Isabella Carter
In April 2014, the US Supreme Court upheld Michigan's ban on affirmative action for public institutions, ruling that voters had the right to prohibit preferential treatment and affirmative action in the public sphere. The decision, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, struck down the high court's 2003 decision in a case involving the University of Michigan Law School, where race was used as a factor in admissions to foster a diverse student community. The 2014 ruling stated that race-conscious admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, effectively barring public universities in Michigan from using race in admissions decisions. This decision, hailed by conservatives, had implications beyond college admissions and Michigan, with seven other states having similar bans in their constitutions or laws.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Date of Decision | April 2014 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Case Name | Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action |
| Decision | Michigan's ban on affirmative action upheld |
| Basis | Voters have the right to prohibit preferential treatment and affirmative action in the public sphere |
| Impact | Affects more than college admissions and Michigan alone |
| Implications | Direct consideration of race cannot be part of an admissions process |
| Michigan Constitution Amendment | Article I, Section 26 |
| Amendment Bans | Discrimination and preferential treatment in public education, employment and contracting |
| Affirmative Action Definition | Procedures to eliminate unlawful discrimination, remedy prior discrimination, and prevent future discrimination |
Explore related products
$18 $14.99
$17.66 $17.05
What You'll Learn
- The US Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action bans do not violate the US Constitution
- Michigan's ban prohibits preferential treatment and affirmative action in the public sphere
- The ban prohibits the use of race as a factor in college admission
- The ban was hailed by conservatives and denounced by progressives
- The ban was challenged by the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action
The US Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action bans do not violate the US Constitution
In April 2014, the US Supreme Court ruled that Michigan's Proposal 2, a ban on affirmative action, did not violate the US Constitution. Proposal 2 was a statewide referendum passed by voters in Michigan in 2006, amending the Michigan Constitution. The proposal banned public affirmative action programs that gave preferential treatment based on race, gender, colour, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, or contracting.
The ruling, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, upheld the ban and stated that there was no authority for the judiciary to overrule Michigan laws that gave voters the power to decide on the use of racial preferences in governmental decisions. The Supreme Court's decision affirmed the right of voters to prohibit affirmative action and racial preferences in the public sphere. This decision was based on the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which the court ruled was violated by race-conscious admissions policies.
The US Supreme Court's ruling had implications beyond college admissions and Michigan, influencing similar bans in seven other states. The decision sparked a divide, with conservatives generally supporting the ruling and progressives denouncing it. The impact was also felt more significantly by highly selective schools, which now faced challenges in creating diverse student bodies. The ruling did not prohibit the consideration of race in admissions through other avenues, such as applicants' essays.
While the US Supreme Court's decision affirmed that affirmative action bans do not violate the US Constitution, it is important to note that it did not rule on the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions policies themselves. Instead, the focus was on the right of voters to make these determinations in their states.
Catalina Coupons: Employee Theft or Misunderstanding?
You may want to see also
Michigan's ban prohibits preferential treatment and affirmative action in the public sphere
In 2006, Michigan banned affirmative action, prohibiting public institutions from granting preferential treatment to individuals or groups based on their race, gender, colour, ethnicity, or national origin in public education, employment, or contracting. This ban, known as Proposal 2, was approved by voters and added a new section to the state's constitution, Article I, Section 26. The amendment was challenged by the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, who argued that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which, in April 2014, upheld the ban, ruling that voters had the right to prohibit preferential treatment and affirmative action in the public sphere. The court's decision in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action affirmed that there is no authority for the judiciary to overrule the decision of Michigan's voters, who had committed to determining whether racial preferences may be considered in governmental decisions, particularly in the context of school choices.
The Supreme Court's ruling in the Schuette case effectively struck down a previous high court decision from 2003, in which the court ruled that race could be used as a factor in admissions to foster a diverse student community and that such practices did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The 2014 ruling, however, concluded that race-conscious admissions policies do indeed violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibiting the use of race as a factor in college admissions.
The impact of the Supreme Court's decision extends beyond college admissions and Michigan itself, as seven other states have similar bans in place, and opponents of affirmative action have encouraged other states to follow suit. The ruling has been hailed by conservatives, who maintain that merit, not race, should guide admission decisions, while progressives have denounced it, highlighting the potential harm to intellectual growth and diversity in educational institutions.
