Jennifer Gratz, executive director of MCRI, sends word of a new poll showing that small and mid-sized Michigan businesses support the drive to ban racial preferences.
MACKINAC ISLAND, Mich., June 3 /PRNewswire/ — Crain’s Detroit Business today released results of an EPIC-MRA survey that showed most owners and managers of small and mid-sized businesses in Southeast Michigan favor a proposal that would ban affirmative action at government agencies and universities.
In Grutter Justice O’Connor relied in part on the support of racial preferences by Big Business, but this poll suggests that most businesses oppose preferences.
ethnicity or national origin.
This finding is in direct opposition to big business’ efforts to preserve affirmative action policies according to Crain’s publisher Mary Kramer.
“Clearly big business and small and mid-sized businesses are not on the same page on this issue. This survey is a wake-up call for proponents and opponents alike of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative proposal,” says Kramer….
As usual, supporters of preferences regard opponents as too dumb to know what’s in their own interest.
“A lot of large employers understand it helps them improve the bottom line,” says Ed Sarpolus, vice-president, EPIC-MRA. “A lot of other companies don’t understand it or don’t believe it.”
Crain’s publisher, Mary Kramer, also seems to share some of this elitist disdain for the opponents of preferences.
“It’s interesting that 62 percent of business executives believe diversity policies positively affect their profitability, but they don’t tie that back to any kind of affirmative action programs,” Kramer said. “And 71 percent said they market products and services to racially and ethnically diverse customers. But they don’t link that to affirmative action, either.”
Imagine that! These small business rubes actually favor “diversity policies” (whatever they are) and even (Gasp!) offer their goods and services to “ethnically diverse customers” and yet they STILL think racial discrimination should be prohibited.
Meanwhile, former Republican (!) Speaker of the Michigan House (and now DTE Energy Co. Senior Vice President) Paul Hillegonds has just given a novel argument for opposing the ban on discrimination that MCRI would write into the Michigan constitution. According to Hillegonds,
the amendment would lead to a pile of litigation against all types of affirmative action policies as opponents seek to root out ones that wouldn’t pass constitutional muster.
“Not every affirmative action policy today is implemented well, but that does not justify a constitutional amendment that will challenge every affirmative action policy in the state, he said.
In other words, don’t pass MCRI because scofflaws will ignore it, thus triggering litigation. Like so many other aspects of the pro-preference arguments, this reminds me of the die-hard defense of segregation offered by Southerners I grew up with. They, too, were fond of arguing that law could not change the ingrained habits of discrimination. They were wrong.
Hillegonds, of course, was also wrong about the effect of MCRI. As University of Michigan philosophy professor Carl Cohen pointed out in reply, many
affirmative-action programs, such as outreach to inner-city schools and eliminating test biases, can continue.
“The consequences are not the elimination of affirmative-action programs, not at all,” Cohen said. “The University of California, no longer able to rely on preferences and discrimination, now must reach out to the high schools and middle schools to ensure that students can compete on their own.”
These big business types such as Hillegonds often strike me as not only out of touch but out to lunch.
John writes:
>>>In other words, don’t pass MCRI because scofflaws will ignore it, thus triggering litigation. Like so many other aspects of the pro-preference arguments, this reminds me of the die-hard defense of segregation offered by Southerners I grew up with. They, too, were fond of arguing that law could not change the ingrained habits of discrimination. They were wrong.”
According to a recent report by the Gongwer News Service, apparently “ingrained habits” are harder to change than your paragraph would describe.
>>>Between 1980 and 2000, Michigan was one of only seven states to see racial segregation INCREASE in its communities, (Civil Rights Director Linda)Parker said, noting that the other six were southern states.”
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Parkergongwerinterview_120566_7.pdf.
Can these facts have any relationship with the poll results cited by Gratz?
Paker sees a more insidious motivation behind the whole MCRI effort.
>>>In some communities, it will mean segregation in the workplace as well, which she said will reduce companies’ ability to compete in the global economy. “We cannot afford to bring into the market a very, very narrow perspective,” she said. She heralded the Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce meeting on Mackinac Island last year as a significant step in having meetings that dealt with racial division. On the flip side, Ms. Parker said it was that growth in segregation that also made Michigan an attractive target for supporters of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative…”
Parker digs in further into the mechanizations of the movement.
