Today the US Supreme Court ruled against a federal judge by agreeing that the majority of voters in Michigan should decide whether they need affirmative action. Those voters strongly agreed that all decisions of state institutions should apply equal rights to everyone, meaning that no racial preferences should be permitted. http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20140422-709228.html
To the analysts at HamiltonFinanceServices.com, the ruling is overdue. States should have been deciding from the beginning what they need to apply laws equally to every member of society within their borders out of recognition that each state faces unique sets of challenges. What do you think?
Those who oppose the Michigan majority of voters insist that the best and brightest members of minority groups cannot compete against the majority without racial preferences. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/22/us-usa-court-race-idUSBREA3L0Y820140422
Here at HFS we rhetorically pose the question, Why can’t the best and brightest compete? Of course they can, if they’re truly the best and brightest of a society. What racial preference leads to is more racial division, the very opposite of what America considers the ideal worth fighting wars about. That the HFS view, at least.
