The ban was passed in 2006 and outlawed racial preferences in public university admissions and government hiring. The plaintiffs sued the state, various universities and their presidents, MSU law professor Brian Kalt said.

Paulette Granberry Russell, director of the MSU Office for Inclusion and Intercultural Initiatives, said forming a diverse student body always has been a university goal and will not change based on the decision of a federal appeals court.

“Prior to the passage of Proposition 2 and subsequent to passage of Proposition 2, MSU’s admissions process was a holistic admissions process,” she said.

After the ban passed, there was concern among students and parents that the amendment would stall the recruitment of diverse students at MSU, Granberry Russell said.

“Our approach … was not impacted by Proposition 2,” she said. “Achieving a diverse student body through admission continues to be part of our efforts … (and) part of our goal to increase the representation of students of color at MSU.”

Katherine Lixey, an interdisciplinary studies in social science and international studies senior, said she supports anyone promoting affirmative action in Michigan.

“A lot of people think inequalities are gone just because it’s 2009, but there’s a lot of history … a lot of discrimination that we still kind of have to make up for,” she said.

Max McPhail worked on the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, or Proposition 2, campaign as its spokesman and said he doesn’t expect the lawsuit to
have success.

“Civil rights mean equal rights for all people regardless of race or sex,” he said. “This lawsuit is meritless.”

MSU Trustee Colleen McNamara said she supports affirmative action, but does not believe its absence prevents minorities from applying to MSU.

“I support affirmative action. … I always have,” she said. “We’ve had more people applying year after year to come to MSU. … I don’t think (Proposition 2) stops you from applying.”

If the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati rules the ban is unconstitutional, it probably would be appealed to the Supreme Court, Kalt said.

“Any time a state law is struck down on constitutional grounds, the U.S. Supreme Court is much more likely to take that case,” he said.

Bryant Crutcher, a case manager for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said it is impossible to determine what kind of decision might be reached in the
appeals court.

If the U.S. Supreme Court found the state proposition violated the federal Constitution, the state law would be struck down, MSU law professor Frank Ravitch said.

Even if the appeals court ruled the ban unconstitutional, the controversy surrounding the issue would continue, Granberry Russell said.