Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action - Reason Foundation

More documents

Recommendations

Info

viiInitiative and Referendum Inst., Statewide InitiativeUsage [Mich. 1914-2000], available athttp://www.iandrinstitute.org/New%20IRI%20Website%20Info/I&R%20Research%20and%20History/I&R%20at%20the%20Statewide%20Level/Usage%20history/Michigan.pdf. .............................. 21Sander, Richard H. & Taylor, Stuart Jr., MISMATCH:HOW AFFIRMATIVE ACTION HURTS STUDENTS IT’SINTENDED TO HELP, AND WHY UNIVERSITIES WON’TADMIT IT (2012) .............................................. passimSander, Richard, A Systemic Analysis of AffirmativeAction in American Law Schools, 57 Stan. L. Rev.367 (2004) ............................................................... 23Schrader, Jordan, BAMN Defends Purpose, TheMichigan Daily (Feb. 11, 2002) ............................. 22Skelton, George, Making a Case that the People HaveSpoken, Los Angeles Times (December 16, 1996) .. 4RulesSup. Ct. R. 37.2(a) ....................................................... 1Sup. Ct. R. 37.6 ............................................................ 1
1INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE 1An affiliate of the National Association of Scholars,the California Association of Scholars (“CAS”)is an organization devoted to higher education reform.It is committed to rational discourse as thefoundation of academic life in a free and democraticsociety.Many CAS members have been active in thevarious campaigns to pass voter initiatives thatprohibit state-sponsored discrimination on the basisof race, color, sex, ethnicity or national origin—especially in the original campaign for the CaliforniaCivil Rights Initiative (known as “CCRI” or“Proposition 209”), codified at Cal. Const. Art. I,§ 31. Indeed, it would not be an exaggeration tosay that CAS was the soil from which the idea forCCRI and its progeny sprang.The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, Mich.Const. Art. I, § 26 (“MCRI”), which is the subject ofthis lawsuit, is among CCRI’s progeny. The texts ofboth initiatives are nearly identical. Both prohibittheir respective states from “discriminat[ing]against, or grant[ing] preferential treatment to,any individual or group on the basis of race, sex,color, ethnicity, or national origin ….” Among other1 Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 37.2(a), all parties have consentedto the filing of this brief. Letters evidencing such consenthave been filed with the Clerk of the Court. Pursuantto Rule 37.6, Amici Curiae affirm that no counsel for any partyauthored this brief in whole or in part, and no counsel orparty made a monetary contribution intended to fund thepreparation or submission of this brief. No person other thanAmici Curiae, its members, or its counsel made a monetarycontribution to its preparation or submission.
Page 5 and 6: ivHirabayashi v. United States,320
Page 7: viEbner, Michael H., & Tobins, Euge
Page 11 and 12: 3the principles of the American fou
Page 13: 5[I]f the admissions committee of a
Page 19 and 20: 11charter amendment at issue in Hun
Page 21 and 22: 13Michigan legislature from passing
Page 23 and 24: 15Once such a law is passed, the gr
Page 25 and 26: 17sion would have to hold: The disc
Page 27 and 28: 19than its tendency to break and co
Page 29 and 30: 21fornia, between the years 1914 an
Page 31 and 32: 23Ayres & Richard Brooks, Does Affi
Page 33 and 34: 25were at less competitive schools
Page 35 and 36: 27rican-American and Hispanic stude
Page 37 and 38: 29ty, so it is remarkable that grad
Page 39: GAIL HERIOT4830 Hart DriveSan Diego

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action - Reason Foundation

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?