<\/p>\n
Fifty years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stood on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and dreamed of a day his children would live \u201cin a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.\u201d Today his dream is being realized in states like Michigan and California, where voter initiatives have banned racial discrimination in college admissions.<\/p>\n
Now, if only King\u2019s dream can overcome the civil rights establishment.<\/p>\n
Ironically, as America celebrates MLK\u2019s vision this week, the ACLU and civil rights groups have filed briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court demanding that Michigan reverse Proposal 2, the state\u2019s ban on racial preferences, and discriminate by the color of a student\u2019s skin. In so doing, King\u2019s successors threaten to set back progress for minorities.<\/p>\n
\u201cDr. King was making a case for race neutrality. He wanted equality of opportunity, not racial preferences,\u201d says Joe Hicks, 71, veteran civil rights activist, former communications director of Southern California\u2019s ACLU and an African-American. He has seen California\u2019s preferences ban deliver increased degrees and jobs for blacks.<\/p>\n
Following California\u2019s successful passage of Prop 209 in 1996, Michigan voters adopted the language of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in its constitution in 2006, declaring that universities \u201cshall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.\u201d<\/p>\n
But in an\u00a0Oct. 15 hearing before the Supreme Court<\/a>, the left hopes to turn back the clock in Michigan and five other states. The civil rights establishment would promote a legal norm where \u201cdiversity\u201d trumps equality.<\/p>\n \u201cThe University of Michigan considers everything from economic status to parental educational background…in its admissions policies. The only thing they can\u2019t consider is the racial inequality in secondary education,\u201d\u00a0writes Mark Rosenbaum<\/a>, an ACLU attorney representing students and faculty in a brief filed Friday with the Supreme Court. \u201cProposal 2 turns the court\u2019s principles upside down by making race the determinative factor.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cRosenbaum\u2019s argument is the definition of insanity,\u201d says civil rights pioneer Jennifer Gratz, who spearheaded Michigan\u2019s affirmative action ban in 2006. \u201cNo amount of mental gymnastics could make a sane person believe that eliminating race as a factor makes race the determinative factor.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe ACLU\u2019s case is Orwellian,\u201d adds ex-ACLU spokesman Hicks.<\/p>\n The ACLU suit threatens the progress of minorities under California\u2019s Prop 209. Since its passage, the overall population of students in the California system has remained remarkably stable, even as they were reapportioned to colleges for which they were more qualified. As racial quotas were ended, schools like UC-Riverside saw black enrollment increase by 240 percent while UC-Berkeley dropped by half.<\/p>\n \u201cThe draconian predictions the left made haven\u2019t happened,\u201d says Hicks who campaigned against Prop 209 in 1996 but has since been won over by its success. \u201cMinorities have gone where their opportunities are better. Their grad rates are up across the board.\u201d<\/p>\n Indeed, Prop 209 has delivered a sharp increase in minority graduation rates, a story I first reported in 2006 with the Reason Foundation\u2019s Shikha Dalmia. At UC-San Diego, for example, graduation rates doubled from 26 percent in 1995 to 52 percent in 2001 \u2014 nearly on par with whites and Asians \u2014 thus increasing the pool of minorities available to employers.<\/p>\n \u201c(Prop 209) has produced better students all around,\u201d\u00a0says UCLA scholar Rick Sander<\/a>, whose 2012 book,\u00a0\u201cMismatch,\u201d<\/a>\u00a0catalogs California\u2019s success.<\/p>\n Another benefit of Prop 209<\/a>\u00a0has been its\u00a0positive effect on academic outreach to the poor<\/a>. One of the dirty secrets of race preferences is that elite colleges like U-M and UC-Berkeley chase a small pool of applicants from upper-income households. Now recruiting without consideration of race, the California system has broadened its outreach programs to all income groups. A study by The Pacific Legal Foundation\u2019s Eryn Hadley found that elite schools have refocused resources on \u201cK-12 students…who are disadvantaged or attend low performing schools.\u201d<\/p>\n Consequently,\u00a0students on Pell Grants<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 scholarships awarded to low income students \u2014 at Berkeley and UCLA today make up nearly 40 percent of their student bodies. At U-M, by contrast,\u00a0just 16 percent of students are on Pell grants.<\/a><\/p>\n