Sometimes, there is nothing else to say except it doesn’t get any better than this. In 2006, the voters of the state of Michigan firmly approved a state constitutional amendment prohibiting the use of racial preferences in admissions to institutions of higher education. The campaign was full of rancor, deceit and flamboyant hyperbole. The primary and most visible opponent was an organization named Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary or BAMN for merciful brevity.
It seems BAMN decided to file a federal lawsuit in the court of a sympathetic, Clinton-appointed district judge, David Lawson. The University of Michigan, subject of a controversial U.S. Supreme Court ruling on racial discrimination in 2003, quietly agreed to go along with the BAMN lawsuit even though they disapproved of BAMN’s somewhat un-academic antics and tactics. Judge Lawson sought and found ways to keep hope alive for opponents of the Amendment and, while doing so, incurred the wrath of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, who stayed his order to suspend compliance with the will of the voters while litigation proceeded.
BAMN and Lawson were succeeding in their plan until counsel for a plaintiff in a parallel suit, the Center for Individual Rights, put a California law professor on the stand to testify he had found contradictory and conflicting evidence concerning data provided by the University of Michigan on racial preferences. This evidence was also used in presenting the earlier case to the U.S. Supreme Court back in 2003. Faced with the plaintiff’s broad and undeniable claims for extensive discovery of UofM records and data, Judge Lawson and BAMN were confronted with the unraveling not only of the present anti-Amendment case, but also the very real possibility the previous SCOTUS ruling might be vacated should the truth of the school’s perjurious actions and falsified records be publicly revealed. Lawson did the only thing a left-wing federal judge could do when backed into a corner. He ruled against his fellow travelers, the pro-racial quota defendants, in every aspect of the case. It is too funny when these people are trapped in the web of their own deceit and connivance.
Filed Under Front Page ·
Comments
8 Responses to “Discriminating Orthodoxies & Campus Fools”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
Texpat, will this decision help the young woman who is suing UT to stop them from using race as a criteria ?
#1 AW
How much is hard to tell at this point, but it will certainly not hurt her case by any means.
Demands for a Chavez day holiday, affirmative action initiatives, sanctuary state status - this BAMN group is a bunch of Berkeley style loons.
TExpat, Rush was pointing out recently, that The predominantly black schhools in DC are now spending $24,000.00 a year per child. He also noted that the schools that most of the Goverment people send there kids to costs between $10,000-$16,000. I can only imagine what these kids could accomplish, if they got a real education in the 1st place. I hope the coming, highly necessary spending cuts, hoped for by all who care , will start at the NEA run Government Schools. Maybe we should raise taxes on teacher’s Unions?
Another brilliantly written thread by texpat gone astray. Thanks, tp, good stuff.
#6 GJT
Thanks. It takes more time to research alot these subjects than people realize. Because I am a stickler for proper sourcing and their reliability, most of what I do ends up in the recycle bin or in wasted time chasing information down dead end rabbit holes.
I probably devoted 5 or 6 hours of time to the 6 grafs that constitute the environmental law thread I did here earlier today. Sometimes, after I look at a thread, I can’t believe it requires the time it does. But I do some complex and potentially problematic subjects here and I try to get it right for the readers. After all the preaching I do about being diligent and conscientious, I owe it to people here to do the right thing.
tp
I understand to the time involved and I for one am much appreciative.
I wrote #5 before I saw the crack thread though, LOL.
Bravo,Bravissimo Texpat.