The Inverted World of Anti-White Racism

A new case before the US Supreme Court has revealed that mere opposition to anti-white affirmative action is regarded by assorted leftists and some jurists as a form of racism in itself.

At stake is a 2006 Michigan ballot initiative which banned so-called “affirmative action” at public universities in Michigan.

“Affirmative Action,” is, of course, nothing more than anti-White racial discrimination, designed to give unqualified nonwhites preferential treatment over whites simply because of their race and alleged “discrimination” (mostly historically inaccurate) going back hundreds of years.


The 2006 “Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI),” also known as “Proposal 2,” ballot amended the Michigan constitution to prohibit discrimination or preferential treatment in college admissions based on race, sex, ethnicity, or national origin.

The ballot was passed by a 58 to 42 percent margin—remarkable in itself that 40 percent of MI voters were actually in favor of anti-white discrimination.

The proposal was instantly opposed by several “civil rights” groups, and taken to a federal court, which upheld the ballot as legal.

The appellants then took it to the Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals, where a sharply divided set of judges ruled 8 to 7 that the ban on affirmative action violated the “Equal Protection Clause” of the 14th Amendment.

This was, by any objective analysis, a bizarre conclusion, as the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction.

The state of Michigan took the Circuit Court decision on appeal to the US Supreme Court, and yesterday won the right to demand of that court to review the strike down order.

A far leftist lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, Mark Rosenbaum, was one of those in court arguing against the Supreme Court’s decision to take the case on review.

“The vice of Proposal 2 is that it selectively shuts off access to the ordinary political process for advocates of otherwise constitutionally permissible race-conscious policies,” Rosenbaum argued before court.

A black lawyer named George Washington, from the African-American success story metropolis of Detroit, also argued that the Supreme Court not take the Circuit Court decision under review, arguing that “minorities” had the right to discriminate against white people.

Washington says in his brief that Proposal 2 creates an unequal structure of government that imposes on minority students a burden no other citizen has to endure when seeking to change admissions standards.

“Proposal 2 deprived racial minorities of equal political rights by prohibiting the governing bodies [of public universities] from adopting by simple majority vote any plan that granted ‘preferential treatment’ to minority applicants,” Washington told the court.

Thankfully, there was at least one sane person in the courtroom, Michigan Solicitor General John Bursch.

“It is exceedingly odd to say that a statute which bars a state from discriminating on the basis of race violates the Equal Protection Clause because it discriminates on the basis of race and sex. Yet that is precisely what the [Sixth Circuit] majority held here,” Bursch said.

“Until now, no court has ever held that, apart from remedying specific past discrimination, a government must engage in affirmative action.”

The petition reached the high court at a time when the justices are preparing to rule on whether a race-based affirmative action plan at the University of Texas violates the equal protection rights of white students applying for admission.

The case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (12-682), will be heard in the court’s next term, which begins in October.

The actual text of Proposal 2 reads as follows:

“Affirmative action programs.

1. The University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Grand Valley State University, and any other public college or university, community college, or school district shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

2. The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

3. For the purposes of this section “state” includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the state itself, any city, county, any public college, university, or community college, school district, or other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State of Michigan not included in sub-section 1.

4. This section does not prohibit action that must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, if ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the state.

5. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

6. The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party’s race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of Michigan anti-discrimination law.

7. This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with the United States Constitution or federal law, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that the United States Constitution and federal law permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.

8. This section applies only to action taken after the effective date of this section.

9. This section does not invalidate any court order or consent decree that is in force as of the effective date of this section.”

Recommended For You

1 Comment

  1. For those who do not like a society in which merit alone determines success they could always go to Liberia, South Africa, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda or any number of black only havens. I am sure the indigenous peoples of these regions would give the Detroit born lawyer Mr. George Washington a warm welcome. Funny though; Mr Washington would not be welcome in Israel. He would most likely be deported to Uganda. Mark Rosenbaum on the other hand would be very welcome in Israel and would have a very comfortable lifestyle subsidised by the US taxpayer. Does this make Israel the world’s only racially exclusive “welfare state” who knows? Perhaps Mark could answer that one!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.