NewsMax.com
Wednesday, July 9, 2003

The high court ruled last month that colleges may consider a student’s race as one of many factors in evaluating an application, but that they may not use "quotas" or other point scales. Under that reasoning, the court struck down the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy, which awarded 20 points for blacks, Hispanics and American Indians. But the high court upheld the school’s law school admissions policies, which used race as but one facet of the evaluation process.

Connerly, who is black, is a purist on the subject and wants such policies and practices to be in effect totally color-blind. Language in the court’s historic ruling does not invalidate bans on affirmative action that individual states may want to impose on themselves – opening the way to his ballot initiatives, at least in the score of states that allow them.

According to Connerly and his American Civil Rights Coalition, after Michigan in November or March other relatively short range ballot initiative targets could include Colorado, Arizona, Missouri, as well as certain cities or counties in Florida and Texas.

'True Meaning'

"It’s pretty clear that neither the president nor the Congress nor Supreme Court has the stomach for putting us on a path of living out the true meaning of what the 1964 Civil Rights Act says," Connerly said.

"We have to prove to the court, the president and the Congress that the Supreme Court’s decision was an aberration," Connerly added. "It was not consistent with where this country is or where it ought to be. And we’re going to do that by taking it back to the people."

"We were one Supreme Court decision away from ridding ourselves of the shackles of race… Now, by embracing the diversity rationale, the court has done a terrible, terrible thing. It has said to higher education, 'You are legally authorized to disregard the principle of equal treatment under the law.'"

Fashioned after the mold of California’s Proposition 209, the Michigan measure would nail down that the state could not "discriminate against or provide preferential treatment to individuals or groups on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin" in school admissions. Jobs and contracting work are also included as areas where the state could not prefer one race over another under any circumstances.

According to Connerly, he hopes to preempt an old pro-affirmative action argument against his scheme by adding to the Michigan package a prohibition against colleges giving preferences to "legacies," or students whose parents are alumni.

In any event, there may be tough days ahead for Connerly’s steamroller. A recent poll showed that while 63 percent of Michigan residents were opposed to the University of Michigan’s affirmative action policies, that did not necessarily translate into broad support for an ban on all preference programs.

Furthermore, if Connerly’s measure takes the high road -- as an amendment to the Michigan Constitution -- it would require 317,757 signatures on the ballot, or 10 percent of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. Reportedly such a signature drive could cost as much as $850,000.

Another hurdle is the expected lobbying against the measure by the very active pro-affirmative action faction, already planning to not only demonstrate at rallies for the initiative but to call on unions and civil rights groups to boycott businesses or other organizations that support Connerly’s measure.

Editor's note:
FREE E-mail Alerts From NewsMax.com – Click Here Now!