I wasn’t aware that the University of Michigan and other schools in the state granted preferences based on sexual orientation, but this article reporting that “LGBT community responds to affirmative action threat” suggests that community fears it will lose something if the Michigan ban against preferences is passed.
Michigan’s affirmative action programs are threatened by a ballot proposal sponsored by the self-named Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, an organization founded by California anti-affirmative rights crusader Ward Connerly.
“The GLBT community needs to be out in front early against this ballot measure,” said Sean Kosofsky, policy director for the Triangle Foundation. “Discrimination against anyone is wrong, and our GLBT women and people of color are under attack this year. We should all stand up for them.”
“Self-named”? Are most organizations or movements named by those not in them? Oh well.
MCRI, of course, is based on the principle — and if passed would enforce the principle — that “[D]iscrimination against anyone is wrong.” Presumably Mr. Kosofsky believes that treating “our GLBT women and people of color” without regard to their race or sex is an attack on them.
I’m tempted to say he’s nuts, but if that’s true then the entire Democratic establishment, and not a few Republican leaders, in Michigan (and elsewhere), are also nuts, and that’s hard to believe. Or maybe not….
“MCRI, of course, is based on the principle — and if passed would enforce the principle — that “[D]iscrimination against anyone is wrong.””
Does it ban affirmative action? That Chetly guy was saying it might not. Is he right?
No, it does not ban affirmative action. It bans preferential treatment based on race, sex, ethnicity. Any affirmative action programs that do not involve preferential treatment — yes, there are some — would not be affected.
John, in fairness, I think “self-named” was a reference to the fact that the proposed initiative and the group sponsoring it have the same name. That’s not usually the case.
“Any affirmative action programs that do not involve preferential treatment — yes, there are some — would not be affected”
So basically what the supreme court just said?
And can you give me an example of a not-banned program? Like outreach programs?
Actus, you just gave one example, outreach. And “anti-discrimination” enforcement (the single most important type of AA, actually) – that is, enforcing laws “without regard” to race, as was the original definition of AA in JFK’s Executive Order. And socio-economic programs. Or programs that focus on improving underperforming schools.
Second, O’Connor ruling in Grutter did not say anything directly about “affirmative action.” It specifically used the term preferences to describe what it was allowing, but not requiring, and it further specifically stated that preferences equalled “discrimination,” but that such discrimination might be (not certainly, it “deferred” to U-M’s academic and scientific “judgement”) outweighed by the interests in “diversity” universities claimed to have. The judgement of the people of Michigan can override, by law and the legal process of amendment, the judgements of elite university administrators.
John, in fairness, I think “self-named” was a reference to the fact that the proposed initiative and the group sponsoring it have the same name. That’s not usually the case.
Michelle – You may be right, but I think “self-named” as used here refers to the argument that what MCRI proposes is not really civil rights, but is only (and fraudulently) called that by its sponsors.
“And “anti-discrimination” enforcement (the single most important type of AA, actually) – that is, enforcing laws “without regard” to race, as was the original definition of AA in JFK’s Executive Order.”
So if by AA we mean what AA is not understood to be, then it allows AA. I see.
Do people really see outreach and recruiting as affirmative action? I’m surprised.
“And socio-economic programs. Or programs that focus on improving underperforming schools.”
I’m imagining that non-race based programs would of course survive.
Does the MCRI take a position on disparate impact vs. intent? Like if I allow legacy (or sports) preferences, and this turns out to have a disparate impact, is this banned? What if I do it with the race-based motivation — ie, the disparate impact is my goal?
“The judgement of the people of Michigan can override, by law and the legal process of amendment, the judgements of elite university administrators.”
Is michigan an elite university?