The effort to prevent the people of Michigan from determining whether they support racial preferences by the Michigan Democratic Party, more than a few Republican leaders, and large swaths of the mainstream press has failed. By court order, and despite the defiant recalcitrance of the Democratic members of the state Board of Canvassers, MCRI will appear, in one form or another, on the November 2006 ballot.
Now the battle over that form — the wording of the proposal — has begun, and the forces that tried unsuccessfully to keep it off the ballot have turned their efforts to a combination of alarmism and obfuscation, i.e., to an attempt to have the proposal worded in such a way as to distort its true meaning in order to scare people away from it.
Sadly, this effort is being aided and abetted by some elements of the mainstream press. A case in point is this editorial in the Lansing State Journal. (HatTip to Jennifer Gratz and Chetly Zarko)
As proposed by its supporters, MCRI would bar state agencies from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual based on race, sex, color, or national origin. What is so hard to understand about that? Interestingly, and revealingly, opponents of this measure, such as the editors of the Lansing State Journal, either mistakenly or disingenuously equate racial preference with affirmative action — which the supporters of MCRI do not do — and assert, again mistakenly or disingenuously, that “affirmative action is headed for a statewide vote in November.”
So, when voters step into the booth, they should readily discern the measure’s effect. There should be no pussyfooting around on what’s at stake.
What’s at stake is the ability to use one’s gender or minority status as a factor (not the sole factor) in hiring or college admissions.
Not surprisingly, the editors refrain from pointing out that to oppose MCRI is to support using race or gender as a factor in deciding not to hire or admit, a practice that in the old days liberals used to condem as race or sex discrimination.
Amazingly claiming to be supporters of “clarity,” the editors go on to state:
It makes sense, then, that the wording clearly states that passage will end state affirmative action programs. That means tax-supported institutions – from Michigan State University to the least populated township – will be prohibited from exercising affirmative action.
Backers of the anti-affirmative action measure are pushing for less clarity. Language proposed by the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative doesn’t even mention affirmative action. It dances around that crucial point as it talks about prohibiting “preferential treatment or discrimination.” The language is not untrue. It does, however, leave unsaid the true impact this change to the state constitution would bring.
There’s a very good reason MCRI doesn’t mention affirmative action. It doesn’t mention affirmative action because it’s not about affirmative action. MCRI does not have the purpose, and would not have the effect, of ending affirmative action. Affirmative action comprises many actions that do not employ racial preference, such as outreach programs, aggressive advertising and recruiting. No such programs would be affected by the passage of MCRI.
I have quoted here too many times to cite (but here is one example) the language of President Johnson’s Executive Order 11246, regarded by many as providing the original statement and legal basis of affirmative action. Perhaps before making even greater fools of themselves with their the-sky-is-falling!-the sky-is-falling! prattle about the impending death of affirmative action, the editors of the Lansing State Journal could take a moment to read the text of that historic document and reflect upon the original (and still appealing) meaning of affirmative action:
The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. [Emphasis added]
For the benefit of those editors, let me repeat: The original meaning and intent of affirmative action was to ensure that everyone be treated “without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.”
After studying this text, perhaps the editors would be good enough to grace us with another editorial explaining in detail how MCRI is opposed to affirmative action.
If the civil rights movement, liberals, Democrats, and their journalistic supporters had remained true to the principle of colorblind non-discrimination that animated the struggle for equality from the 1830s through the mid-1960s, there would be no need for MCRI.
“I Have A Dream”
But, 42 years later, we still struggle to realize Martin Luther King Jr’s dream. John Rosenberg, blogmaster of Discriminations and expert on this topic, expounds on the fight to end discrimination in Michigan. Rather than excerpt, just read John’s entire
John, I think that the people of the State of Michigan will also vote to end affirmative action, if that is the way that the ballot measure is phrased. I would.
The newspaper industry can be counted on for this sort of nonsense. Their guilds have mandated hard quotas for years.
What these folks really intend to say is: “Vote the way we want or you’re a member of the Klan.”
Right, Stephen.
In addition, what they also imply but never quite come out and say is this: “Without racial and gender affirmative action, minorities (read BLACK, ’cause many Asians are doing just fine) and women cannot succeed on their own.”