…. “The folks from out of town funding this said, ‘Let’s go to Michigan because they’ve got all the elements to make it work,'” Ms. Parker said. The Civil Rights Commission has adopted a resolution opposing the measure, but Ms. Parker said commissioners and others need to work in the coming months to inform voters of the potential effects of the proposal. “I’d like to see the commission and others in the state engage in some really informed dialogue on the affirmative action initiative,” she said. While the issue has been aimed at racial programs, Ms. Parker said it would also affect gender-based programs, possibly cutting into the gains women have made in the workforce and the education community in recent decades. “When people hear ‘affirmative action’, it’s blacks and other people of color going to get some unfair benefit,” she said. “It’s not well known the advances women get from affirmative action. All of these benefits for women I’m convinced will go away.” ”
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Parkergongwerinterview_120566_7.pdf
Parker’s point is clear to me, especially in light of the results from Question #6 of the poll:
6. Is your business family-owned, owned by a woman, minority-owned, publicly traded or something else?
33% Private
27% Family-owned
11% Woman-owned
9% Publicly traded
8% Non profit
5% MINORITY-OWNED
3% Something else
2% University
2% Undecided/don’t know/refused
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?newsId=6161
5% of the businesses polled claim minority-ownership in a state that is INCREASING in segregation? No wonder the Affirmative Action responses are the way they are. FULL DISCLOSURE of the details are once again again the ANTIDOTE to MCRI’s jukes, propaganda and subterfuge.
–Cobra
Cobra,
>>>Between 1980 and 2000, Michigan was one of only seven states to see racial segregation INCREASE in its communities, (Civil Rights Director Linda)Parker said, noting that the other six were southern states.”
Unfortunately for your argument, Cobra, most of us here are sophisticated enough to see through sound bite politics, so we’re not fooled by this factoid.
Hint: even though this factoid uses the word “segregation,” it says nothing about the actual topic, which is discrimination.
cobra,
If it is OK for blacks to self-segregate at Florida A&M, to self-segregate at the Omega house at UM, to self-segregate in Prince Georges county in Maryland, then how can you claim it is wrong for white to self-segregate.
Since the blacks can live in all white neighborhoods if they choose, then, by your own logic, there is to discirmination or racism.
On the other hand, if self-segregation is wrong, then Florida A&M/Howard/Grambling/ the Omega House, AME churches should be closed tomorrow.
[C]obra is nothing if not consistent. Indeed, he is such a perfect foil that some of you may suspect that he is a creature of my own creation. I assure you he is not; my skills aren’t that great, and besides, as fiction he would be too perfect to be believable.
So, on to the current instance. He quotes my comparison of die-hard preferentialists in Michigan (don’t pass MCRI because we won’t abide by it, forcing extensive litigation) to die-hard segregationists in Alabama (civil rights laws will never change our behavior). I said both are wrong, but ever reliable cobra points to a recent report purporting to find racial segregation increasing in Michigan and concludes that changing “ingrained habits” may be harder than I suppose. (By now it is no surprise to see cobra sharing skepticism, or downright opposition, to non-discrimination laws with segregationists.)
“Can these facts [of increasing segregation in Michigan] have any relationship with the poll results cited by Gratz?” cobra asks.
No, I don’t think so. But first it is necessary to ask, “What segregation?” Here is the first paragraph of the report cited by cobra:
In other words, Ms. Parker the “Civil Rights Director” has no idea how much of the “segregation” she claims to see is the result of “choice,” but she’s charging ahead to “reverse the trend” anyway.
Wherever the cobra/Parkers see less integration than they think appropriate, they cry “segregation!” — just as they’ve never seen a racial “gap” that is not the result of discrimination demanding immediate correction.
I don’t know how old cobra is or where he grew up, but I suspect I’ve seen segregation — real segregation, not some statistical disparity — a lot closer up than he has. It’s not pretty, and no part of it whatsoever results from “choice.”
NY attorney generals also dislike preferences
http://www.nathannewman.org/laborblog/archive/003047.shtml
Nice referral. And note:
Now, if Spitzer would apply the same standard to colleges and universities in New York, we might get the idea that he really means it.
David writes:
>>>Hint: even though this factoid uses the word “segregation,” it says nothing about the actual topic, which is discrimination.”
As John clearly explains, he is the one who introduced the subject of segregation. But, alas…let’s go back to school, and define “segregration”
>>Main Entry: seg·re·ga·tion
Pronunciation: “se-gri-‘gA-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 1555
1 : the act or process of segregating : the state of being segregated
2 a : the separation or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social intercourse, by separate educational facilities, or by other DISCRIMINATORY means b : the separation for special treatment or observation of individuals or items from a larger group
3 : the separation of allelic genes that occurs typically during meiosis
Pronunciation Key
© 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy”
By the book, David, segregation IS discrimination.
Superdestroyer writes:
>>>Since the blacks can live in all white neighborhoods if they choose, then, by your own logic, there is to discirmination or racism.”
Umm…not to nitpick, but there wouldn’t be an “all-white neighborhood” if non-whites lived there. That’s just math. Now, “predominantly white” is another story.
John writes:
>>>In other words, Ms. Parker the “Civil Rights Director” has no idea how much of the “segregation” she claims to see is the result of “choice,” but she’s charging ahead to “reverse the trend” anyway.”
I understand the diffence in the concept of de-jure and de-facto segregation. One is by law, and the other is not. However as defined earlier with David, it’s STILL segregation–which by Merriam Webster, is a DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE.
Now, I’m going to be careful here. I’m NOT accusing you in this case, of defending any behavior that would be to the detriment of African Americans, Hispanic Americans, or Native Americans.
After all, the Supreme Court in Milliken vs. Bradley upheld (5-4) that defacto segregation in the Detroit metro area was fine.
>>>The Milliken decision represented a turning-point for the Supreme Court where racial matters were concerned. Richard M. Nixon, a Republican, had been elected president of the United States in 1968, succeeding Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson. Nixon did not share Johnson’s enthusiasm for rapid advancement in the civil rights arena, and his Supreme Court appointments had reflected this less-involved attitude. All four Nixon appointees voted with the majority in the Milliken v. Bradley decision. The central cities were to cope alone with the problem of de facto segregation of public schools. The suburbs had been granted judicial permission to remain “lily white.”
http://www.africanamericans.com/MillikenvBradley.htm
Now, again, without ACCUSSING YOU of supporting de-facto segregation, can you honestly claim that it adheres to “the traditional American dream, of a society where everyone would be treated without regard to race, creed, or color?” And if it DOES NOT, then do you consider it to be a “problem”, as opposed to the Affirmative Action?
To your credit, you at least acknowlege the existance of the situation, as opposed to Jennifer Gratz, who I haven’t seen comment, or Ward Connerly:
“Supporting segregation need not be racist. One can believe in segregation and believe in equality of the races.”
– Ward Connerly, when asked his opinion on former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, on CNN’s “Wolf Blitzer Reports” Dec. 13, 2002
“I don’t care whether they are segregated or not.”
– Ward Connerly, regarding California public schools if his Proposition 54 passes and derails school integration efforts, S.F. Chronicle, 9/2/03
John writes:
>>>I don’t know how old cobra is or where he grew up, but I suspect I’ve seen segregation — real segregation, not some statistical disparity — a lot closer up than he has. It’s not pretty, and no part of it whatsoever results from “choice.”
I for one, would never doubt, or cast aspersions upon your lifestory, experiences, background etc. I would quibble with you slightly on your last statement because I believe ALL SEGREGATION (and Discrimination for that matter) is about “choice”.
For some background on MY own ideas of “real” (as opposed to mythological) segregation, I suppose my southern-raised parents (mother from Richmond, VA (late father, Albany, GA WW2 veteran of the segregated armed forces), grandparents, uncles, aunts and extended relatives had AT LEAST SOME experiences with it that might have given me some insight on the topic historically, as would anything I had faced growing up during the busing era atmosphere in Central New Jersey in the early 70’s.
–Cobra
I understand the diffence in the concept of de-jure and de-facto segregation. One is by law, and the other is not.
You’re still missing the point. The issue isn’t “de jure” vs. “de facto.” The issue is “voluntary” vs. “involuntary.”
Segregation *can* be discriminatory. Or not.
Scenario one: A black person is told, “You can’t live in X neighborhood, because it’s the ‘White Part of Town.’ We’ll only let you buy a house in Y neighborhood.”
Scenario two: A black person says, “I see a house in X neighborhood and one in Y neighborhood. I could buy either, but I prefer to live in Y neighborhood, where there are more black people around.”
In either case, we have “segregation.” Only in the first case is there a “problem” that needs to be “solved.”
We might wish in some abstract sense that the second black person be less racist, but it is in no way the job of government to try to make that happen.
David writes:
>>>In either case, we have “segregation.” Only in the first case is there a “problem” that needs to be “solved.”
We might wish in some abstract sense that the second black person be less racist, but it is in no way the job of government to try to make that happen.”
You are the one who misses the point. Does this scenario reflect John’s repeated mantra:
“the traditional American dream, of a society where everyone would be treated without regard to race, creed, or color?”
>>>Segregation *can* be discriminatory. Or not.”
In what dictionary does this “extra” definition exist?
Whether something is voluntary, or involuntary, if the resulting situation is the same, what’s the difference? For example, Jim Crow in the South was blasted by whites in the North hypocritically, for their neighborhoods were every bit as segregated, without the official paperwork.
Again, it’s about choice, just like John says.
–Cobra
cobra,
Under your definiton, Florida A&M is in violation of the law and sanctions shouldbe imposed. How about maximizing the portion of the student body that can be African-American to 16% (the same as the state as a whole).
Also, your misuse of the definition and your initial misunderstanding of “or” (How Clintonesque), means that the blacks who run Florida A&M are defacto Racist and should be immeidately fired for being racist.
My guess is that you pull out some stupid definition that implies IN BOLD LETTERS that blacks cannot be held responsbible for their own acts of discrimination.
cobra – the segregation experienced by your mother (Richmond, Va.) and father (Albany — or, as they say, all-BENNY — Ga.) would have been of the real, non-choice variety — in other words, the real thing. You, on the other hand, continue to see every scintilla of racial difference — of less than perfect integration (whatever that might mean), of less than proportional representation — as evidence, or rather as proof, of discrimination.
It ain’t necessarily so. I’m pretty sure everyone here already knows how to pronounce “segregation,” and I’m equally sure that everyone also knows that that term can literally refer both to voluntary and imposed separation. It is only the latter, however, that presents a problem to most of us.
Your reference to Milliken v. Bradley follows the same pattern. You quote someone who describes the Supremes’ refusal to order school busing to suburbs in different jurisdictions in order to solve the problem of Detroit city schools being heavily black as granting “judicial permission to remain ‘”lily white,'” and then you ask whether I can “honestly claim that it [presumably the Milliken v. Bradley decision] adheres to “the traditional American dream, of a society where everyone would be treated without regard to race, creed, or color?”
In a word, yes. First, nothing in the opinion granted the suburbs the right to remain “lily white.” No such right exists, and the Court did not create or invent one. But perhaps more relevant to this discussion, once again you are supporting a “remedy” where no violation of rights has been shown to exist. As the Court noted,
As the Court concluded, there simply was no
If you reject the logic of the majority opinion here, it seems to me you would also have to accept busing not only over school district and county lines but also over state lines. In fact, given the time hurdles imposed by increased traffic congestion, why limit the transportation to produce racial balance to buses? Why not planes? No reason for the three adjacent counties to bear all the burden of the Detroit schools since we have a whole nation of racists who need to atone for their (or someone’s) sins. If the problem is that Grosse Pointe was “lily white,” why not, following the logic of Judge Johnson in the case of NAACP v. Allen that was just discussed, why not prevent any more whites/Asians from buying or building there until the black population had reached a percentage that is acceptable to you? The problem of high Grosse Pointe prices could be dealt with by state diversity subsidies.
John writes:
>>>If you reject the logic of the majority opinion here, it seems to me you would also have to accept busing not only over school district and county lines but also over state lines. In fact, given the time hurdles imposed by increased traffic congestion, why limit the transportation to produce racial balance to buses? Why not planes? No reason for the three adjacent counties to bear all the burden of the Detroit schools since we have a whole nation of racists who need to atone for their (or someone’s) sins.”
That Nixon appointees like Rheinquist voted the way they did is no suprise to me. What did the DISSENTERS say on this?
>>>In Milliken vs. Bradley, a 1974 case on integrating the Detroit schools, Thurgood Marshall, in dissent, accused the Court of emasculating ”the right of all of our children, whatever their race, to an equal start in life and to an equal opportunity to reach their full potential as citizens. … Unless our children begin to learn together, there is little hope that our people will ever learn to live together.”
http://www.ardmoreite.com/stories/071397/editorial/editorial.html
Even more telling, is the dissent of Justice Douglas (It WAS a 5-4 decision, not an overwhelming majority).
>>>
When we rule against the metropolitan area remedy we take a step that will likely put the problems of the blacks and our society back to the period that antedated the “separate but equal” regime of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 . The reason is simple.
The inner core of Detroit is now rather solidly black; 9 and the blacks, we know, in many instances are likely to [418 U.S. 717, 760] be poorer, 10 just as were the Chicanos in San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 . By that decision the poorer school districts 11 must pay their own way. It is therefore a foregone conclusion that we have now given the States a formula whereby the poor must pay their own way. 12 [418 U.S. 717, 761]…
Today’s decision, given Rodriguez, means that there is no violation of the Equal Protection Clause though the schools are segregated by race and though the black schools are not only “separate” but “inferior.”
So far as equal protection is concerned we are now in a dramatic retreat from the 7-to-1 decision in 1896 that blacks could be segregated in public facilities, provided they received equal treatment.
As I indicated in Keyes v. School District No. 1 Denver, Colorado, 413 U.S. 189, 214 -217, there is so far as the school cases go no constitutional difference between de facto and de jure segregation. Each school board performs state action for Fourteenth Amendment purposes when it draws the lines that confine it to a given area, when it builds schools at particular sites, or when it allocates students. The creation of the school districts in Metropolitan Detroit either maintained existing segregation or caused additional segregation. Restrictive covenants maintained by state action or inaction build black ghettos. It is state action when public funds are dispensed by housing agencies to build racial ghettos. Where a community is racially mixed and school authorities segregate schools, or assign black teachers to black schools or close schools in fringe areas and build new schools in black areas and in more distant white areas, the State creates and nurtures a segregated school system, just as surely as did those States involved in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 , when they maintained dual school systems…”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=418&invol=717
Apparently, there are learned judges of the highest order who hold similiar views on segregation. And if you think the actions of the State of Michigan, as defined in the District Court decision reviewed in the case regarding this issue adhered to “the traditional American dream, of a society where everyone would be treated without regard to race, creed, or color?” Knee-capping desegregation via cross-district busing was a tremendous victory for those “ingrained habit-having” “die-hard segregationists” who were despondent over Brown vs. BOE, but now had the silver bullet…school zone redistricting.
Justices Douglas, Marshall, Brennan and White were far wiser men than me, and they came to this conclusion.
–Cobra
cobra – I am aware of the arguments of the four dissenting justices in Bradley, and for the reasons already outlined I believe they were wrong and the majority was right. It bordered on sophistry for Douglas to equate the state-imposed segregation of Louisiana railroad cars, upheld in Plessy, with the Detroit school board building schools in Detroit that would be attended primarily by blacks, who after all were the residents there.
The rights of both black and white students were violated under segregation when they were assigned to schools on the basis of their race. In case you’ve forgotten, that would be the right to be treated without regard to race. What is the nature of the right that is violated when a school is built in an area populated by blacks or whites that serves, as a result, primarily blacks or whites?
To call this “segregation” in any meaningful sense, someone’s rights must be violated. Or does “society” have some heretofore unenumerated right for all of its institutions to be proportionally repreresentative of all of its constitutent groups?
You are the one who misses the point. Does this scenario reflect John’s repeated mantra:
“the traditional American dream, of a society where everyone would be treated without regard to race, creed, or color?”
Yes.
Whether something is voluntary, or involuntary, if the resulting situation is the same, what’s the difference?
You can’t possibly be that obtuse. Tell you what: the next time a panhandler approaches you, you refuse, and he hits you over the head and takes your wallet, see if you think there’s a difference between that and you voluntarily giving him some money. Ask the woman who just had sex whether there’s a difference between her voluntarily having done so and involuntarily doing so.
It’s the process that matters — not the “resulting situation.”
As apparently even you realize, since your next sentence is Again, it’s about choice, just like John says. Right. Choice. The issue isn’t whether a school happens to be all black, all hispanic, all asian, or all white. The issue is whether the students had a choice.
A school that’s all black because only black people choose to live in that district is fine. A school that’s all black because black people are required to live in that district and white people are required to live in a different district is not fine. Voluntary vs. involuntary. Choice vs. lack of choice.
Knee-capping desegregation via cross-district busing was a tremendous victory for those “ingrained habit-having” “die-hard segregationists” who were despondent over Brown vs. BOE, but now had the silver bullet…school zone redistricting.
You’re being disingenuous again, Cobra. The Court did not say in Milliken that there was a “silver bullet” that cities could engage in — “school zone redistricting” — to separate blacks from whites. Brown had correctly struck that down, and Milliken reaffirmed that. These were separate cities. Nobody “redistricted” Detroit to separate it from other cities.
David & John:
As I stated before in another thread, if the structure and practices in place do not measure up to the “very nature of equality and fairness and the content of the principle on which they should rest,” why do you attack my stance on Affirmative Action?
Again, look at the findings of the District Court in this matter:
>>>On September 27, 1971, the District Court issued its findings and conclusions on the issue of segregation, finding that “Governmental actions and inaction at all levels, federal, state and local, have combined, with those of private organizations, such as loaning institutions and real estate associations and brokerage firms, to establish and to maintain the pattern of residential segregation throughout the Detroit metropolitan area.” 338 F. Supp. 582, 587 (ED Mich. 1971). ”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=418&invol=717
I didn’t create that finding. That’s the opinion of a District Court upon reviewing the facts in evidence. This was a “get around Brown” strategy, and conservative judges on the Supreme Court took the popular political stance. How is this strategy “not regarding race?”
Let’s look further into the District Court findings:
>>>
The District Court’s consideration of this case began with its finding, which the majority accepts, that the State of Michigan, through its instrumentality, the Detroit Board of Education, engaged in widespread purposeful acts of racial segregation in the Detroit School District. Without belaboring the details, it is sufficient to [418 U.S. 717, 785] note that the various techniques used in Detroit were typical of methods employed to segregate students by race in areas where no statutory dual system of education has existed. See, e. g., Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado, 413 U.S. 189 (1973). Exacerbating the effects of extensive residential segregation between Negroes and whites, the school board consciously drew attendance zones along lines which maximized the segregation of the races in schools as well. Optional attendance zones were created for neighborhoods undergoing racial transition so as to allow whites in these areas to escape integration. Negro students in areas with overcrowded schools were transported past or away from closer white schools with available space to more distant Negro schools. Grade structures and feeder-school patterns were created and maintained in a manner which had the foreseeable and actual effect of keeping Negro and white pupils in separate schools. Schools were also constructed in locations and in sizes which ensured that they would open with predominantly one-race student bodies. In sum, the evidence adduced below showed that Negro children had been intentionally confined to an expanding core of virtually all-Negro schools immediately surrounded by a receding band of all-white schools. ”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=418&invol=717
David, are you going to sit here, and claim with a STRAIGHT FACE, that the segregation of Detroit’s Schools were “voluntary?” Not even the MAJORITY on the SCOTUS decision thought that! That you would even SUGGEST that the racial segregation of the state of Michigan was incidental, accidental, or voluntarily chosen by African Americans is hysterical in the face of the findings of the District Court.
This is where I have the biggest problem with some of the arguments the anti-affirmative action side makes. You KNOW that the Detroit School Board and government officials consciously, and purposely REGARDED RACE in their decision making. You understand what the ramifications and results of that decision making were. Since you agree with the 5 conservative judges on this case, you both have in effect, CONDONED the behavior, therefore, CONDONING the use of race by government, the only caviat being that that the government doesn’t come out and officially state that they’re using it.
In other words, “Go ahead and discriminate based on race. Just call it something else.”
So tell me what problem you have with my support of Affirmative Action, if you support the School Board of Detroit in Milliken vs. Bradley?
John quotes Professor Carl Cohen:
>>>affirmative-action programs, such as outreach to inner-city schools and eliminating test biases, can continue.
“The consequences are not the elimination of affirmative-action programs, not at all,” Cohen said. “The University of California, no longer able to rely on preferences and discrimination, now must reach out to the high schools and middle schools to ensure that students can compete on their own.”
Well, of course there must be “outreach” in Michigan, Carl. The decision was made by the State to keep different groups “out of reach” of each other.
–Cobra
cobra:
As I stated before in another thread, if the structure and practices in place do not measure up to the “very nature of equality and fairness and the content of the principle on which they should rest,” why do you attack my stance on Affirmative Action?
Because you (and the lower court judges who were reversed, and the dissenters in Bradley) see no difference between “segregation” that is imposed and racial separation/”underrepresentation”/disparity that is not. As you wrote, very revealingly: “Whether something is voluntary, or involuntary, if the resulting situation is the same, what’s the difference?”
In order to act consistently on your view that the state has an obligation to cure all current racial “underrepresentation” everywhere it exists, and create integration wherever “segregation” (no matter its cause) exists, you’d have to do a hell of a lot more than bus students over district/county lines. You would have to regualte what can reasonably be viewed as the racial/ethnic market by means that would be so intrusive and draconian as to make Stalin’s regulation of the economic market seem tame by comparison.
Disparities in wealth? Confiscate from whites and Asians, distribute to blacks and Hispanics;
Racially identifiable residential patterns? Break them up! Relocate blacks from inner cities to suburbs, small towns, rural areas; force whites from those areas into cities;
“Underrepresentation” of minorities in some professions and professional schools? Haul out the Ala. state trooper solution: impose a requirement to admit or hire one minority applicant for every white/Asian admitted/hired until your quota — excuse me, goal — has been reached.
Etc, etc.
There’s no escaping the fact that if “underrepresentation”/”disparities”/gaps/”segregation” are the problem, then engineered and enforced quotas are the only solution.
By contrast, if discrimination is the problem (discrimination: treating people WITH regard to their race or ethnicity), then enforced anti-discriminaiton measures are the solution.
A society in which the government had the desire and the power to eradicate the disparities that offend you would not be a very pleasant place to live.
Cobra, just out of curiosity, can you think of any situation in which people of one or another ethnic group might actually wish to live in discrete clumps?
Should, say, every Chinatown and Japantown be dismantled and their residents dropped methodically all over the city in a neat geometric pattern, so that their distribution is as even as possible? Immigrant Muslim communities ditto? It might make things rather hard on the members of such immigrant communities in the way of finding and getting to places of worship, printed literature in their own languages, the food (including, say, things like halal meats) and clothing they prefer, and so on, but hey, first things first. Segregation is discrimination; my dictionary says so.
Funny, I was reading a thread on suburban sprawl over at Kevin Drum’s Political Animal blog just the other day, and someone offered the comment that, so far from “white flight” being a problem, in many places a common complaint is that white yuppies persist in moving into low-income majority-minority neighborhoods, thereby destroying their “traditional character.” That was certainly the gripe in SF’s Mission District before the dot.com bust, when developers were putting up loft complexes left and right.
Seriously, Cobra, is your ideal neighborhood one that’s (for CA anyway) 47% white, 32% Hispanic, 11% Asian, 6% black, half a percent Native American; &c., &c.? (But why stop with CA? With the population of one block of SF’s Chinatown alone, I bet we could equip every town in North Dakota with its own official Chinese-American.)
Sorry, went into Jonathan Swift snark-mode for a moment there. But you see what I mean. There is a distinction between voluntary getting-together and de jure or not-so-subtly-imposed de facto segregation.
David, are you going to sit here, and claim with a STRAIGHT FACE, that the segregation of Detroit’s Schools were “voluntary?” Not even the MAJORITY on the SCOTUS decision thought that!
Oddly enough, I am going to sit here and claim exactly what I claimed. (I have this weird habit — which explains why I am not in politics — of saying what I mean. This means that you should interpret my words literally whenever possible, instead of rewriting my words to say something else.) The segregation within Detroit was not voluntary, and the courts explicitly ruled that it had done such things as drawing district lines in such a way as to segregate schools. Hence, Detroit was required to desegregate its schools. But other cities in Michigan were not found to have done anything wrong. They were not even parties to the lawsuit. They had not drawn any district lines in Detroit. Had other cities in Michigan been sued and found guilty of (for instance) excluding blacks, then Milliken could have come out differently. But that didn’t happen.
So tell me what problem you have with my support of Affirmative Action, if you support the School Board of Detroit in Milliken vs. Bradley?
I didn’t support the School Board of Detroit in Milliken. You’re not paying attention to the facts of the case. The School Board of Detroit wasn’t the appellant in Milliken. Other school boards in other cities in Michigan were.
And (quoting the Supreme Court) in Milliken, there is “absent any claim or finding that the boundary lines of any affected school district were established with the purpose of fostering racial segregation in public schools, absent any finding that the included districts committed acts which effected segregation within the other districts, and absent a meaningful opportunity for the included neighboring school districts to present evidence or be heard on the propriety of a multidistrict remedy or on the question of constitutional violations by those neighboring districts. ”
The issue before the Court in Milliken was whether a federal judge could order entities that were not parties to a lawsuit and had not been found to have done anything wrong to remedy the wrongs committed by someone else.
There was a finding that Detroit had discriminated, but there was no finding that Grosse Point, to pick an example, had discriminated. So Detroit could be ordered to remedy its discrimination, but Grosse Point couldn’t be forced to remedy Detroit’s discrimination.
What you don’t get, Cobra, is that the illegal behavior is not “having a school/town/government service where 100% of the students/residents/customers are of X color,” but “having a school/town/government service where people are required to be of X color.”
A law that forbids blacks and whites from marrying is wrong. A black person choosing to marry a black person is not. Both of these might result in “segregated” marriages, but only one is a problem to be solved.
David,
Again….quoting from the District Court’s Findings:
>>> On September 27, 1971, the District Court issued its findings and conclusions on the issue of segregation, finding that “Governmental actions and inaction at all levels, federal, state and local, have combined, with those of private organizations, such as loaning institutions and real estate associations and brokerage firms, to establish and to maintain the pattern of residential segregation throughout the Detroit metropolitan area.” 338 F. Supp. 582, 587 (ED Mich. 1971). While still addressing a Detroit-only violation, the District Court reasoned:
“While it would be unfair to charge the present defendants with what other governmental officers or agencies have done, it can be said that the actions or the failure to act by the responsible school authorities, both city and state, were linked to that of these other governmental units. When we speak of governmental action we should not view the different agencies as a collection of unrelated units. Perhaps the most that can be said is that all of them, including the school authorities, are, in part, responsible for the segregated condition which exists. And we note that just as there is an interaction between residential patterns and the racial composition of the schools, so there is a corresponding effect on the residential pattern by the racial composition of the schools.” Ibid. [418 U.S. 717, 725]”
There were (and I believe still are) forces at work at all levels to create the segregated condition in the Detroit METROPOLITAN AREA (not just ONE school district.) I give you credit, David, for at least acknowleging the existance of INSTITUTIONAL RACISM in this case.
This is where this argument becomes difficult for me, because John LOATHES when I post facts and statistics on housing discrimination patterns in metropolitan areas that create the same type of segregation that occured in this case. He feels that these facts are not in contention, therefore unneccessary to post. I have a different point of view, but hey…it ain’t my blog, so I abide by his rules.
But when you make statements like…
>>>What you don’t get, Cobra, is that the illegal behavior is not “having a school/town/government service where 100% of the students/residents/customers are of X color,” but “having a school/town/government service where people are required to be of X color.”
As we’ve seen before from the SCOTUS, what is “illegal” or “unconstitutional” is based upon the majority decision of the justices. If you’re excusing designed segregation, creating predominantly white suburban enclaves which encircle large cities because the conspirators used backdoor techniques like “re-zoning”, “re-districting”, “blockbusting”, “redlining”, and other tricks to accomplish their goals, then you have to contend with John’s creed:
>>>In the final analysis, however, the objection to racial preferences does not rest on the number of whites, or Asians, who are injured. It rests on the principle that discrimination on the basis of race is wrong”
Which brings me to John:
>>>By contrast, if discrimination is the problem (discrimination: treating people WITH regard to their race or ethnicity), then enforced anti-discriminaiton measures are the solution.”
The “enforcement” of law belongs to the executive branch of government. The office that specifically deals with “discrimination” is the US Civil Rights Commission. I don’t hold much hope for “anti-discrimination measures” in America under the current Adminstration, based upon this report from the above mentioned US Civil Rights Commission entitled:
“Redefining Rights in America
The Civil Rights Record of the George W. Bush Administration 2001-2004”
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/bushcivilrights.pdf
This report was recently REMOVED from the USCRC website by the current, Bush-appointed commissioner. A cursory review of it’s findings CLEARLY explains why.
I don’t know if you’ve posted some portions of this Report as a subject, but after glancing through it, John, and seeing the subjects addressed, I would bet that your opinions would be imminent.
Michelle writes:
>>>There is a distinction between voluntary getting-together and de jure or not-so-subtly-imposed de facto segregation.”
I’m not attacking freedom to associate here. What was witnessed in the case presented were systemic, institutionalized conspiratorial efforts
to segregate south eastern Michigan…the results of which remain to this day, apparently. My opinion is that Metro Detroit is not the exception, but the clearest example of a nationwide trend.
I’m realistic in the sense that I understand the Census results. I realize that there are towns in the vast heartland of America (and Northeast as well) where there just isn’t diversity. The question as you so aptly put, is whether it is incidental or by design. I don’t have a “perfect” neighborhood, but I do believe that it’s one without unseen racial cabals dividing the community.
–Cobra
Cobra,
Every Chinatown on the West Coast was originally, in effect, a ghetto. Do we break them down now because their origins were evil?
The “enforcement” of law belongs to the executive branch of government. The office that specifically deals with “discrimination” is the US Civil Rights Commission.
cobra, you’ve still got a bunch of homework to do. The Commission on Civil Rights has no enforcement powers at all. Thus it doesn’t deal with discrimination at all, unless you consider writing reports dealing. You are free to like or dislike the reports, but not to attribute any lack of dealing with discrimination to the Commission.
Perhaps you were thinking instead of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which is an executive agency with some authority to enforce the law. Of course, for a number of years it has been woefully misnamed, inasmuch as its efforts until recently were directed more to preferential employment opportunity than to equal employment opportunity.
John writes:
>>>cobra, you’ve still got a bunch of homework to do. The Commission on Civil Rights has no enforcement powers at all. Thus it doesn’t deal with discrimination at all, unless you consider writing reports dealing. You are free to like or dislike the reports, but not to attribute any lack of dealing with discrimination to the Commission.”
While it’s true that the USCCR has no “enforcement” powers, it does:
“POWERS
In furtherance of its fact-finding duties, the Commission may hold hearings and issue subpoenas (within the state in which the hearing is being held and within a 100-mile radius of the site) for the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses at such hearings. It maintains state advisory committees, and consults with representatives of federal, state, and local governments, and private organizations. Since it lacks enforcement powers that would enable it to apply specific remedies in individual cases, it refers the many complaints it receives to the appropriate federal, state, or local government agency or private organization for action.”
As I emphasized in my post, the ultimate enforcement power is the head of the state, the President. His record on discrimination is, well…read the report. I also said that now under Republican appointees to the commission, even the reports and fact finding will be found lacking.
The Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice would probably be the clearest “enforcement” arm of the executive branch, but it also answers to the President, who sets the agenda for all the branch.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crt-home.html
As far as homework goes, I’m the first guy to say I learn something each and every time I visit “Discriminations.”
–Cobra
P.S. One amendment to the above. cobra mentioned a report from the Civil Rights Commission, and argued that it was suppressed by the new Republcan majority when they took over. Although I can see why he would describe the matter this way, that’s not quite accurate.
What was at issue was a staff report by long-time CRC Czar Mary Frances Berry’s hacks and flacks. Since the Commission had not accepted or approved it (even before the dreaded Repubs took over) it should not have been made public and placed on the web site. It should not have been forwarded to the president and released as a Commission report. The Republicans argued (perhaps I should have said “the no doubt silly, paranoid Republicans argued”) that releasing a staff report written by Democratic operatives critical of the president right before an election might be seen as an attempt to influence the election. Paranoid and foolish though this view appears to some observers, maybe the Repubs got that idea from the behavior of the the Commission itself, since it withheld a report mildly critical of the Clinton record until after the 2000 election.
I appreciate cobra’s comment about learning new things here, and I even second his suggestion that you look at the staff report critical of the Bush record that he cites. In the interest of fairness and balance (and, in my view, accuracy, goodness, and truth), however, let me also call your attention to some comments about that staff report by Republican Civil Rights Commissioner Abigail Thernstrom, published in the Wall Street Journal on Oct. 18, 2004, and reprinted here. Some (extensive) excerpts:
Michelle writes:
>>>Every Chinatown on the West Coast was originally, in effect, a ghetto. Do we break them down now because their origins were evil?”
Who is the “we” in your scenario?
–Cobra
Cobra,
Who is the “we” in your scenario?
Really, Cobra. Who do you think? Government or “society,” take your pick. Those who think concentrations of people of one ethnicity in one place are an intolerable blot on the landscape and must be abolished. Those who think a school with a majority of Chinese-American students is sufficiently abominable that it’s better to have kids living a couple blocks from it spend a couple of hours a day busing across San Francisco than permit such a scandalous racial composition to endure.
Michelle writes:
>>>Really, Cobra. Who do you think? Government or “society,” take your pick.”
Well, that’s my point. We BOTH know who controls government and society in America.
–Cobra
OK, Cobra.
Do you think that the majority-minority society of the state of California should uproot and disperse all its ethnic neighborhoods on the grounds that they represent a legacy of past discrimination and are in fact proof of present discrimination (given that, so you argue, segregation, nominally voluntary or no, always involves discrimination)? I’m not asking “could it be done?”, but “if you could” — and again bear in mind that whites are a minority in this state — “would you?”