Another lightweight pebble thrown by the pro-preferences forces is rippling the waters of the MCRI debate in Michigan (see here, here, and here) even as election watchdogs are verifying the 500,000+ signatures the anti-preferences forces have submitted — 317,757 valid signatures are required — to place the matter on the Michigan ballot.
This time the offending rock, which deserves to sink quickly if for no other reason than preserving the reputation of the authors, is in the form of a “report” by the Center for the Education of Women (CEW) at the University of Michigan. (This is a pdf document that allows no copying or saving of any of the text [if I were the authors, I wouldn’t want anyone to be able to copy or save it either].) The “report” argues, metaphorically speaking (but not metaphorical by much), that if MCRI passes women in Michigan will all become battered victims — scientific illiterates with breast cancer — and besides, none of them will ever again be telephone linemen.
If you’ve discerned that I’m having trouble taking it seriously, you’re right. It’s hard to take seriously a “report” that, in its second footnote, cites Title IV of the Civil Rights Act when it obviously means Title VI, and continued reading convinces that that was not a typo. Chetly Zarko, MCRI spokesman and frequent commenter here, has some preliminary comments here, and they are right on the money.
The report boldly makes a number of assertions that are outright fabrications, exaggerations, and miscontextualizations, to build a variety of strawmen which it then flagellates.
On one level it’s not so bad, but that level, alas, is the level of, say, the first draft of a sophomore’s first attempt at a research paper. On that level it’s probably a solid B-/C+. If you think I overreact, go read it yourself.
I’m not going to go through it chapter and verse, but let’s look at one or two items, beginning with the second sentence:
Although described as a civil rights initiative, the MCRI appears to confer no additional civil rights on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity or national origin. With proper enforcement, existing state and federal laws are clear and adequate. [It then refers to and cites “Title IV” among other items, when it clearly means Title VI.]
Does a constitutional amendment have to confer a new right in order to be a civil rights initiative? Of course, if MCRI changed nothing, there would be no reason to get so hot and bothered opposing it, would there?
There follow a series of charges, many with footnotes to what is alleged to have happened in California after the passage of Proposition 209, about closing down breast cancer screening, battered women shelters, etc., etc. All of this is bogus, on the level of citing as authority a complaint that was dismissed.
I started by looking at the report’s second sentence, but its first sentence correctly states that MCRI would bar state entities from discriminating against or granting preferences to anyone based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin “in public employment, public education or public contracting.” In which of those categories do breast cancer screening and battered women
shelters fit?
Oh never mind.
