Well, now it’s easier to see why the Toledo Blade sees nothing wrong with having an ill-informed but outspoken polemicist as its ombudsman. (See here and here) A responsible and fair-minded ombudsman would have nixed the Blade’s Monday editorial, “Don’t Call It Civil Rights.”
According to that editorial:
Now that the so-called “Michigan Civil Rights Initiative” has been cleared for the November ballot, voters need to be reminded that voting for the issue will not enhance the civil rights of anyone but will merely drive a new wedge between whites and minorities in the Wolverine State.
The proposed state constitutional amendment would ban affirmative action in government hiring and in university admissions, in opposition to a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld the use of racial considerations in admissions at the University of Michigan.
So, according to the dull Blade, barring discrimination based on race “will not enhance the civil rights of anyone.” I wonder if it thought that in 1964, when the civil rights act with virtually identical language was debated and passed.
And, of course, nothing in MCRI is “in opposition” to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Grutter, which allowed the use of racial preferences in law school admissions in a somwhat circumscribed manner. It would be equally accurate to say that Grutter allowed race-neutral admissions. Apparently the Blade editors can’t distinguish allow from command. They write:
The ballot issue, however, is far more sweeping. It would “ban affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin,” not only in university admissions but in state government hiring and contracting.
The ambiguous language of the issue and its misleading title are intended to draw a positive response from voters who may not realize what is at play.
Exactly what part of “ban affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity, or national origin” is “ambiguous”?
Although it’s hard to choose, perhaps the silliest set of assertions in this woeful editorial is the following:
Affirmative action, as it is practiced today under federal law, does not include the use of racial quotas, which we adamantly oppose. Neither is it “reverse discrimination,” another misnomer. Rather, such programs simply ensure that minorities get fair consideration, in contrast to the past when they were effectively excluded, whether explicitly or implicitly through a rigged set of rules.
I still don’t understand why people who support racial preferences oppose racial quotas. What’s wrong with quotas that’s right with preferences? I do agree, however, that “reverse discrimination” is a “misnomer.” There’s nothing “reverse” about giving some people a benefit and others a burden based on their race; it’s just simple “discrimination.”
If all “affirmative action” did was ensure “fair consideration” of everyone, without regard to race, there would be no need for MCRI. Of course, as everyone except the editors of the Toledo Blade knows, that’s not what it does at all. It “takes race into account” and gives preferences based on race, which MCRI would ban.
And giving some races explicit preferences over whites DOESN’T already drive a wedge between races? Please! As someone who has lived in both Toledo (a truly crappy city, basically a smaller detroit but with fewer redeeming qualities), though, the Blade’s relentless politicking is not surprising. They are truly yellow journalists to the core, and I report this with first hand experience. Seriously, NEVER speak to or given an interview with a reporter with them, EVER.
“voters need to be reminded that voting for the issue will not enhance the civil rights of anyone”
With the exception of people who, because of their Asian or Causasian backgrounds, have had their civil rights shredded over past several decades?