Another MCRI-Bashing Mismatch

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, speaking to a daylong “Michigan Civil Rights Summit,” committed another of her typical non-sequiturs in speaking out against the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, a ballot proposal that would end racial preference in Michigan.

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm on Monday made another push to protect affirmative action policies in the state, saying such programs are important in creating a diverse and globally-competitive workforce.

As Michelle Dulak Thompson has pointed out many times here, the logic of this assertion should lead Michigan universities to recruit aggressively abroad, since international students would provide “diversity” much more relevant to international competition than adding another percentage or three of black students from Detroit. And nothing in MCRI, of course, would prevent that.

Nor would MCRI, Gov. Granholm’s assertion to the contrary notwithstanding, present any obstacle to the state having “the means to lift everyone … up to those high expectations in Michigan.” If MCRI passes, the state could continue to “lift” anyone it wishes, or everyone for that matter. All it could not do is limit its lifting to certain groups based on their race or ethnicity.

The lack of honesty among MCRI opponents, while no longer surprising, remains astounding.

UPDATE [28 March]

One United Michigan, a group organizaing opposition to the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, put out a revealing press release about this meeting. In addition to the usual ad hominem attacks, such as this one from Heaster Wheeler, head of the Detroit NAACP—

I’m not surprised Mr. Connerly or any of his supporters could not be here. They promote civil wrongs, and have never participated in civil rights. Ward Connerly wants to take us backward.

— there was this interesting assertion from Mr. Wheeler: “Systemic exclusion requires systemic inclusion.”

“Systemic exclusion” sounds to me like segregation, and would seem to require either a system or an excluder. “Systemic inclusion” does not at all sound like the “race is but one factor among many … we consider the whole person” malarkey that preferentialists pretend is the description of the policy they practice.

Actually, “systemic inclusion” is a pretty good description of how racial preferences actually work — wholesale, not retail, race-based decision making.

Say What? (3)

  1. eddy March 28, 2006 at 4:38 pm | | Reply

    One would think that to obtain a “globally-competitive workforce” we should recruit based solely on merit rather than including any other extraneous factors such as race or gender.

    Yet another diversity myth from the PC-taliban.

  2. Federal Dog March 28, 2006 at 4:42 pm | | Reply

    “Nor would MCRI, Gov. Granholm’s assertion to the contrary notwithstanding, present any obstacle to the state having “the means to lift everyone … up to those high expectations in Michigan.””

    The irony takes your breath away. The very point of AA is precisely NOT to “lift everyone” up to “high expectations”; it is to expressly lower expectations (for favored races) and systematically suppress some races in favor of others.

    In short, it does precisely the opposite of what Granholm pretends it does. Bad faith or honest ignorance? You make the call.

  3. Cobra March 31, 2006 at 7:26 am | | Reply

    Federal Dog writes:

    >>>”The irony takes your breath away. The very point of AA is precisely NOT to “lift everyone” up to “high expectations”; it is to expressly lower expectations (for favored races) and systematically suppress some races in favor of others.”

    And American history and society is different from that statement in what way?

    –Cobra

Say What?