In the battle over intiatives outlawing affirmative action in California, Washington, and now Michigan women’s organizations have led efforts to warn that eliminating racial preferences would harm women by eliminating preferences for them as well.
Here, for example, is a typical report:
Michigan-based women’s groups last week launched a two-year education campaign to inform Michigan women about the impact of affirmative action. The campaign is in response to an anti-affirmative action ballot initiative planned for 2006.
The groups kicked off the campaign on Women’s Equality Day — August 26 — through an event in Kalamazoo, Mich., and a simultaneous radio tour.
Group leaders vowed to continue to educate women and Michigan residents about the benefits of equal opportunity policies including affirmative action. They emphasized that women are the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action.
“Often times, affirmative action is viewed as a tool that solely benefits racial and ethnic minorities. However, it is important to remember that affirmative action benefits women as well — regardless of race,” said Jennifer Shoub of the Michigan Council of the YWCAs. “In fact, women are the most frequent beneficiaries of and will lose most if affirmative action is lost.”
But I wonder: would these groups continue to support affirmative action so fervently if men were the primary beneficiaries, as indeed they seem to be in college admissions according to this report in USA Today:
The problem [of a growing gender imbalance in colleges] has already grown so severe that three out of every four private colleges (an informal estimate from admissions directors) quietly practice affirmative action for boys, favoring them over girls in admissions to get near balance.
Isn,t it ironic that in the state where Jennifer Gratz clearly demonstrated that she was disciminated against in the admission process that women’s groups would want to continue such a process.
If the military women’s groups would review the current rules, women owned companies can no longer qualify for 8A state (the minority set aside program).
As we wrote in our press release ( http://www.michigancivilrights.org/pr9804.htm ), the logic of preferences for “diversity” (historical remediation, or sheer group politcal power motivations, follow the opposite, real-world logic though) requires that they be given to men at some point. The same reversal could become true of blacks or other racial groups.
What the government gives today it could take away and reverse tomorrow, in the form of preferences to men or other groups. This is another, among the many, reasons for eliminating preferences on the basis of gender and race.