A Michigan case being argued Tuesday at the U.S. Supreme Court "is another reminder of the threat to minority rights posed by ballot initiatives, which can be prone to abuse," says a New York Times editorial.
UM weighs up to four dozen factors when screening prospects. Race is not one.
Under the headline "False Equality in Michigan," the paper criticizes a seven-year-old state ban on considering race or gender in screening applicants to public universities, which it says "rig(s) the game at the expense of minorities."
Michigan voters approved the amendment in 2006, and since then black undergraduate enrollment at the University of Michigan is down 33 percent. . . .
Michigan argues that the amendment does not violate equal protection since it treats all races the same. Last year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected that claim, striking down the amendment because it especially harms racial minorities — the primary beneficiaries of affirmative-action programs — by prohibiting them from asking a public university to consider their race.
In The Times' view, ."race-conscious admissions policies may further a compelling governmental interest in educational diversity."
The editorial board also attacks the 2006 referendum process:
This case is another reminder of the threat to minority rights posed by ballot initiatives, which can be prone to abuse. That was surely true in Michigan, where the process of gathering signatures to put the amendment on the ballot “was rife with fraud and deception,” according to the federal appeals court. In some cases, voters were tricked into believing that the measure actually supported affirmative action. The methods used by the amendment’s backers, the appeals court found, “undermine the integrity and fairness of our democratic processes.”
Earlier coverage: The Michigan Debate Without End, Oct. 12, 2013
