A Committee of three judges of a Court of Appeal Federal Friday overturned ban in Michigan on the consideration of race and gender in college admissions. Above, Michigan State University graduates in 2006. (Associated Press)Ban on considering the race and sex admissions at the University of Michigan was struck down Friday by a Federal Court of appeal, which held that minorities in loads of law approved by the voter and is unconstitutional.2-1 Decision reverses the proposal 2, a law passed in 2006 which prohibits public universities of the State to provide "preferential treatment to any individual or group based on race, sex, colour, ethnic or national origin.".
The measure, which passed with 58% of the vote, forced the University of Michigan and other schools in the State to change their policy on admissions. The Panel of three judges of the 6th U.S. Court of Appeal held that the Act violates the fourteenth amendment equal protection clause.The Court has challenged the ban was adopted. Because the Act amended the State Constitution, only another ? vote might change. This has created an obstacle for minorities opposed to the Act to overcome, ruled judges r. Guy Cole Jr. and Martha Craig Daughtrey.
"Proposal 2 rearranges the political process in Michigan to place special charges on minority interests," they said.
The only dissenting judge, Julia Smith Gibbons, said that the system of the University of Michigan was not structured in the process of "political" and that the members of the faculty have been isolated from political influence.
"Michigan voters have therefore not restructured the political process in their State by amending the constitution of the State;" they have simply used it, "Gibbons has written in his partial dissent."
Mark Fancher, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which was part of a coalition that challenged the law, said that the decision would provide equality of opportunity in the admission process.
"It reopens the opportunity for minorities not only be heard by the directors of the University, but have an expectation that if they can convince administrators that there is validity by examining their racial identity, that the University can really act,"he says. ".
Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said he planned to appeal the decision asking a new hearing to the 6th Circuit Court of appeals. The Act will remain in place pending a final decision.
"Act" embodies the fundamental premise of what America is all about: equal opportunities Act, "Schuette said in a statement.".Entry of our great universities must be based on merit, and I will continue the fight for equality, fairness and rule of law. »
Other States, including California, Arizona, Washington and Nebraska, have similar bans, but will not be affected by the decision of Michigan. Only the States in the Sixth Circuit, which includes the Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, would be affected.
However, George Washington, an attorney focused on the Strait with the firm Scheff, Washington and pilot, who filed the continuation of Michigan, said that their focus now moves to California. The firm has appealed the 9th Circuit Court of appeals to overturn Proposition 209 State.
The measure was adopted by voters in California in 1996. "prop." 209 is just as unconstitutional as proposal 2, "he says. "It is a carbon copy."
The University of California spokesman Ricardo Vazquez said legal staff of top-Canada has refused to comment on Friday on the case of Michigan because they need more time to review the decision and if it had no relevance to the prohibition of affirmative action state college admissions in California.
Christine Helwick, General Counsel of the Cal State University system, said Friday that it and other California education officials will monitor the appeals of the Michigan case. The case could finally be a relevant in California if the Supreme Court of the United States hearing an appeal, said.
Stephen.Ceasar@LAtimes.com
Staff writer Larry Gordon contributed to this report.
No comments:
Post a Comment