The MCRI Debate In A Nutshell (Complete With Nut)

An article in the Detroit News nicely captures the essence of the debate over the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, but then spoils,or at least sullies, this rare accomplishment by committing a whopper of a blunder. Alas, this sort of incompetence is all too typical of the coverage of this issue by the mainstream press.

First, let’s look at what the article got right, starting with what MCRI would actually do:

The ballot initiative would amend the state Constitution “to ban affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin” in government hiring, contracting and university admissions.

Yes! You’d think it wouldn’t be so difficult to get this right, but much coverage has MCRI banning “affirmative action” without the necessary qualifier: affirmative action programs “that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin.”

The ferocity with which opponents of MCRI continue to claim that it would ban all affirmative action suggests that they themselves believe that all affirmative action does and must employ preference because of race or ethnicity, something supporters of MCRI dispute.

The article also does a good job of summarizing the nub of the dispute between supporters and critics of MCRI:

Backers generally argue it would end the use of race in college admissions decisions like those made regarding applicants to the University of Michigan, and require the government to make race- and gender-neutral decisions. Opponents say the effects would be far-reaching, preventing any consideration in government to provide opportunity to minorities and women….

“I think it will be a great detriment to our society,” said Raines. “I do believe that if the playing field were equal, then one would not need affirmative action. Our society is not an equal playing field, and until we are all looked upon and respected as equals then we will not have a level playing field.”

Jennifer Gratz, the director of the initiative who is formerly of Southgate, said the playing field won’t be level as long as it is official government policy to treat people differently based on race.

To those of us who agree with Ms. Gratz, Rev. Raines’s position is akin to saying that laws against murder are premature as long as people continue to kill each other.

Now for the monumental whopper:

Rejected in 1995 when she applied for admission as an undergraduate to the University of Michigan, she became a lead plaintiff in a lawsuit that charged that less-qualified minority applicants were admitted. The U.S. Supreme Court narrowly decided the case in favor of U-M in 2003.

On the contrary, Ms. Gratz won her case, Gratz v. Bollinger, when the Supreme Court held, by a 6–3 vote, that the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy of granting an automatic 20 points bonus to minority applicants was unconstitutional.

You might think that, by now, after such a long build-up to the upcoming vote on MCRI, one of the leading newspapers in the state could at least get the basic facts right. (You’d be less likely to think that, however, if you’d been following the press coverage for very long.)

Say What? (3)

  1. Chetly Zarko April 2, 2006 at 1:37 am | | Reply

    John, this factual error has been made several times by several media outlets.

  2. Steven Jens April 2, 2006 at 2:17 pm | | Reply

    Presumably, they’re confused by the Grutter decision, which went the other way. I’m inclined to give the Court as much blame as the press for the confusion.

  3. PavelRicardo June 19, 2009 at 10:18 pm | | Reply

    “Raines’s position is akin to saying that laws against murder are premature as long as people continue to kill each other. ” Oh my, doesn’t that just sum up everything? Sort of akin to those who cry that high moral and ethical standards must be wrong because most people can’t live up to them. Or like calling people who aspire to high standards “hypocrites” when they have a less than stellar moment.

Say What?