Michigan: Ban Affirmative Action for Equal Protection

On April 22, 2014, the United States Supreme Court ruled to declare the legitimacy of an eight-year-old ballot initiative from Michigan. The announcement of this ruling immediately set off waves of turbulence in the American public.

Here is the backstory. In November of 2006, Michigan residents voted for a ballot initiative to pass a proposal called the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, or MCRI for short. As a result, MCRI became part of Michigan constitutional law.

The content of MCRI is not complex. Simply put, it prohibits publicly funded institutions, such as public schools, to use race, color, sex or religion as reasons to discriminate or provide special privilege.

Those who are unfamiliar with this proposal might not consider it to be anything out of the ordinary. Equality means precisely not discriminating and not privileging. Whether for school admissions or job applications, does it not seem fair to judge a candidate based on his education and manners?

However, some people vehemently oppose MCRI. They believe that the implementation of this proposal equates to negating affirmative action, established in the 1960s, thus harming the interests of certain individuals.

Affirmative action is a series of measures implemented by the U.S. federal government during the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Its original intent was to atone for the mistakes of racial discrimination made in the past. Specifically, it requires public institutions and government employers to take measures to guarantee admission or employment to minority groups. In other words, showing lenience serves as an apology from white people for their past wrongdoings.

Today, “anti-racism” has become politically correct. From conversations of public figures to the contents of television, movies and publications, people face this topic with sensitivity for fear of being labeled a “racist” and having their careers ruined. In this context, repaying “historical debts” through affirmative action is quite controversial. It has been several hundred years since the abolitionist movement, and almost 60 years since the end of racial segregation. When will this “historical debt” be fully repaid?

The benefits the government has provided have always been easy to implement and difficult to rescind. Affirmative action has given minority groups, primarily African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans, many benefits in higher education and job opportunities. Although oppressed groups have long ceased to exist in today’s America, affirmative action continues to protect certain groups. The reason is nothing more than “minorities” still being in need of protection. It is a historical fault that their economic status and education level are generally below those of their white peers, and this has to be redressed.

This proposition is quite problematic. Also a minority group, Asian-Americans have never received any benefits from affirmative action, and have even suffered as a result. Sharing the same SAT scores, African-American and Hispanic-American students are easily admitted, followed by their white peers, with Asians having the most difficulty. It is true that Asian-Americans score higher in school, with an economic status generally better than African- and Hispanic- Americans. But looking back, Asians have also faced discrimination and unfair treatment. The experience of Chinese laborers being sold in the American West to construct railroads was a tragedy. Since Asian-Americans have generally rid themselves of the historical burden and caught up in education and income levels, there has been sufficient time to close the so-called “historical gap.” The problem that African- and Hispanic-Americans face is perhaps not a simple “historical problem.” That being the case, the existence of affirmative action is indeed questionable.

However, not everyone is so irrational. Clarence Thomas, the only African-American U.S. Supreme Court justice, is an opponent of affirmative action. Affirmative action has an underlying subtext about the inferiority of African-Americans, who require additional help to succeed. More importantly, providing special treatment to certain races based on their skin color violates the spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment, which declares “equal protection under the law.” In other words, affirmative action itself violates the spirit of equality.

Affirmative action has been quite the controversy from its legislative intent to its implementation. Michigan was not the only state that has legislated to oppose this policy. California, Washington, Nebraska, New Hampshire and others have prohibited affirmative action in their states. For supporters of affirmative action, defending their position has become more crucial. As a result, once MCRI was passed, they immediately opposed it and took the issue to court.

The history of MCRI in the judicial system has been filled with twists and turns. Opponents initially challenged the constitutionality of MCRI in a U.S. district court. In 2008, the District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan ruled it constitutional. They were dissatisfied with the outcome and appealed. In 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the opponents, stating that the ballot initiative would harm the interests of minority groups. The attorney general for the State of Michigan then appealed, but was dismissed by the court.

The ultimate fate of MCRI lay in the hands of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled 6-2 in favor of MCRI. The reason for this ruling was based on the legitimate procedures followed during the ballot initiative. Michigan voters deemed affirmative action inappropriate and incorporated its ban into the state constitution. This constituted voters’ rights, and the federal court interfering would be unwarranted.

This decision affirmed state rights and MCRI by seemingly following procedures, but it is not completely without its own merit. At least, the Supreme Court arrived to the ultimate ruling on banning affirmative action. The U.S. Constitution has always been difficult to amend, so the ruling by the Supreme Court is crucial to the interpretation of the Constitution. Similar to the outlawing of racial segregation in the past, the decision was made not by amending the Constitution, but rather through a ruling from the Supreme Court.

It is not surprising that one of the justices of Hispanic origin opposing the decision used up 58 pages in the 108-page ruling to strongly express her dissent. This justice’s lengthy rigmarole criticized the initiative as a political procedure for majority groups to oppress the interests of minorities. Her worries are certainly justified in a democratic society. However, how is an initiative with the purpose of abolishing special treatments oppressing minority groups? Is the ultimate goal not to ensure that everyone is equally protected, but instead, to protect the privilege of a handful of people? This logic does not sound logical at all.