Detroit Free Press: 6th Circuit Was Wrong To Overturn MCRI, But We Support Racism Anyway

As most of you probably know by now: Activist Judge Strikes Down Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) Passed By 58% Of Voters In 2006. Michigan voters overwhelmingly (by almost 60% of the vote) passed the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) back in 2006 (called proposal 2 on the ballot) that was supposed to have removed any discrimination in the public square based on race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, etc. That included the so-called affirmative discrimination action programs in public schools and universities and in hiring. It stood for the better part of 5 years until a single aristocrat in a black robe decided it didn't meet his worldview:

The Detroit Free Press took its time in getting this editorial on the issue together: A mistaken ruling on affirmative action: State law is bad policy, but not unconstitutional

Like many who believe that the thoughtful application of affirmative action policies has advanced the educational interests of all students, we were dismayed when, in the 2006 general election, Michiganders voted to ban the consideration of race and gender in college admissions.

But it is quite a leap from our conviction that banning affirmative action was bad policy to the contention that such a ban is unconstitutional.

And we are not persuaded that Michigan voters violated the equal protection rights of minorities when they adopted Proposal 2.

The equal protection clause is supposed to install color-blindness into the law such that burdens and benefits aren't handed out on the basis of race, sex, national origin, ethnicity, etc. Affirmative action by its very existence does the opposite of that and is therefore patently unconstitutional in view of the 14th. Just so you know how utterly backwards judicial activists wee things.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit said otherwise last week, ruling that Michigan's 2006 ban on affirmative action "unconstitutionally alters Michigan's political structure by impermissibly burdening racial minorities."

Why is it a burden on minorities  (read: blacks) to not be favored versus other skin pigmentations? Are whites burdened because they are no longer favored? Oh right - that was racism. If minorities are advantaged by consideration of skin color, that somehow doesn't count.

The 2-1 decision reversed an earlier ruling in which U.S. District Judge David Lawson upheld the constitutionality of Proposal 2, which prohibited universities and other public institutions from giving "preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin."

...Michigan voters have clearly signaled their belief that affirmative action's time is up. We still think that's bad policy.

So that gets me to the question for the freep editorial board: why is it bad policy to ban "preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin"?