an ordinance preventing housing discrimination on other
grounds, or to enact any other type of housing ordinance, proponents
needed the support of only the City Council.
Seattle, 458 U.S. at 468 (describing Hunter). The effect was not only to halt operation
of the existing fair housing ordinance, but also to erect a barrier to any similar ordinance
in the future. Hunter, 393 U.S. at 389.
The Court found that the disparity between the process for enacting a future fair
housing ordinance and that for enacting any other housing ordinance “place[d] special
burden on racial minorities within the governmental process” by making it
“substantially more difficult to secure enactment” only of legislation that would be to
their benefit. Id. at 390-91. While the enactment treated “Negro and white, Jew and
gentile” in an identical manner, the Court found that “the reality is that the law’s impact
falls on the minority.” Id. at 391. That the law had been enacted via a popular
referendum did not save it from implementing “a real, substantial, and invidious denial
of the equal protection of the laws.” Id. at 392-93​
Click to expand...


I disagree. First off, I already pointed this out.

Secondly, this is simply a fancy excuse the court is using to overturn the will of the people and legislate from the bench.

Claiming that it should have been done another way so that it would be easier to overturn in the future is judicial activism. If we hold to this argument the parts of the Constitution that ban discrimination against minorities, women etc. will also need to be overturned as it places to high a burden to overturn it on the few who feel minorities and women shouldn’t have the right to vote.

I’m not advocating such positions but I use them to point out the absurdity of the argument/reasoning used in overturning this law.
 
GPS_Flex said:
I disagree.
Click to expand...
With what exactly? That the court said what it said? Or you disagree with the court's reasoning? Or what?

GPS_Flex said:
Secondly, this is simply a fancy excuse the court is using to overturn the will of the people and legislate from the bench.
Click to expand...
So you've made up your mind and settled the matter.

GPS_Flex said:
Claiming that it should have been done another way so that it would be easier to overturn in the future is judicial activism.
Click to expand...
If you're willing to include following established precedent as judicial activism.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom