Presumably after speaking directly with God on a divine conference call, 65 Michigan ministers proclaim that the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative “is an outright assault on equal opportunity….”
Perhaps the conversation was garbled, however, since God, being all-knowing, would never have said, as his confused disciples did, that MCRI
threatens to eliminate all programs that address inequalities of opportunity or special needs that exist for women, for persons of color, and for ethnic or national minorities.
This assertion is very un-Godlike in its extreme, over-the-top inaccuracy, even allowing for the rhetorical dyslexia of people who actually mean inequality of opportunity, i.e., giving preferential based on race, when they say equal opportunity.
I think the question of whether God does or does not like MCRI depends a lot on which God you pray to. The God of the Bible has a long history of calling one discrete, insular minority his “chosen people” while leaving the rest of us out to dry.
Also note that it’s not necessarily rhetorical dyslexia to say “equal opportunity” while meaning “giving preference based on race.” Equal opportunity and equality before the law are not the same thing, nor are they even compatible. I think the state should treat everyone equally and let the chips fall where they may, but to the extent it does, individuals’ our opportunities will NOT be equal. Rather, they will be every bit as unequal as our backgrounds, our intellects, our physical abilities, or any other human factors that certainly aren’t equal from one individual to the next, and don’t necessarily average out equally among the races. Anyone who thinks it’s the job of the state to make everyone equal – either in terms of equal opportunity or equal results – probably should support reverse discrimination in some form.
Xrlq – Good comments, both! As for the “chosen people,” I will presume to speak for my fellow tribesmen by saying we might have done better without the special attention. I mean, how much good did it do us in the long run (even leaving aside what Keynes said about the long run)?
As for your “equal opportunity” riff, no real problems there either, although I think a good argument can be made that you’re conflating equal opportunity and the results of equal opportunity. You could certainly reply, however, that not conflating them denies the fact of all those people being born on third base because their parents hit a triple….
I just talked with God.
She said the current policy for admittance to heaven was exclusively by merit, but if they found increasing demographic disproportionality they would consider implementing preferences.