Michigan voters provided conservatives a silver lining for some of the dark clouds of the 2006 midterm elections.  By an overwhelming margin of 16 points, the state's voters passed a proposition known as the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which is supposed to end racial discrimination that has masqueraded as "affirmative action" for far too long. 

While the President of the University Michigan was listening, she didn't care what the voters had to say -- at least not if it wasn't what she wanted to hear.

Despite the fact that the initiative specifically instructs all state actors "not [to] 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," clearly it was targeted specifically at the University of Michigan.  For years now, there has been no question that the University of Michigan discriminates against white and Asian students in the admissions process, while preferring blacks and Hispanics based on their race in order to boost their numbers on campus.

Indeed, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative was born in the aftermath of two Supreme Court cases challenging the use of racial preferences to admit minority students to the University of Michigan's undergraduate and law schools.  Though the justices split the results in those cases, conservatives ended up losing the battle since a bare majority of the High Court, in the law school case, allowed the University to continue using race-based affirmative action for admissions so long as it did so on an individualized case-by-case basis that considered a variety of factors. 

In other words, the High Court told the University of Michigan it could still prefer applicants based on the color of their skin, it just couldn't let anyone know how much the University preferred certain students based on the taboo factor.

The University took the hint, slightly modified its affirmative action programs, and kept on using racial preferences to admit black and Hispanic students who had lower grades and test scores than many rejected white and Asian applicants.  Thus, for more than four years, Michigan -- and, more specifically, Ann Arbor -- has been ground zero in the fight to ensure all Americans are treated equally regardless of their the color of their skin.

Which brings us to Tuesday.  It shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone that the state's voters passed the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative by 58 percent to 42 percent, or nearly 600,000 votes.  Polls asking Americans about affirmative action consistently find that the public is overwhelmingly against such unequal treatment.  Indeed, Americans believe discrimination is discrimination whether it is against a black person, in favor of a white person or, as in the case of affirmative action, against a white person in favor of a black person. 

"Equality" to Americans means Martin Luther King's dream of an America where all children are judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.  That is for everyone but liberals.

In Michigan, the votes both for and against the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative were barely counted when the President of the University of Michigan, Mary Sue Coleman, held a press conference to explain what her response would be.  The day after the election, on Wednesday at high noon, President Coleman told a University of Michigan assembly that she was "deeply disappointed that the voters of our state have rejected affirmative action," but that the University "will not be deterred in the all-important work of creating a diverse, welcoming campus."

That would be all fine and good so long as she respected the voters and ended the University of Michigan's racial preferences in admissions and every other facet of "public education," as required by the initiative.  But this is not something President Coleman is willing to do.  Instead, she threw down the gauntlet, stating that she had already "directed [the University's] General Counsel to consider every legal option available to us." 

President Coleman went on to explain that, "[i]n the short term, [the University] will seek confirmation from the courts to complete this year's admissions cycle under our current guidelines."  In the long term, she "pledged that the University of Michigan will continue that fight" for race-based affirmative action to ensure "diversity."

In other words, to the President of the University of Michigan, it really doesn't mater what the voters have said.  She disagrees with them and their decision, and so she intends to disobey their instructions using any means she can. 

We have seen this so many times from liberals.  When one of their ideas is unpopular, the liberals want the unelected and unaccountable courts to decide.  It's just too bad that the citizens of Michigan will have to fight another battle in the court just to be heard.  They will succeed eventually, and it would be a fitting end if President Coleman loses her job in the process.  After all, as a public employee, she should be implementing the will of the voters, not flaunting them.