Lawyer Cries Racism When Supreme Court Votes for Equality Instead of Affirmative Action

Posted 9 hours ago by Dave Jolly Filed unde

In the 1990s, most public colleges in Michigan used Affirmative Action when it came to college admissions. Applicants of minority, female and diverse ethnic backgrounds were given more credit over white American male applicants. Supposedly this was a fair system, at least to the minorities it was.
In 1995, the admission application of Jennifer Gratz, a white student, was rejected by the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Gratz filed a lawsuit to challenge the rejection, claiming that she had been discriminated against because she was white. Her case, Gratz v. Bollinger went all the way to the US Supreme Court. In 2003, the high court voted 6-3 in Gratz’s favor claiming the Affirmative Action policy of awarding 20 points to minority applicants was unconstitutional because it ‘ensures that the diversity contributions of applicants cannot be individually assessed.’

In 2006, the voters in Michigan passed an amendment to the State Constitution banning state public colleges from using Affirmative Action methods for college admissions. That means that the state’s public colleges are not allowed to give any extra points or credit to a college applicant on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity or national origin.

The decision of the people is that everyone applying to college is placed on an equal playing field with only their academic and/or athletic records to stand for them. Naturally civil rights activists who preach equality did not like the Supreme Court ruling or the constitutional amendment passed by the people giving them equality. They demanded to have their preferential treatment so they challenged the legality of the constitutional amendment banning Affirmative Action.

Once again, the case ended up before the US Supreme Court and once again the high court upheld the will of the people and declared the amendment to be constitutional. And guess what the reactions of civil rights activists were? They are again crying foul and racism. Because the US Supreme Court voted to give minority students equality with all other students, they are being called racists.

Among the outspoken civil rights activists is attorney Shanta Driver. She blasted the Supreme Court decision saying that it is going back to the era of Jim Crow laws that allowed for racial segregation at the state and local level.

Driver stated:
“White voters are an overwhelming majority of Michigan voters. And they voted two out of three to ban affirmative action. Black voters, who are a tiny minority of the voters in Michigan — just because of the demographics of the state, who are about 15 percent of the electorate — 90 percent of black voters voted against the ban. We’ve come back to a place where states can determine what equality is.”

“I just wanna say, this is a racist decision that takes us back to an era of states’ rights, where white majorities can disenfranchise minority communities and now prevent us from getting higher education. This decision cannot stand.”

Oops, did I hear that right? Doesn’t the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution give states the rights and power over the federal government? I guess Driver, an attorney, is unaware of what our Constitution and Bill of Rights says.

So what is equality in her mind? Obviously equality to Driver is that minorities continue to get preferential treatment over non-minorities when it comes to college admission applications. Students should not be screened on their academic records but by the color of their skin, what country they are from and what gender they are. I suppose to Driver that a student’s success in college has more to do with the color of their skin than on their academic record.

After hearing Driver lash out against the Supreme Court decision, Gratz told the media:
“What Ms. Driver fails to recognize is that it’s her group that’s focused on race here. The Michigan voters, they eliminated race and gender preferences in public contracting and public employment and public education. Are we to believe that voters in Michigan are also sexist for eliminating gender preferences?”

“The fact is that the people of Michigan commanded equality, and that is exactly what our U.S. Constitution should command, is equal treatment under the law for all individuals.”

“I think it is unbelievable that someone would sit here today and say prohibiting racial discrimination is a racist decision. I think that that tells us where the level of discourse is today. Look, good people can disagree. But we can’t have name-calling and baiting like this.”

Driver is just like so many other civil and gay rights activists who don’t want equality; they want superiority and preferential treatment. Like I said earlier, they preach equality but don’t want to have it and if you don’t give them their special treatment, then you are a racist.

Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/15365/lawyer-cries-racism-supreme-court-votes-equality-instead-affirmative-action/#ifoAi5UMTrvGHEIL.99