Ruling on race likely to spur fight

The new Supreme Court decision allowing public universities to choose students by race likely was the first shot in what will be a political war fought state by state.

While the ruling in the University of Michigan cases allowed states to have affirmative-action plans, it did not require them and warned that race-neutral alternatives must be tested first.

The decision did not reverse bans on race references in the constitutions of California and Washington, or the race-neutral program imposed in Florida by Republican Gov. Jeb Bush, who pledged to keep it.

Legislatures also could outlaw the programs or simply refuse to fund them, but analysts said political reality argues against that.

“Michigan must be first. We are very serious about doing an initiative in Michigan,” said Ward Connerly, chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) and architect of California’s Proposition 209, which banned race preferences in college admissions, government contracting and hiring.

Mr. Connerly, a member of the California Board of Regents, said yesterday he is committed to fighting “racialist mischief” nationwide, and will begin work next week for a state constitutional amendment to make Michigan join California and Washington as “race-free zones.”

“Michigan is the big tortilla here. Michigan changes the equation entirely. If the state that gave rise to these high-profile court decisions to use race preferences for the sake of diversity says we do not agree with the court, that would send a powerful message and others will follow,” Mr. Connerly said in an interview from Sacramento.

Former U.S. Solicitor General Drew S. Days III said initiatives against affirmative action are a legitimate response, without stating his own view.

“The tendency of people, even though it’s not accurate, is to think you have to do it even though it’s an option. That the Supreme Court says it’s constitutional doesn’t necessarily make it mandatory,” he said.

“There’s no reason that I can think of that would prevent states from having initiatives,” he said, calling them tests of “where does the political will and power lie?”

The 5-4 decision did nullify the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Hopwood opinion barring Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi from using preferences, and ends a court challenge to affirmative-action programs in Georgia’s public universities.

Since 70 percent of public universities admit virtually all students that meet defined academic standards, the fight will focus on the few hundred “highly selective” schools where rejection rates exceed 50 percent.

“This decision doesn’t say a state can’t ban affirmative action. This is not a requirement,” said Harvard professor Gary Orfield, co-director of Harvard’s Civil Rights Project, which advocates affirmative action.

“Initiatives to block the practice are acceptable, and it also would be possible for voters to insist that their state government follow Michigan’s lead,” Mr. Orfield said.

Story Continues →