Progress toward colorblind society
The Supreme Court’s ruling Tuesday upholding Michigan’s ban on race-based preferences in state university admissions should send a message to lawmakers in Sacramento seeking to undo California’s Proposition 209, the 1996 voter-approved measure on which the disputed Michigan measure was modeled.
In language identical to Prop. 209, Michigan’s Proposal 2 declares that colleges and universities in the Wolverine State “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.”
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Ohio held that the Michigan law was unconstitutional because it violated the so-called “political-process doctrine,” established during the Warren Court era, and which holds that a political structure that “places special burdens on the ability of minorities to achieve beneficial legislation” must be analyzed under “strict scrutiny.”
The 6th Circuit determined that Michigan did not provide a compelling interest for enacting the state constitutional amendment. Thus, the lower court declared, the Michigan law violated the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause.
The nation’s highest court disagreed, 6-2. In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that “Michigan voters exercised their privilege to enact laws as a basic exercise of their democratic power, bypassing public officials they deemed not responsive to their concerns about a policy of granting race-based preferences.”
That’s precisely what California voters did in 1996, when a 55 percent majority approved Prop. 209. And while the measure was portrayed by its opponents as anti-minority, that did not dissuade a quarter of both black and Latino voters from supporting Prop. 209, according to exits polls, not to mention more than a third of Asian voters.
Those black, Latino and Asian voters’ faith in colorblind college admissions has not been misplaced.
White enrollment in the UC system has fallen from 35.7 percent when Prop. 209 took effect to 27.9 percent last fall. Latino enrollment over the same span has risen from 12.1 percent to 26.8 percent, while black enrollment has increased from 2.8 percent to 4.1 percent.
Despite that progress, Prop. 209 foes are still trying to repeal the duly approved state law. In fact, the state Senate in January passed Senate Constitutional Amendment 5, which proposed to reinstate racial preferences in higher education.
Faced with opposition from the Asian community, Assembly Speaker John Perez decided to return SCA5 to the Senate without a vote in the lower chamber, which meant that it will not be on the ballot this November.
SCA5 is the latest attempt by Sen. Ed Hernandez, D-West Covina, to repeal Prop. 209. In 2010, a bill he authored was vetoed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and a similar measure by the lawmaker was vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2011.
Yet, Sen. Hernandez is undeterred. He vows to put a proposed constitutional amendment on the 2016 ballot that will overturn Prop. 209.
“I am not proposing quota systems or preferential treatment,” he insists. But that almost certainly will be the outcome if he succeeds in restoring color-consciousness to college admissions in California.
— From the Orange County Register
Rules for posting comments
Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Oahu Publishing Inc. or this newspaper. This is a public forum.
Comments may be monitored for inappropriate content but the newspaper is under no obligation to do so. Comment posters are solely responsible under the Communications Decency Act for comments posted on this Web site. Oahu Publishing Inc. is not liable for messages from third parties.
IP and email addresses of persons who post are not treated as confidential records and will be disclosed in response to valid legal process.
Do not post:
- Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
- Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
- Copyrighted materials of any sort without the express permission of the copyright holder.
- Personal attacks, insults or threats.
- The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
- Comments unrelated to the story.
If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon below the comment.