Five years ago, Michigan voters made a wise decision. Fifty-eight percent of them approved Proposal 2, a measure that barred the state from discriminating against or granting preferences to individuals or groups in employment, contracting, and education, based on factors like race and sex.
During those five years, pro-preferences groups have challenged the law, and courts have upheld the constitutionality of the ban. Among other things, opponents of a race neutral government claim that race neutrality is unfair to preferred minorities. They claim that eliminating race and sex in government decision making is discriminatory.
For centuries, blacks in America were treated differently based on their race. They were treated harshly. They were treated like animals. They were treated like children. They were hated. They were pitied.
The dream of so many black Americans was to be treated by others as fellow human beings worthy of dignity and respect. If they couldn’t change hearts and minds, at the very least, they could change the law. With much sacrifice and persistence, they did. They appealed to Christian and philosophical ideals of brotherhood and citizenship. They petitioned their government, to which they paid taxes just like everyone else, to redress wrongs and to treat them as first class citizens and as equals before the law.
The hard work paid off. Government-mandated racial discrimination was eliminated in federal, state, and local governments. Temporarily.
The anticipated progress would take time, but people grew impatient. They wanted to see immediate improvement. In an effort to speed up progress, to uplift a race that had been subjugated and segregated, the government took into account years of second class treatment and inferior educational facilities. The government rationalized a way to compensate for generations of oppression and to rectify past discrimination. The government, in employment and education, held blacks to a lesser standard, considering how much they had to “catch up.”
What was viewed as a temporary measure turned into an entrenched, generational expectation. More than half a century after the dismantling of Jim Crow, blacks in America, the freest and wealthiest blacks in the world, are still perceived as oppressed and deserving of special treatment. And they definitely get it.
What we have in America today is a sort of reverse racial discrimination. The government discriminates against individuals based on race, but the targets are whites and non-preferred minorities. Preferences proponents not only support such inconsistent policies, they actively educate children that such policies are necessary. They influence preferred minorities to believe that, on account on their skin color, they cannot compete with others and shouldn’t expect to compete with others. They indoctrinate children to accept such treatment as fair, ethical, and moral.
For preference opponents like me, there’s only one word to describe it: shameful.
Last week, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that Michigan’s ban on race-based discrimination is unconstitutional. Try to wrap your mind around it. A law that bans the unconstitutional government practice of racial discrimination is unconstitutional. Good luck.
Fortunately, the law is still law while the state appeals the nonsensical decision. Racial preferences opponents are on the case even as we speak. An excerpt from the Detroit News:
“Jennifer Gratz, a Southgate native rejected for admission by U-M, spearheaded the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative ballot proposal. She also was the lead plaintiff in a federal affirmative action lawsuit against the university aimed at eliminating race as a factor in college admissions.
“Friday, Gratz said the ruling won’t stand long-term because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled initiatives that ban preferences are constitutional.
“‘To me, this is the epitome of an activist court. These justices held onto this ruling for years and released it the day before the holiday weekend. They were hoping they would catch people off guard and not make the news,’ said Gratz, director of the American Civil Rights Institute, a California-based group that opposes affirmative action.”
Related articles around the web:
- Michigan Voters v. The Royal Court (by ACRI’s Jennifer Gratz)
- Throwing Out a State Vote
- A Better Affirmative Action
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
Although Michigan voters barred their state from discriminating against or granting preferences to individuals or groups based on race in government employment, contracting, and education, Plymouth-Canton Community Schools in Plymouth, Michigan, is doing exactly that. (
In 2006, 58 percent of Michigan voters barred the state from discriminating against or granting preferences to individuals or groups in government employment, contracting, and education. A school district in Detroit seeks to circumvent the law and hire teachers and administrators based on race. (
On November 7, 2006, 58 percent of Michigan voters chose to bar the state from granting preferences to or discriminating against individuals or groups in government employment, contracting, and education.



