Saturday’s Washington Post has a long article about the gathering efforts in Michigan to defy or deflect the newly passed ban on racial and ethnic discrimination by state agencies.
The whole depressing if predictable article is worth reading, but my favorite quote is from Karen Moss, the executive director of the Michigan ACLU:
I do think it’s necessary for the courts to slow this thing down and . . . interpret some of the language.
“This thing,” of course, is a constitutional amendment passed with 58% of the vote. And here’s “the language”:
The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
What part of that language does the ACLU find vague or unclear and in need of “interpretation”?
“What part of that language does the ACLU find vague or unclear and in need of “interpretation”?”
“The ACLU’s founder, Roger Baldwin, stated: “We are for socilism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself… We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class…”
The part they don’t understand is the part that doesn’t fit with the above and the notion of uncritical multiculturalism. This whole thing is much more than the makeup of a law classroom.