Still More Michigan MCRI Misunderstanding

The West Bloomfield (Michigan) Democratic Club held a forum recently on the Michigan Civil Rights initiative, attended by about 20 people. The views on the panel ranged from opposition to MCRI to … opposition to MCRI. The views presented were as depressing as they were instructive.

Robert Willis of the Southern Oakland County National Association for the Advancement of Colored People said affirmative action should be judged on what it is rather than what it isn’t.

“It’s not a program for quotas, it’s not preferential treatment,” he said.

What it is, he said, is a redress of grievances.

This, of course, would be news (bad news, if it had been revealed before the recent cases) to the University of Michigan, which went out of its way to emphasize that its racial preferences had nothing to do with redressing grievances but was purely for the purpose of “diversity.” Based on this comment, however, Mr. Willis should have no objection to MCRI, which would an only preferential treatment and would leave untouched any and all affirmative action that does not employ preferential treatment.

Diana Peagler of the Oakland County NAACP said affirmative action is there to help the qualified who have been discriminated against.

“It’s not about preferences or quotas,” she said. “You can only participate in affirmative action if you’re qualified for a job and have been passed over.”

Perhaps Ms. Peagler could point to the procedures used by Michigan colleges to limit the preferences in admission they bestow to applicants who demonstrate that they’ve previously been discriminated against in the application process. And then she can do the same for employers in Michigan. But, like Mr. Willis and for the same reason, she should have no fear, since any affirmative action that is “not about preferences” would remain in place after the passage of MCRI.

Cassandra Ulbrich, a Wayne State University professor and candidate for the state school board, said the possible demise of affirmative action is a bigger threat to women than it is to minorities.

“White females are the primary beneficiary of affirmative action,” she said. “I’ve been to college and I’m close to my Ph.D. If I were born 30 or 40 years ago, things would have been very different.”

Yes, things different 30 or 40 years ago. Now, why exactly should Ms. Ulbrich continue to receive preferential treatment now? Should the standards she must meet to receive her Ph.D. be lower for her than for her male peers? If she has a daughter, and then granddaughters, should they continue to receive preferential treatment based on their sex until earth burns to a crisp?

To her credit, club co-chair Janet Harper said she tried to recruit a pro-MCRI panelist but failed. But all was not lost:

While no one officially connected to the ballot initiative came to the roundtable, one resident in attendance spoke out in favor of the MCRI.

“How do you justify a system of racial preferences where the son of a radiologist who went to Cranbrook gets preference in college admissions over the son of a white garbageman from Detroit?” West Bloomfield resident Scott Fenstermaker asked.

No answer was reported.

Say What? (2)

  1. Orson September 19, 2006 at 12:20 am | | Reply

    FYI, John:

    under the lawyer turned university president, Donna Shalala’s National Academy’s committee has issued a report, which declares the absence of women in science and engineering a purely social problem, requiring our vast recommittment to redressing.

  2. Greg Thrasher September 25, 2006 at 6:52 pm | | Reply

    I advised all of my peers and friend to avoid the debate because I knew the whites in the audience especially the liberal whites simply cannot comprehend how the MCRI and related efforts are viewed from the perspective of Black people.

    Even at this late date in our tortured american timeline on this soil. chasing down white equity is a race to nowhere..

    I am convinced whites simply at a number of cultural levels and consciousness still have contempt for our personhood and basic human dignity.

    I am at this date in my own personal evolution considering giving some support to the premise that becuase of whites cultural underdevelopment on a number of fronts i.e they lack the soil to harvest and cultivate great icons like mandela, mlk, X, et al..for Blacks to expect whites to elevate and come around is foolish becuase the depth of pathologies that are associated with this depth of racism and inhumanity is mindblowing…

    Forget rewinding the tape and bringing up slavery tales the jim crow era was not long ago nor was disparate treatment, separate but equal etc..

    I perfer to spin the MCRI by advising whites it is in thier best interests to continue to have Black folks on thier team given America’s post 9-11 stature on the globe, unless we make it worthwhile from this point of view the majority of whites will always vote for backward and underdeveloped paradigms like the MCRI which will BTW will change our michigan const…

Say What?