The Preamble's Word Count: A Constitutional Curiosity
You may want to see also
The ban prohibits the use of race as a factor in college admission
In 2006, Michigan banned affirmative action, prohibiting public institutions from considering race as a factor in college admissions. This ban was upheld by the US Supreme Court in 2014 in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. The court ruled that the amendment was not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and that voters have the right to prohibit the use of racial preferences in governmental decisions, including college admissions.
The ban, known as Proposal 2, amends the Michigan Constitution to prohibit public institutions from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to individuals or groups based on race, gender, colour, ethnicity, or national origin in public education, employment, or contracting. It passed with over 550,000 votes, making Michigan the fourth state to enact such a measure.
The decision by the Supreme Court was informed by a case involving the University of Michigan Law School in 2003. In that case, a white applicant sued the law school after being denied admission. The court ruled in favour of the applicant, stating that race could be used as a factor in admissions to foster a diverse student community and that this did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
However, the 2014 ruling overturned this previous decision, stating that race-conscious admissions, even if well-intentioned, do violate the Equal Protection Clause. This effectively prohibits the use of race as a factor in college admissions in Michigan, and has been hailed by conservatives who argue that merit, not race, should guide admission decisions.
While the ban prohibits the direct use of race in admissions, it does not prevent applicants from writing about how race has impacted their lives, leaving an avenue for racial considerations in application essays.
Legal Disclaimer: No Attorney-Client Relationship or Advice
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The ban was hailed by conservatives and denounced by progressives
In April 2014, the US Supreme Court upheld Michigan's ban on affirmative action for public institutions, ruling that voters had the right to prohibit preferential treatment and affirmative action in the public sphere. The decision, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, was hailed by conservatives and denounced by progressives, reflecting an ideological divide on the country's highest court.
Conservatives supported the ruling, arguing that merit, not race, should be the guiding factor in admission decisions. They welcomed the clarification that "direct consideration of race" could no longer be part of the admissions process, with some noting that it would have a more significant impact on highly selective schools than typical colleges and universities. The ruling was also seen as a victory for states' rights, affirming that voters could decide whether to consider racial preferences in governmental decisions.
On the other hand, progressives criticised the decision, expressing concern about its potential impact on diversity and inclusion in educational institutions. They argued that the ruling trivialised the importance of affirmative action in addressing historical racial discrimination and fostering diverse student communities. Progressives also emphasised that, while race could no longer be a direct factor, admissions offices could still consider how race has impacted applicants' lives, leaving room for racial considerations in application essays.
The ban on affirmative action in Michigan was implemented through Proposal 2, a statewide referendum passed by voters in November 2006. This amendment to the Michigan Constitution prohibits public affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment based on race, gender, colour, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, or contracting. While Michigan was not the first state to enact such a ban, it was the fourth, and its impact was significant, with public universities in the state no longer able to use race-conscious admissions policies.
Virginia Constitution: Does It Have a "To Arms" Clause?
You may want to see also
The ban was challenged by the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action
In 2006, Michigan banned affirmative action by passing Proposal 2, a statewide referendum amending the Michigan Constitution. The proposal banned public affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to individuals based on race, gender, colour, ethnicity, or national origin for public employment, public education, or public contracting purposes.
The district court upheld the Michigan Civil Rights Amendment as constitutional, but this decision was appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the amendment in 2011. The case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which ruled in April 2014 that the amendment was not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court upheld the ban, stating that voters had the right to prohibit preferential treatment and affirmative action in the public sphere.
The Supreme Court's decision effectively prohibited the use of race-based affirmative action in college admissions, marking a significant setback for colleges that have relied on this tool to enhance racial diversity on their campuses. The ruling was hailed by conservatives, who argued that merit, not race, should guide admission decisions. However, it was denounced by progressives, who argued that the decision would hinder efforts to achieve proportional representation of underrepresented groups and exacerbate existing inequalities.
Constitution: Strengthening Democracy, Addressing Weaknesses
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. 291 (2014).
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that race-conscious college admissions policies violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Public universities in Michigan were barred from using race-conscious admissions.
The ruling affected more than college admissions and Michigan, with seven other states having similarly broad bans in their constitutions or statute books.
