We have been following the news regarding the Supreme Court case on Michigan’s ban on race-based college applications.

Stanford University student Brandon Camhi takes a detailed look at the matter, and notes that the focus should on the politics.

In November 2006, Michigan voters passed the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) by 58%. This Constitutional amendment declared that public universities shall not “discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.” Opponents of the new amendment contend it violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because, unlike other groups like veterans, legacy children, and disabled students, racial minorities must change the state constitution to reinstate preferential treatment whereas these other groups can merely lobby the Michigan Board of Regents for special admissions treatment. Supporters assert the law guarantees equal access to public universities by eliminating race as a factor in admissions decisions.

For this argument, we will take affirmative action as a given; it is unlikely to be abolished anytime soon. Instead, when analyzing this law, it is best to focus on how different groups that represent innate traits (racial groups, legacy, disabilities, etc.) now face an unequal process to lobby for preferential treatment. As a personal opponent of government social engineering resigned to the continued existence of affirmative action in some form, it becomes clear that the MCRI is misguided because it unequally allocates access to the body that designs affirmative action policy. Government policy, rather than lobbying ability, now helps decide which groups receive preference in Michigan.

The only way to abolish the MCRI is to amend Michigan’s constitution via legislative action (a joint resolution) or a ballot initiative.

….With an affirmative action policy, there is no way to avoid this social engineering and, the more groups which receive affirmative action, the more diluted its power is relative to the generic applicant pool. Nevertheless, to combat this social engineering without ending affirmative action, which currently is politically impossible, all groups must have the same opportunity to influence the process. To equalize this influence, either all decisions about traits to assist should be made at a state level or at a university level. Michigan’s current system of different allocations of decisions only further entrenches this social engineering.

While it is acutely important to discuss the merits of affirmative action, this is not the primary issue before the Supreme Court. Instead, the Supreme Court must determine whether it is constitutional for a state to allocate decisions on how to treat innate characteristics in a non-uniform matter. In a society that champions equality before the law, in a nation that claims to disdain social engineering, and in the spirit of equal protection, the answer should be no.