Two Years after Grutter, Threats to Affirmative Action Still Strong
In the two years since the Grutter v. Bollinger Supreme Court decision upholding the consideration of race as a factor in higher education admissions, affirmative action opponents continued their opposition to the policy.
On June 23, 2003, the Court held (5-4) that racial diversity was a compelling state interest and that the University of Michigan Law School's admissions policies were narrowly tailored to fit this compelling interest.
On the eve of the 2005 anniversary, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund/Americans for a Fair Chance (LCCREF/AFC) released a new report, "Anti-Affirmative Action Threats in the States 1997-2004" detailing the persistent threats to affirmative action in the country.
The report provides an overview of attacks that opponents of equal opportunity have made through legislation and resolutions, ballot initiative campaigns, and state executive orders. The report also includes a preview of threats launched so far in 2005.
The strongest threat to affirmative action at the state level is the proposed ballot initiative sponsored by Ward Connerly, which would end affirmative action in higher education, public contracting, and hiring in Michigan. Connerly was unsuccessful in placing his so-called "Michigan Civil Rights Initiative" on the 2004 ballot, but is attempting to qualify for the 2006 ballot.
He has also stated he wants to introduce initiatives in Arizona, Colorado, Missouri and New Hampshire. All four of these states have had anti-affirmative action legislation sponsored and defeated in the past few years.
While legislative threats have decreased to some degree, three states—Colorado, Massachusetts and New Jersey—introduced a total of eight anti-affirmative action bills or resolutions in 2004. While most died at the end of the year, New Jersey's two bills were still pending as of the Grutter anniversary date.
Two states, Massachusetts and New York, introduced bills and/or resolutions this year that posed potential threats to equal opportunity in education and affirmative action programs.
Two significant affirmative action developments are discussed below.
Board of Canvassers Stalemates in Michigan
On July 19, the Michigan State Board of Canvassers deadlocked (2-2) in its consideration of certification of the so-called "Michigan Civil Rights Initiative" (MCRI), which had been championed by affirmative action opponent Ward Connerly. The board stalemate turns the question of certification over to the Michigan Court of Appeals, which was expected to rule on the issue as this issue of the Monitor went to press.
Connerly is best known as the businessman and former University of California regent who successfully led anti-affirmative action ballot initiatives in California (1996) and Washington (1998). After the Grutter decision, Connerly and his allies switched their focus to Michigan.
He initially aimed to qualify the initiative for the November 2004 ballot. However, several months before the election, a Michigan judge held that the anti-affirmative action initiative was "blatantly in direct conflict" with the Michigan Constitution and did not fully inform voters of its effect. In the wake of legal challenges resulting in a failure to garner the requisite number of signatures, Connerly postponed his 2004 petition drive, vowing to try again for the 2006 ballot.
In the meantime, One United Michigan (OUM), a diverse coalition of mainstream Michigan organizations representing women's groups, educators, business groups, religious organizations, racial and ethnic minority groups, and labor, has been working to educate voters on the benefits of affirmative action and equal opportunity programs, and the potential consequences of Connerly's initiative.
"Connerly's crusade to end affirmative action in Michigan failed in 2004," said Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the nation's oldest, largest, and most diverse civil and human rights coalition. "And we urge the Michigan courts to reject it again. The people of Michigan will not allow an initiative that rolls back opportunity for women and minorities to become part of their state Constitution."
The Associated Press reported in February 2005 that most of the funding for Connerly's initiative had come from out-of-state donors. MCRI collected $713,464 from August to December of 2004, of which only 29 percent came from Michigan residents, according to the AP. Connerly himself donated the most to the campaign, giving $355,000 to a committee that is supporting the initiative, the Ann Arbor News reported.
Lawmakers Leave Texas Admissions Law Intact
The legislative session in Texas concluded on May 24 without the House and Senate reaching agreement on proposals to modify a state law guaranteeing students in the top 10 percent of their high school class automatic admission to any state public university.
The original law was intended to provide underrepresented minorities with access to colleges and universities, following a federal court decision banning the consideration of race in university admissions.
In 2005, Senate and House legislation proposing modifications to the law differed dramatically.
Senate Bill 333 was introduced by State Senate Education Committee Chair Senator Royce West, D. Dallas, an advocate of the top 10 percent law. SB 333 would keep intact the basic provisions of the law, while adding extra curriculum requirements for students seeking to qualify for the program.
State Senator West has called the top 10 percent law "the most fair and efficient way to ensure that students from all walks of life and from all parts of our state have access to institutions of higher learning."
House Bill 2330, sponsored by State Representative Geanie Morrison, R. Victoria, would allow colleges to lower, from 100 percent to 50 percent, the acceptance rate of incoming freshman who are within the top 10 percent of their high school class.
The Texas affiliates of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), NAACP, and the League of United Latin American Citizens testified at previous committee hearings in support of the top 10 percent law, highlighting how the program has helped underrepresented students from urban and rural areas.
Earlier this year, Luis Figueroa, state policy analyst at MALDEF, proposed that colleges should institute, in addition to the top 10 percent law, "a limited affirmative action program to allow for race to be considered among one of many factors to attend the universities in Texas."
Lawmakers are expected to revisit the issue in two years, at the start of the next legislative session.
