By Zach Gorchow
Gongwer News Service
The Commission on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in the Michigan Judiciary has been renamed the Commission on Fairness and Public Trust under an order from the Michigan Supreme Court.
DEI has become a polarizing term, with critics saying it promotes a person’s race and other innate characteristics over their qualifications.
Issued recently, the order drops language from the 2022 administrative order the court issued that discussed “exploring issues related to the demographics of the workforce that support our judiciary and training within the judicial branches.”
The new order says the judiciary earns public trust “by faithfully performing its duties” and says “in order to increase and maintain public trust and to provide an experience that is accessible, fair and impartial for all court users, the judicial branch must ensure the one court of justice is fair to all.”
The order changes the goals of the new commission to say it will “develop policies and standards to promote fairness and accountability within the judiciary.” This is a change from developing “policies and standards to promote diversity, equity and inclusion.”
The previous order said a goal of the commission was to “assist the judicial branch with elimination of disparities within the justice system.” The goal was changed for the new commission to “ensure that all those served by the justice system are heard, valued and respected.”
A previous goal of the commission was to “increase participation of members from under-represented communities in judicial branch leadership.” Instead, the new commission will seek to “create pathways to build a judicial workforce possessing varied and transferable skillsets to help foster trust in the court system.”
The commission was also previously tasked with assisting local courts with implementing “diversity, equity and inclusion plans and processes.” Now, the commission will assist local courts with implementing plans and processes “that further fairness and public trust in the judiciary.”
The commission will continue to consist of 25 members appointed by the Supreme Court, largely from the same various judge associations and organizations.
Members currently on the commission will remain through the end of their terms.
For future appointments, a requirement in the prior order to “ensure diversity of membership” was struck.
The court approved the order on a 6-1 vote.
Justice Brian Zahra, the court’s lone member nominated by the Michigan Republican Party, suggested the change was one of window dressing, not function. The commission remains “a DEI Commission” no matter what the court’s majority contends, he said.
“What does it say about our commitment to transparency that this Court is willing to scrape the name off its DEI Commission at a time when DEI just so happens to be losing its popularity among the people?” he wrote. “Is it transparent to alter the name of this Commission but leave its members and its powers unchanged? The majority may point out that the new amendment alters the language outlining the aims of this Commission, but these changes only serve to obscure the Commission’s origins in DEI without any meaningful transformation.”
Justice Elizabeth Welch, in a concurring opinion responding to Zahra’s dissent, wrote that the term DEI “has become a political lightning rod.” Although DEI may be polarizing, a commitment to “fairness, acceptance of others and equity is not,” Welch wrote.
Further, she said the new commission’s goals are “meritorious and worthwhile.”
The new name accurately reflects the commission’s work and “accords with universal values that are embraced in our state and federal Constitutions,” Welch wrote.
Gongwer News Service
The Commission on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion in the Michigan Judiciary has been renamed the Commission on Fairness and Public Trust under an order from the Michigan Supreme Court.
DEI has become a polarizing term, with critics saying it promotes a person’s race and other innate characteristics over their qualifications.
Issued recently, the order drops language from the 2022 administrative order the court issued that discussed “exploring issues related to the demographics of the workforce that support our judiciary and training within the judicial branches.”
The new order says the judiciary earns public trust “by faithfully performing its duties” and says “in order to increase and maintain public trust and to provide an experience that is accessible, fair and impartial for all court users, the judicial branch must ensure the one court of justice is fair to all.”
The order changes the goals of the new commission to say it will “develop policies and standards to promote fairness and accountability within the judiciary.” This is a change from developing “policies and standards to promote diversity, equity and inclusion.”
The previous order said a goal of the commission was to “assist the judicial branch with elimination of disparities within the justice system.” The goal was changed for the new commission to “ensure that all those served by the justice system are heard, valued and respected.”
A previous goal of the commission was to “increase participation of members from under-represented communities in judicial branch leadership.” Instead, the new commission will seek to “create pathways to build a judicial workforce possessing varied and transferable skillsets to help foster trust in the court system.”
The commission was also previously tasked with assisting local courts with implementing “diversity, equity and inclusion plans and processes.” Now, the commission will assist local courts with implementing plans and processes “that further fairness and public trust in the judiciary.”
The commission will continue to consist of 25 members appointed by the Supreme Court, largely from the same various judge associations and organizations.
Members currently on the commission will remain through the end of their terms.
For future appointments, a requirement in the prior order to “ensure diversity of membership” was struck.
The court approved the order on a 6-1 vote.
Justice Brian Zahra, the court’s lone member nominated by the Michigan Republican Party, suggested the change was one of window dressing, not function. The commission remains “a DEI Commission” no matter what the court’s majority contends, he said.
“What does it say about our commitment to transparency that this Court is willing to scrape the name off its DEI Commission at a time when DEI just so happens to be losing its popularity among the people?” he wrote. “Is it transparent to alter the name of this Commission but leave its members and its powers unchanged? The majority may point out that the new amendment alters the language outlining the aims of this Commission, but these changes only serve to obscure the Commission’s origins in DEI without any meaningful transformation.”
Justice Elizabeth Welch, in a concurring opinion responding to Zahra’s dissent, wrote that the term DEI “has become a political lightning rod.” Although DEI may be polarizing, a commitment to “fairness, acceptance of others and equity is not,” Welch wrote.
Further, she said the new commission’s goals are “meritorious and worthwhile.”
The new name accurately reflects the commission’s work and “accords with universal values that are embraced in our state and federal Constitutions,” Welch wrote.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
