ACLU, NAACP filing (ridiculous) lawsuit against Proposal 2

On the front page of the ACLU Michigan Spring 2007 edition is an article lauding the ACLU & NAACP for challenging the legality of Proposal 2, particularly in regards to university admissions. The lawsuit requests specifically that the US District Court in Detroit issue a "'declaratory ruling' explaining that Proposal 2 does not ban programs that use race or gender as part of the decision-making process in any manner whatsoever. Such a construction of the language of Proposal 2 would place an unconstitutional burden on the ability of protected groups to advance their interests and rights while leaving other members of the community free to advance theirs without any similar burdens."

This oppressionistic prose is typical of those on the NO side of proposal 2 because it diverts attention immediately from the true intention and language of the proposal, which is simply end public programs - including public university admissions -  that give preferential treatment to individuals based solely on skin color. The proponents of Prop 2 are not trying to place unconstitutional burdens on anyone, nor are they trying to infringe on anyone's rights. Essentially, the ACLU is making a strong normative statement that persons of color should maintain the right to be preferenced over white people when it comes to public hiring, contracting and university admisssions simply because their skin tone is a shade darker. This is undeniably and unconscionably racist.  The ACLU is doing itself a major disservice by fighting tooth & nail against a law that promotes true equality in the spirit of the Constitution.  I wouldn't doubt if many average joe ACLU members are legitimately baffled that their traditional bastion of justice and equality for all citizens is suddenly raising their glasses to bring back genuinely racist policies.

It is worth quoting (and highlighting the hypcrisy of) the Executive Director of the ACLU of Michigan, Kary Moss: "We are pleased to be able to represent current students and faculty, as well as prospective students, in a case that will be the first to evaluate exactly what Proposal 2 means in this state."  It is fascinating that Ms. Moss did not reference the Michigan Constitution, Article I, Section 26, before concluding that that the "meaning" of Prop 2 is yet to be determined.  According the referenced section: " (1) The University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne 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."

Seems pretty clear to me.