State Rep. Leon Drolet, R-Clinton Township, and the Michigan House of Representatives have taught Michigan an interesting lesson in the past year - if at first you don't succeed in undermining the Supreme Court, try, try again.
Last Wednesday, Drolet succeeded in steering an amendment through the state House that would sever state funding to public universities who factor race into admissions policy. Conversely, the Supreme Court legalized race preferences in college admissions last summer, so long as a point system - like the University of Michigan formerly employed - is not utilized. Should this amendment see the light of day, it appears that public institutions of higher learning will be financially crippled for adhering to the rulings of the Supreme Court.
Therefore, we're left to assess the fallout should this amendment pass the state Senate and the desk of Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Will the state of Michigan defy the Supreme Court's decision to uphold affirmative action? If so, we can't help but wonder why our state is interested in becoming among the least committed to diversity.
As public universities have echoed since the Supreme Court's ruling last summer, affirmative action and the practice of using racial preference in admissions contributes to creating an academic atmosphere committed to the spirit of diversity.
Accordingly, The State News has defended this ideal on several occasions. Affirmative action breeds diversity in the classroom, the workplace and beyond.
It's shameful that one part of our state's legislative body is interested in telling the rest of the nation that we're simply not interested in diversity. Furthermore, we find Drolet's amendment is blatant contempt of our nation's highest court, and a threat to both the autonomy that public universities exercise and financial well-being of any institution committed to academic progress.
Without state appropriated funding, public universities such as MSU would teeter on the brink of full collapse. Drolet's legislation would give the MSU community an unfair and essentially illegal ultimatum - denounce our commitment to diversity or else. Progressive thought and outright common sense in that calculation puts us in line with Rep. Gretchen Whitmer, D-East Lansing, when she articulated Drolet's amendment with succinct grace - "It's a terrible policy."
This is not Drolet's first attempt at usurping the Supreme Court. As a leader of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, an attempt to give Michigan voters a referendum on affirmative action, he was forced to watch his efforts sputter and stall.
When the courts and the constituents have shown their disdain, we hope our elected representatives would drop the agenda. Eradicating academic diversity is an ugly, ugly agenda to push forth by any means necessary.
Diversity is worthy of our protection, not of direct assault by an elected body. We're not interested in turning back the clock on progress. It's alarming that our House of Representatives seems to disagree.