The rest of us appreciate that while the road might be tougher for some than others, in 2006 America, you can be successful irrespective of your race or sex. And – for those who are discriminated against, there are civil rights laws protecting them. Use those laws – not unconstitutional ones – to protect people against some of the ills of racism and sexism.
i will be voting in favor of this legislation come november. i would also, however, vote to end affirmative action, as far as using race and/or gender for basis of recruitment and/or employment.
an argument that i’ve heard in favor of a.a., concerning blacks, is that even though we no longer live in a culture of white supremacy, the effects of past racism is most prevalent in the form of segregation.
michigan is the most segregated state in america, and our public school’s are the most segregated as well. so, proponents of a.a. would say that kids in white schools have a great advantage in terms of quality and availability of education, and a.a. is meant to offset this inequality.
my argument would be:
1. there is no enforced segregation, and thus if students are to be given special privileges and consideration, it should be on a basis of school district, not race.
and 2. if there is a large inequality between predominantly white districts and predominantly black districts, then shouldn’t the appropriate action be to work on properly funding all public schools in michigan and getting them to the same level, rather than giving potentially ill-prepared students preferential treatment when entering colelge because of the color of their skin.
i just think disadvantaged people should receive aid not because of the color of their skin, but because they are human.
ha, i just checked my mail and received a letter from one of the colleges i applied to as a transfer student.
“gvsu must monitor enrollment by different categories and report the data to both the state and federal government. all institutions of higher education have this responsibility.
during a routine check of students recently admitted, we discovered that your application did not indicate ethnic and/or multiracial info. although you are not obligated by law to disclose this info, we would appreciate your cooperation in helping us maintain an accurate record of our student body.
please return the enclosed postage paid card with the info requested at your earliest convenience.”
ha ha, great timing. i’m not transfering to a new school anyway. you would think when they checked what i put down as my race they would check to see that i’m not registered for any classes and that i didn’t attend orientation.
sorry, in haste i not only posted my last comment twice, but i also posted it to the wrong article. it was supposed to go here:
Q: Race? A: None
this is my last comment on this entry, i promise.
[Don’t worry: redundant comment deleted by your ever vigilant editor — jsr]
John, in this highly pertinent blog, you write:
“There’s a very good reason MCRI doesn’t mention affirmative action. It doesn’t mention affirmative action because it’s not about affirmative action. MCRI does not have the purpose, and would not have the effect, of ending affirmative action. Affirmative action comprises many actions that do not employ racial preference, such as outreach programs, aggressive advertising and recruiting. No such programs would be affected by the passage of MCRI.”
Let me urge you to reconsider this language. I think it increases rather than dissipates the intellectual and moral confusion you decry. You say that the MCRI is “not about affirmative action.” I agree with you that it doesn’t mention affirmative action, but surely it is very much about affirmative action, whether the latter is defined as in E.O. 11246, or as the opponents of MCRI define it. As you point out, in 11246 affirmative action means steps to ensure that people are treated without regard to their race, color, or national origin. On the contrary, for the opponents of MCRI affirmative action means treating people unequally based on their race, color or national origin.
By the former definition of affirmative action, MCRI is, itself, preeminently an affirmative action. By the latter definition of affirmative action, MCRI prohibits affirmative action. In either case, MCRI is emphatically about affirmative action.
Curtis – I think you make a good point. I think the narrowest, more relevant way to make my point is to say that MCRI would not bar all affirmative action; it would bar only those affirmative action programs that employ racial preferences. Similarly, it would bar racial preferences in programs that are not described as affirmative action.
The simple fact is that opponents want to say that MCRI would bar affirmative action because “affirmative action” fares well in polls; racial preference does not. Since MCRI would not bar all affirmative action programs, both accuracy and prudence suggest that it’s better not to be in the description.
Scott writes:
>>>”if there is a large inequality between predominantly white districts and predominantly black districts, then shouldn’t the appropriate action be to work on properly funding all public schools in michigan and getting them to the same level, rather than giving potentially ill-prepared students preferential treatment when entering colelge because of the color of their skin.”
And where do you find this “appropriate action” in the anti-Affirmative Action agenda? I’ve yet to see it on the websites and literature of these activists, other than meatless platitudes about “improving education.”
–Cobra