At a recent “summit” of “women’s leaders” in Michigan, the assembled ladies were united in support of the continuation of preferences to … themselves.
Gov. Jennifer Granholm told the summiteers that equality was a threat to Michigan women. “There is no question,” she said, “that the elimination of affirmative action programs in our state would be a devastating blow for Michigan women.”
There was widespread agreement that Michigan women need more than equal treatment; they must have continuing preferential treatment in order to “achieve more equitable wages and have equal access to quality education and employment opportunities,” according to Mickey Edell, president of AAUW of Michigan . Edell didn’t say — or at least was not quoted as saying — how treating women more favorably than men would lead to “more equitable” wages or “equal access” to quality education.
Affirmative action supporters say that Michigan women have much to gain by stopping Proposition 2. Statistics for Michigan women in most areas lag behind national averages.
Michigan women earn only 67 cents for every dollar men earn – 10 cents below the national average — according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And despite gains in higher education, they earned only 45 percent of professional degrees and 41 percent of doctorate degrees in 2000, which falls below the national average in the same category.
A recent study by The Center for the Education of Women at the University of Michigan [discussed here] found “ample evidence” that passage of Proposition 2 “would result in a similar pattern of lost services and restricted opportunities.”
Wait a minute. “A similar pattern”? But if women are in such a depressed, miserable state in Michigan now, even with the preferences provided for them, what is the basis for the belief that they need continued preferences in order to have “equal access,” etc.? Of course, if the fact that women receive “only” 45% of professional degrees, etc., is the result of discrimination …. But no, it couldn’t be that, for that would mean Gov. Granholm’s administration was not enforcing the law.
On the other hand, as I’ve often argued, if such “underrepresentation” as is presented here is not the result of discrimination, why is it a problem in need of correction?
Arguments such as those put forward by Michigan “women’s leaders” remove any doubt that what is being demanded is not “equal access” by any definition but strict proportional representation. Someone should urge the Governor to have the courage of her obvious if misguided convictions and propose legislation, or issue an executive order, requiring all institutions of higher learning in Michigan to admit 50% women and to make sure that 50% of their degrees are awarded to women.
ADDENDUM
In a speech at Michigan Technological University, Susan Kaufmann, Associate Director of the Center for the Education of Women at the University of Michigan quoted above, attempted to argue that passage of MCRI would result in fewer women engineers, etc.
“By 2010, one in four new jobs will be ‘technically oriented.’” meaning that earning a college degree is important. “Women and minorities fall far behind in earning degrees in computer technology, physical sciences, engineering, mathematics and business, especially at advanced levels,” Kaufmann explained in her presentation.
Women are either being discriminatorily excluded from those fields, or they’re not. If they are, Kaufmann et. al. should give examples and call upon the governor to enforce the current laws against discrimination. On the other hand, if they’re not being discriminated against, Kaufmann and friends should be called on to explain how a requirement that women and minorities be treated without regard to their race or gender would result in fewer women in science and business.
If our national security really depends on having more women engineers, perhaps women should be drafted and sent to engineering schools.
The most breathtaking part of Governor Granholm’s position is the sheer irony of it.
Without being given any electoral “preference” she managed to get her current job by beating a male in a fair election. She may well beat another male to win re-election. Yet, using her logic, she should be spotted a half-million votes.
The gum beating about affirmative action for women is more about social engineering (We need more female lumberjacks! As if the trees care about the gender of the person wielding the chainsaw.) than it is about equal opportunity.
I find it interesting that it’s generally women who did not go into mathematically-inclined fields who decry that fewer women are in such fields compared to men. Well, why don’t you start with yourself? Never too late to get another college degree.
I work in Michigan politics, and while my politics are different from yours, I must say: If Michiganders have the choice of Granholm and preferences vs. Dick DeVos and no preferences, they’re still better off with Granholm.
I know you are not in Michigan yourself, but for your readers who are, it’s worth keeping perspective: DeVos is a George Bush mini-me, an undistinguished businessman (in Amway, no less) who has never taken politics seriously, until that is, he wants the governorship.
Considering the kind of trouble Michigan is in, the state is much better off with the talented Granholm than the lame DeVos.
TGG – Thanks for your comment. Although our politics are different, I don’t disagree with you as much as you might think. That’s not because I agree with you about Gov. Granholm (though as a non-resident I don’t pretend to thorough knowledge of Michigan issues) but rather because DeVos is opposing MCRI. He either lacks the proper convictions or lacks the courage of them.
John, thanks. I am actually undecided on MCRI. Well-intentioned, but unrealistic. I may abstain.
Lacking courage/convictions sums DeVos up pretty well. A few months back, DeVos cried foul because Gov. Granholm was lowering the flag at the state house when news arrived that a Michigan soldier had been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. He said she was politicizing the war… and then recanted when it became clear the public opinion was against him. He also recently campaigned at a Coast Guard parade even after the Coast Guard had asked him not to. In short, he’s a real piece of work.
Anyway, though I’ve monopolized too much of your comment space — the first debate is tonight. Might even be available on C-SPAN.
Well, as I’ve said, I have no particular love for Michigan Republicans, and have have said so before here:
http://www.discriminations.us/2003/07/the_fruits_of_pragmatism_i_on.html
http://www.discriminations.us/2006/06/republican_inanity.html
But I do strongly disagree with your view that the effort to ban racial preferences is “unrealistic.” I hope you don’t also regard the 14th Amendment adn the 1964 Civil Rights Act as unrealistic, but you may since the principle embodied in MCRI is indistinguishable from those two measures.
People I grew up with in the South said the 1964 Civil Rights Act was “unrealistic,” that Southerners would never change, etc. They too were wrong.