No more affirmative action for college in Michigan
A voter-approved ban on using affirmative action in Michigan public college admissions was recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. According to CNN, Tuesdays 6-2…
FILE – This Oct. 13, 2013 file photo shows Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy speaking at the University of Pennsylvania law school in Philadelphia. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion upholding a ban on affirmative action in the college admissions process in Michigan. (AP Photo/Matt Slocum, File)
A voter-approved ban on using affirmative action in Michigan public college admissions was recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
According to CNN, Tuesdays 6-2 ruling reversed a 2013 ruling by a lower court. While that earlier ruling stated that the ban was unconstitutional, todays decision by the Supreme Court allows Michigan to negate the use of racial preference in admitting students to publicly funded colleges and universities.
SEE ALSO: The affirmative action trap
The Michigan constitutional amendment, known as Proposal 2, was originally passed in 2006. It bars public colleges and universities from providing preferential treatment to applicants based on race, gender, ethnicity or national origin, according to Politico. The amendment passed with 58 percent of voters support.
State-Level Decision
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion on the case, explained that the decision to uphold the affirmative action ban in college admissions didnt hinge on the constitutionality or merits of race-conscious admission policies of colleges and universities, but instead on whether voters in the state may choose to prohibit consideration of such preferences.
He noted that Proposal 2 was controversial and part of an ongoing dialogue about affirmative action in the country, but that for the moment it represented the desire of the Michigan populace. In the opinion of the six judges in favor of Tuesdays ruling, had they allowed the 2013 ruling to standwhich stated that the ban was unconstitutionalthey would set a precedent for judges to undermine the will of voters.
Adding to that, Kennedy was quoted in Politico as stating that It is demeaning to the democratic process to presume that the voters are not capable of deciding an issue of this sensitivity on decent and rational grounds.
Supporters of Michigans constitutional amendment have argued that banning racial discrimination in college admission is only fair, and as such cant represent discrimination.
This Sept. 19, 2013 file photo shows Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor speaking at the University of Delaware in Newark, Del. She believes banning affirmative action in the college admissions process is a mistake. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File)
Dissent
The two Supreme Court members opposing Tuesdays decision were Justice Sonia Sotomayorthe first Latina Supreme Court Justiceand Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
In Sotomayors dissent, reported on CNN, she argued that For members of historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights, the decision can hardly bolster hope for a vision of democracy that preserves for all the right to participate meaningful and equally in self-government.
According to Politico, Sotomayor went on to suggest that assuming the affirmative action ban wasnt influenced by racism was an incorrect conclusion. She made it clear that she viewed the decision as a step backward in the United States efforts to achieve racial equality.
Supporters of affirmative action in Michigan have said that disallowing racial preference in college admission can place an unequal burden on minorities, in part because other interest groups, such as rural or low-income students, are allowed to petition schools for special consideration.
Following Michigans Lead?
Eight states already have bans on affirmative action in college admissions, and more may follow in the wake of the Michigan decision.
Ohio, Missouri and Utah are at the forefront of a group of states that may see a ballot initiative this year or next.
In some states, such as California, the affirmative action ban is legal but controversial: the chancellors of the University of California system, who are legally bound in that state to ignore race when making admission decisions, have publicly stated their disapproval of the ban.
Effect on Latinos
Michigans affirmative action decision may be of particular interest to Latinos.
According to a Pew Research Center report from last fall, Latino college enrollment, among recent high school graduates, now surpasses that of white students. Pew also reported that Michigan ranks 20th in terms of overall Latino population in the state, with 7 percent of the states student population hailing from Latin America.
Since Proposal 2 initially took effect in 2006, according to Washington Post, enrollment at the University of Michigan has dropped among black and Latino students. Similarly, in California, the same two minority groups represent a statistically significant smaller portion of university enrollees than they do high school graduates, when compared to white students.
As Michigan begins to re-implement Proposal 2, its likely that analysts will continue to track Latino and other minority enrollment carefully to see how numbers are affected by the lack of affirmative action.
SEE ALSO: First generation students experience journey to college
