Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Supreme Court upholds Michigan's ban on affirmative action in college admissions
Mlive.com ^ | April 22, 2014 | Kellie Woodhouse

Posted on 04/22/2014 7:28:04 AM PDT by cripplecreek

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Michigan's controversial ban on affirmative action in public college admissions in a divided opinion released Tuesday morning, preserving a status quo that's contributed to dwindling minority enrollment at the state's flagship colleges.


The high court's decision is a blow to the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, which has come under fire for low minority enrollment.


Blacks comprise just 4.6 percent of undergraduates this year, compared to 8.9 percent in 1995 and 7 percent in 2006.


University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman and admissions director Ted Spencer have decried the affirmative action ban, saying outright that the school cannot achieve a fully diverse student body with it in place.


"It's impossible," Spencer said in a recent interview, "to achieve diversity on a regular basis if race cannot be used as one of many factors."


Fifty-eight percent of Michigan voters in 2006 passed Proposal 2, a ballot initiative that amended the state constitution and made it illegal for state entities to consider race in admissions and hiring. With the Supreme Court's ruling, the only way left to nullify Proposal 2 is to mount a long, expensive and uncertain campaign to overturn it.

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Michigan
KEYWORDS: affirmativeaction; collegeadmissions; colleges; michigan; racialpreferences; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-137 last
To: SunkenCiv; All
Of course, when the Demwits running the place refuse to abide by that, or come up with a new name for exactly the same practice, it will all have to go back to court.

There is no law that mandates that the Demwits will run the U of M in perpetuity. Voters elect the Regents, who have ultimate authority over who serves in the University's administration.

121 posted on 04/22/2014 4:36:12 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

Good analysis. University of Michigan leadership is whacked.


122 posted on 04/22/2014 4:37:09 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: BobL
Liberal "Affirmative Action" means attacking Justice Thomas for this while leaving the other 5 alone.

(Twitchy)‘Worst Negro in history’: Clarence Thomas catches hate after SCOTUS’ affirmative action ruling
123 posted on 04/22/2014 4:37:33 PM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93
Dr Rob Steele for UofM Regent

He's a tea party guy.

On Twitter.

Dr Rob Steele Twitter
124 posted on 04/22/2014 4:40:37 PM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Nifster; AJFavish; Red Steel; Yaelle; ml/nj; ExTexasRedhead; Spaulding; Ohioan; All
In addition, the Bakke decision made it clear that affirmative action was a no no.

The Bakke decision didn't go that far at all. It banned strict numerical racial quotas in admissions (at state institutions), but not affirmative action. Race was permitted to be one of the determining factors in admissions.

Bakke himself was ultimately allowed admission to the UC Davis medical school.

125 posted on 04/22/2014 4:48:22 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93; All

Thanks for the post/ping back to this very good thread. HOORAY USSC!


126 posted on 04/22/2014 6:07:38 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

Ironically, the plantiffs point to a violation of equal rights while preferences are nothing but violations of equal protection.


127 posted on 04/22/2014 6:30:09 PM PDT by Mouton (The insurrection laws perpetuate what we have for a government now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

It was the start down the road. The point being that we need to do what the left is so good at.....keep at it until we win; not give up and say I don’t wanna play any more


128 posted on 04/22/2014 7:09:43 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Mouton
The really good news is it was 6-2.

The not-so-good news was that only the result was 6-2; there was no majority opinion, so the precedential impact of this case will be small.

The opinions broke out 3-2-1-2-1: a lead opinion by Kennedy, joined only by Roberts and Alito; an opinion by Scalia, joined only by Thomas, that would have reached the same result on a much broader ground; an opinion by Breyer, joined by no one else, that reached the same result on a third ground; a dissent by Sotomayor, joined only by Ginsburg; and a recusal by Kagan.

129 posted on 04/22/2014 9:02:45 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Starstruck
Actually a 6-2 dicision (one recusal) with this court is not that divided.

What the author means is that the majority was divided; there was no opinion that carried 5 votes. The majority was made up of 3 separate opinions(Kennedy's opinion was joined only by Roberts and Alito; Scalia and Thomas concurred on a different ground; and Breyer concurred on a third ground).

130 posted on 04/22/2014 9:07:45 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
I would imagine this is the scene in mother's basements all around America today especially on the east and west coasts where so many of the libtards seem to exist.



131 posted on 04/22/2014 9:30:13 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; fieldmarshaldj; Impy; AuH2ORepublican; sickoflibs
>> “To know the history of our nation is to understand its long and lamentable record of stymieing the right of racial minorities to participate in the political process,” she wrote. <<

Yes, Justice Sotomayor, but that fact is only true when we look at the history of your political party.

132 posted on 04/22/2014 10:26:13 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Looking at the weather lately, I could really use some 'global warming' right now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
What the author means is that the majority was divided; there was no opinion that carried 5 votes

I realize that now from reading other articles. This one didn't mention that fact or even give the information on how 6 of the justices voted.

133 posted on 04/23/2014 6:21:26 AM PDT by Starstruck (If my reply offends, you probably don't understand sarcasm or criticism...or do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
How kind of them to want to ‘help’ out all those poor stupid folks who can’t get in otherwise.

Follow the money. If they can get people who would not otherwise qualify for admission in under other protocols such as "diversity", think of all the money from Federal programs, student loans, Pell Grants, etc. that can be lapped up. Otherwise, they are stuck with people who actually qualify academically as students--the type who just might question the Party Line and be troublesome...and a lot less money.

134 posted on 04/24/2014 1:18:50 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

This does beg the question of why they simply do not use race neutral means(such as affirmative action based upon socioeconomic status).


135 posted on 04/25/2014 2:32:14 PM PDT by Michael1977
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Michael1977

If they want scholarships for those who can’t afford college, but have academic merit, let those be the criteria. Race need never enter into the picture. Keep in mind that those are meritorious awards, even if means tested, not affirmative action based on genetic roulette.


136 posted on 04/25/2014 4:27:24 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Affirmative Action is STATE-SANCTIONED racism and racial profiling.

In fact, all other anti-white drivel you hear on MSNBC et. al. is Racial Profiling too.

Additionally, the word “Liberal” has been hijacked by the Leftist Marxists.

There is nothing “liberal” about today’s Democrats. They don’t want individual freedom.

In reality, today’s “Liberals” have nothing in common with “Classical Liberalism.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Even the strong-on-defense JFK Democrats wouldn’t even recognize today’s fascist liberals.

As long as the “GimmeDats” get “free stuff” they don’t care how much the government spends.

Obamacare needs to be called out for what it is: “Socioeconomic Fascism!!”

It is a war of words, and so far, the liberal swine have won the battle with slick dishonest catch-phrases like:

“affirmative action”
“affordable care act”
“tolerance”
“diversity”
“inclusion”
“income inequality”
“social justice”

Who is in charge of coming up with equally convincing catch-phrases for the conservative side of the battlefield??

-—”GimmeDats” is one of the best phrases we need to start using.
-—”Socioeconomic Fascism”
-—”Greedy Liberals” (after all, they are the greedy ones, not people who want to keep their own hard-earned money)


137 posted on 04/30/2014 10:59:47 PM PDT by AlanGreenSpam (Obama: The First 'American IDOL' President - sponsored by Chicago NeoCom Thugs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-137 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson