The two Democratic members of the four-member Michigan Board of Canvassers succeeded in delaying the certification of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative for the 2006 ballot. Although they failed to reject the MCRI petition on a straight 2-2 party line vote, they did manage to block approval. One of the Republicans on the Board, Lyn Bankes, abstained on the vote to approve the petition, but even if she had voted to approve the petition would not have been approved since the Board can only make decisions by majority vote.
MCRI supporters will now take the matter to court, where their prospects are good. Michigan courts have ruled in favor of MCRI in the past, and the state Attorney General ruled last week that the Board lacked the power to investigate charges of petition-gathering fraud, which the pro-preference groups had demanded.
According to an independent Michigan political newsletter (available online only to subscribers), Canvasser Bankes, the abstaining Republican, “argued that, although the Legislature hadn’t given the Board authority to investigate the issue of how the petitions had been represented (or allegedly misrepresented) to those who signed them, the Legislature should have.”
That does not sound like a winning argument to me.
Republicans should be able to score some points by making an issue of the Democrats’ fear of allowing people to vote on racial preferences.
They must have so much of their hopes for power riding on the manipulation of special interests toward continually increased racial and ethnic hostilities. If not, then, if one avenue towards power were blocked by majority resolve, they would try again from a different angle, such as class, religion etc.
The MCRI doesn’t matter. Even if it does pass, Michigan colleges will do what the California colleges did after prop 187 outlawed racial discrimination in 1996:
1. Have preferences for “poor” and “immigrant” students as a proxy for black and Hispanic preferences
2. Use a “overcoming obstacles” sob-story essay where non-whites can complain about racism and get admitted based on that alleged “hardship”
3. Guarantee admission to top colleges to the top X percent of every high school graduating class.
California did these 3 things, and the racial composition of the UC colleges is almost back to where it was in 1996. Without pure objective, quantative, academic-based standards, the colleges will always jury-rig the admissions system to guarantee the outcome they want.
Indeed, it is to be expected that they would do something like that if they had to. Even using grade point averages only would allow some considerable racial manipulation, given the grossly divergent grading standards of schools. The question should also be, why do men of great learning, out of the government schools especially, have such an intense commitment to setting up conflicts on a racial basis? Must the government school be corrupted by the source of its funding, in the increase of aggression on the net taxpayer, such that those who rise in this system are servile to the cause of greater discretion for officials? Why have they switched from the class war to the fomenting of racial conflict?
The politicians will be the last ones to enforce the law equally. After all, favoring one person over another is what politics is all about! They grab your money and dish it out to whomever puts them in power. Period. And unless you punish them for it, they will continue and increase the corruption. They have always played this game, and always will. You will never change the politicians. You simply have to be the ones to whom they cater, that’s all. Equal treatment is generally a myth, at least as it pertains to groups. One is always favored over another. People don’t compete with one another to be equals, they compete to win. You idealists out there should realize this, your Utopia is a sham and a dream, nothing more. What you should hope for is that you belong to the dominant group, and that those not in the group be treated fairly, based on merit. But forget this mamby-pamby equality stuff, we should all be equals blah blah blah. It has never happened and never will. You can see the face of this country changing. You must ask yourself this question-once these people outnumber you, do they come from a country or culture which truly protects minority rights and opportunities? The answer is no, they do not, because if they did, they probably would have never left their own country in the first place!
The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative will find out that, even if they get their law passed, the politicians will find a way around it to buy votes, plain and simple. And people in general should realize who really runs the politicians-those who give them money and deliver votes. If you really want to change things here in America, you have to go after the corporations who bankroll the canidates and who are responsible for outsourcing (cheap labor), and small businesses, who are responsible for insourcing (immigrant cheap labor). The only way to do this is to band together and use economic boycotts and stock shareholder movements to end quotas at the coporate level. Then you get these large corporations to force all suppliers, bankers, advertisers, etc. to ban quotas if they want the company business. You make sure that the corporate political donations go only to those who are against affirmative action, both republican and democrat, and make it a litmus test to get elected to office. You get the companies to ban any subsidiary who hires illegal immigrant labor. And last, but not least, you make the companies hire the best young kids out of high schools, and pay them lower wages and give them training professional training. This way you suck the life out of the socailist colleges and universities and eliminate the huge debt burdens and delayed marriages of the smart young so they can have more children (then they might be able to compete with the high school dropouts or those who barely finished high school who start having kids in their teens).
Also, you must make the businesses and corporations pay off the politicians to end all programs which are wealth transfers from the successful to the unsuccessful, especially with regard to taking care of children of the unsuccessful. This is harsh, but necessary, because overall the poor simply do not care enough about the neighborhood, schools, and family environment their kids are raised in. I’ve spent time tutoring a number of these dopes to help them get high school equivalency certificates. They have a lot of kids and expect the government to provide a subsistence living for them until the kids get out of high school. They have to get subsidized housing, food, schooling, health care, etc. They don’t even provide the minimum subsistence living for their kids! You do! So they can have all the kids they want-you pay! And you can’t have the kids, because you have high standards and can’t afford it! And the socialists use the pitiful condition of the kids to guilt you into a sort of slavery to the poor’s genitalia. Sweet deal!
I’m going to start an organization that I hope will be big enough eventually to start these necessary boycotts. Any of you who oppose this race and pity hustle should too. Sometime down the road we will merge. The great strength of this approach is that you don’t need a majority to change things, it won’t be delayed by the political or molasses-like judicial processes, and the non-black and hispanic (still) majority owns about 85-90% of all the assets in this country (I think I read somewhere that conservatives have 10 times the wealth of liberals, nationwide).
Green Pencil:
>>I’m going to start an organization that I hope will be big enough eventually to start these necessary boycotts.
I tried to organize a counter-demonstration against BAMN when the U Michigan affirmative action cases were argued at the U.S. Supreme Court and was greeted by a deafening silence from all the major “conservative/ anti-preference” organizations.
BAMN showed up with 20,000+ people, while the “conservative/anti-AA” groups showed no counter-demonstration presence whatsoever in front of the Supreme Court. Most of them “talk the talk” but refuse to “walk the walk”. It’s disgusting.
It seems admirable to try to eliminate visible and official discrimination (in the form of affirmative action). however, your credibility is weakened by the fact that you only pay lip service (if at all) to the more insidious and dangerous form of discrimination and racism that prevents many women and minorities from having access to the same opportunities that white males have in this country. You want AA to be gone but you propose nothing to create a real (not just legal) playing field
How do you propose I overcome unspoken barriers that prevent me from advancing beyond a certain point?
I am black and opposed to AA not because I do not think that social injustices have to be fixed but because I refuse to allow anyone to claim that the color of my skin got me where I am. I have 3 graduate degrees and was each time the top student of my class (I have no use for AA).
I do not believe in handouts but I do not have any illusion about the playing field.
I am not asking for special considerations for my skin color, I am just asking for fairness (I do not aspire to be the token Black that will make white republicans feel good about their opposition to AA). Why should I play resign myself to play second banana?
What are you doing to actively tear down these invisible walls of racism that are doing to minorities and women the very things that you accuse AA of doing?
Make no mistakes; I cannot stand the democrats because of their moral stands and pandering to Blacks with empty promises
However, I do not think that republicans are much better
For various raisons they refuse to acknowledge that racism is alive and well and that a level playing field, while including the end of AA on one side should also include ways to fight racism and prejudice against minorities and women that are subtly keeping them down (ignoring the problem will not make it go away)
I love what Cosby is doing because, he want Blacks to take charge of their own destiny and stop blaming others for their predicaments , however this should not be confused with letting Whites off the hook and denying their responsibility and obligations towards Blacks because of slavery and so on. I just happen to think that AA is not the solution
If you want your Blog to have an impact outside the choir members (white male Americans), you might want to acknowledge the whole problem and address the problem that AA is trying to fix (i.e. racism and the lack of a level playing field)
We agree AA must go , but what do you propose to fight social injustices and racism (admitting it is a big problem will be a start)?
Unless you also address the unofficial racism that prevails in the society you will always sound like hypocrites and racists
just a clue, if you were spending the same energy fighting against unofficial racism more non white males would take you seriously and consider your arguments
Alain —
Help me understand what you consider the lack of a level playing field. What evidence do you see to back up that claim? Is it statisical, anecdotal, or theoretical?
My view is that unequal results are not proof of unequal opportunity. What is your viewpoint?
Alain, I’m interested in the answer, too.
By ‘level playing field’ I know that some people mean that everyone should be starting from the same point. That is not and never will be the case. There will always be some who, through a combination of circumstances of birth, upbringing, and effort, are starting from different points relative to ability.
For example, by law everyone can apply for a given job. However, those who lack an appropriate educational degree will never have the same chance of getting the job as those who do have the degree. Unequal outcome? Of course. Unlevel playing field? Definitely. Unequal access? No, not at all. Nothing and no one stopped you from submitting your application. You would have equal access. But we shouldn’t equate ‘access’ with ‘outcome’, as so many on the left usually do.
And an even bigger offense, in my mind, is to consider everyone with a certain set of characteristics, such as skin pigmentation levels, to be equal and interchangeable. That is just as dehumanizing as to be devalued solely because of those same pigmentation levels. I am a unique individual, and there is no one else like me in all the world. What happens to me – as ‘me’ – matters. And that holds true for every ‘me’ in our world. How degrading and dehumanizing to be considered identical to everyone else who superficially resembles me, with no consideration of my uniqueness as a human being. THAT is what I find completely offensive about AA.
I am amazed at how much out of touch some one you are
I see where some of you are going
To address my criticisms you need more than the prepackaged answers (see your posts) that you have in store for the minorities that object to your views
The prepackaged answers are for:
Your typical black democrat that believe in AA as the solution to all problems
Liberal socially and politically and theologically
Believes that because of past injustice society owes them something and see that is owed as the only way to get out of their predicament
Generally are underachievers waiting for a handout to get ahead
Might ask for reparation for slavery and racism
I however,
Still Black (can
Well the race pimps can’t allow a free vote an racial discrimination now can they? I mean why bother to pay lip service to merit, achievement, ambition or ability when AA guarantees the laziest and most ill qualified amongst us are allowed a prize seat based on skin color (well if the hue is dark enough, Asians need not apply).
But rest assured that Michigan will follow Srtalin’s dictum that it isn’t the voters who count but those who count the votes.
Well the race pimps can’t allow a free vote an racial discrimination now can they? I mean why bother to pay lip service to merit, achievement, ambition or ability when AA guarantees the laziest and most ill qualified amongst us are allowed a prize seat based on skin color (well if the hue is dark enough, Asians need not apply).
But rest assured that Michigan will follow Stalin’s dictum that it isn’t the voters who count but those who count the votes.
Alain —
Thank you for your response. You pointed out possible discriminatory practices experienced by minorities. It seems the solution is to prove and correct those wrongs rather than to try to calculate some institutional counterweight through AA.
There seems to be an implicit pessimism that racial discrimination is inevitable, so why not just counter the intractable ‘bad’ discrimination with institutionally-provided ‘good’ discrimination. Somehow that two wrongs make a right.
We teach our children not to treat people differently because of their race or other characteristics, yet institutions don’t feel beholden to that rule. Being fair to groups by rigging the system is not a substitute for being fair to all individuals.
I don’t believe that we deliver on our Constitutional civil rights by converting individual rights into group rights. When we apply for a job or educational opportunity, our race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientaion, etc. are supposed to be ignored rather than obsessed about. And we should be given this same consideration everywhere we look.
Instead of practicing colorblindness, color consciousness is the rule de jour. Whether one’s race is a plus or minus is dependent on the demographics of the existing pool of employees or students.
If AA is considered an acceptable solution to racial discrimination, then surely it is the solution for other civil rights. Ten percent of all employees should be gay. Fifty percent of all employees must be women. Muslims, Jews and Catholics must all be represented in their proper percentages. It is a Ponzi scheme where maintaining the statistical nirvana means that one can’t replace a departing employee with just another competent applicant.
One can’t replace the one-eyed, left-handed transvesite Mormon with just a “Janitor Wanted” ad. Instead of indifference, we have a fetish over the same factors we are trying to prove are irrelevent.
AA isn’t a scheme that will do much beyond perpetuating discrimination. I believe that corporations aren’t as interested in the ‘fruits of diversity’ as they are in concocting litigation defenses. “We must be fair — look at our demographics!”
If we want to get beyond race, we need to make it less important, not more important.
I think this is truly ridiculous. Bob Marley himself even said that the color of one’s skin should be of the same importance as his eyes.
http://www.findmeawebhost.com
Alain – Thanks for your comments. I’m not sure how long you’ve been reading this blog, or how far into the archives you’ve delved, but there are many, many examples here of my acknowledging that discrimination still exists. That, after all, is why I favor strong enforcement of strong laws against it. It won’t do, though, simply to point to “unspoken barriers.” Better evidence than that is needed to trigger enforcement, the sort of evidence that is gathered routinely by housing and employment “testers.” Nor do I find the argument persuasive that equal opportunity requires an equality of assets and resources, a result that could be achieved only by adopting measures that would make a mockery of equality and other values, such as liberty and freedom. But we can, and should, insist that every individual be treated without regard to race, creed, or color.
Excellent commentary, Alain. I’m a supporter of Affirmative Action ofor many of the reasons you cite. I have no delusions about American history in regards to race, or current society for that matter. I believe that America is still a racist and discriminatory environment, and though I agree with John’s statement that he acknowleges its existance, I counter that I’ve been indefatigable on this blog posting research and studies documenting its unquestionable existance over the past year. I’ve been so dogmatic in providing this evidence of discrimination against underrepresented minorities (like you and I) that I’ve been told to cease posting it, because the facts are no longer in dispute.
Feel free to scroll back to some topics. I try to source EVERYTHING.
Though we may disagre on some subjects, I find your posts enlightening, and can’t wait to hear more from you.
Keep posting, brother.
–Cobra
I agree that Alain just might be the black voice of reason that we have needed, lo these many months. However. Did anyone notice that English seems to be a second language to Alain? I don’t want to administer a “brown bag” test here, but we need a native (npi) black person who has these attitudes who is willing to speak up. Cobra’s endorsement? Cobra would endorse a yellow dog if it ran through town with a sign saying “AA = YES!” tied to its tail.
Cobra; why is your minority underrepresented? You mean in these comments? I agree.
Notherbob writes:
>>>Cobra’s endorsement? Cobra would endorse a yellow dog if it ran through town with a sign saying “AA = YES!” tied to its tail.”
What is the significance of the dog’s color in your statement?
As far as a “black voice of reason” goes, let’s examine some of what Alain has posted.
Alain writes:
>>>However, as demographic changes and as America becomes less and less White, the Republican Party will have no choice but to face the reality”
I’ve often posted about the “browning” of America, Notherbob. You must have missed those posts.
Alain writes:
>>>What is then your