“If you pass Proposal 2, you can turn off the lights in Michigan,” said Bing Goel, chairman of the Grand Rapids Chamber of Commerce and floral business owner. “We have to create a culture that embraces all.”

But wait; there’s more:

Goel and Muskegon chamber chairman Gary Post pointed to the Michigan Future Inc. report on an “agenda for a new Michigan” that argues that one of the most important steps the state can take to create a vibrant new economy is to be welcoming of all. The young knowledged-based workers of today embrace diversity and want to live in communities of citizens with a wide range of age, ethnic and racial makeup, the chamber leaders said.

West Michigan must be more open to different communities, Goel told the Muskegon chamber audience.

“One of the things about West Michigan, about Grand Rapids, is that we are not bad people ... but we tend to stay in our own worlds,” Goel said. “The largest area of new business growth are those owned by women and racial minorities. The No. 1 key is access. West Michigan must recognize that.”

My mind, such as it is, continues to be boggled by the argument that any energetic, educated, industrious citizens will not feel “welcome” unless they can count on being treated better than others because of their race or ethnicity.

A cursory glance — revealing that a powerful Republican legislator long rumored to have used the N-word has finally been recorded doing so — would appear to confirm what many readers already know: America is a racist country; Republicans are super-Americans always trumpeting their Americanism and thus are more racist than others; so, what else is new? ... no need to keep reading.

Alas, those who do continue reading will see that things aren’t quite so simple. The offending and offensive legislator, state Rep. Rafael Arza from Miami, is Hispanic (almost certainly Cuban-American), whose choice of language, apparently not for the first time, reveals that relations are not so cozy these days inside what Jesse Jackson still sometimes calls “the Rainbow Coalition.”

Nor is it so easy to retreat to the fallback position that, even though all racists may not be white, at least all Republicans are bad, since Rep. Arza was exposed by a fellow Republican and Gov. Bush has not so gently suggested that it’s now time for Rep. Arza to pursue other interests.

The Democrats, of course, are trying to make Rep. Arza’s behavior a partisan issue, but as usual some of their rhetorical artillery threatens to exact severe collateral damage:

“We want Mr. Arza to know that there is no road to redemption that leads through the Florida House,” said Dan Gelber, the designated House Democratic leader. “He can’t simply apologize. Once you tolerate this behavior, you have endorsed it.”

UPDATE [28 Oct.]

Meanwhile, with regard to toleration being indistinguishable from endorsement, Tom Maguire points out that the Congressional Black Caucus not only defended Rep. William Jefferson’s approach to asset-freezing ($90,000 of an FBI-sourced bribe was found in his freezer) but is demanding that Speaker Pelosi (!) appoint Rep. Alcee Hastings to chair the House Intelligence Committee. Hastings, you will recall, was impeached from his federal judgeship only to be elected to the House as a Democrat.

Since these proposals are preliminary and were obviously leaked, it’s not clear how serious any of them are. In fact, this article strikes me a pretty clear example of “advocacy news,” an attempt by the media–interest group alliance to head off a reform they don’t like. Thus only groups with “objections” are quoted.

Are there no interest groups, or other observers, who think — or would think, if asked by a reporter who was actually reporting — that these proposals sound like a good idea?

Read the article to see some selected examples of some of the proposals that are said to be under consideration, but this one is my favorite: according to a spokesman for the Citizenship and Immigration Services office, one of the questions on the citizenship exam, “What are the colors of the flag?” might be replaced with one like “What is one of the fundamental principles protected by the Constitution?”

Perhaps that example explains why Fears and the “immigration rights advocates” he quotes oppose these proposals. What would they have the citizenship examiners do with an applicant who, citing the Fourteenth Amendment and various civil rights laws, answered that a fundamental principle protected by the Constitution is that every American has the right to be treated without regard to his race or ethnicity?

Starting in the 1970s, college majors became less divided by gender, as women increasingly entered disciplines traditionally dominated by men, but progress toward a balance between the sexes has stalled in recent years, say Paula England, a sociology professor at Stanford University, and Su Li, an assistant professor of sociology at Wichita State University.

Desegregation of the academy by gender stalled beginning in the latter half of the period studied, say Ms. England and Ms. Li. That stall resulted from several factors. As the authors explain, “women’s probabilities of choosing the historically male-dominated majors failed to continue their upward trek, and their probabilities of choosing fields traditional for women, ... which had been falling, stopped their fall.” Desegregation was also stalled, they write, “by the fact that, as fields feminized, men eschewed the fields.”

In explaining this last finding, Ms. England and Ms. Li say “any field associated with women has been culturally devalued, so that women have more to gain than men in status and rewards from majoring in fields nontraditional for their gender.” Such devaluation also explains the finding that “feminization of fields deters men from entering,” the authors add.

Their primary culprit seems to be the “cultural devaluation” of women’s work. But wait a minute. Women are no longer limited to fields such as nursing or teaching, nor are they even still being “chanelled” into those fields. Indeed, quite the opposite. Thus, by regarding the choices that women themselves now make as amounting to “stalled” “progress,” the authors themselves would seem to be contributing to that devaluation.

Even more unusual than the nature of the debate, the article actually quotes several students who decided, after listening to both sides, to support MCRI. (Either that very seldom happens or, more likely, most article don’t choose to mention it.) In fact,

many students from the crowd, which consisted of mixed races, young and old, agreed with many of Allen’s beliefs.

“I’m against affirmative action and I agree with everything Dr. Allen spoke about. I’ll vote yes on Proposal 2,” said Deshon Hill-Henderson, a black male transfer student majoring in criminal justice.

“In the long run, it’s not going to help minorities, it’s not going to help black people. That black people can only make it in a competitive world with preferential treatment — I think that’s outlandish and just ridiculous.”

Throughout, Allen held fast to the belief that the premise of affirmative action is that minorities are inferior to whites; he said that individuals have the right to be treated fairly.

“The argument began with assumptions of inferiority,” Allen said. “If you didn’t have the argument of race, you wouldn’t have a basis.”

St. Antoine agreed with many of Allen’s principles but said that barriers still needed to be cut down.

“Affirmative action hasn’t accomplished everything yet, but there’s been progress,” St. Antoine said. “Women and minorities are catching up fast. It’s myopia to be color blind.”

Both agreed that Michigan’s economy is bad.

Allen said he believes the problems Michigan’s economy faces “are the partners of affirmative action preferences.”

St. Antoine said he believes the economy is a great concern but unemployment depends on education. “The more educated people are, the better the economy,” he said.

Precisely what “barriers” are “broken” [or, for this post, “cut down”] by racial preferences? Laws that require equal treatment, such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act, knock down the barrier of racial discrimination. What is the equivalent barrier that racial preferences knock down? (This is a test. Be specific.)

How utterly sad that the current “civil rights movement,” liberals, Democrats, and virtually all Michigan elites in the corporations, media, and universities now see colorblind equal treatment as a “barrier.”

Whether Tulsa’s minority hiring quotas are being met by general contractors on city projects would be the focus of a disparity study under consideration by the City Council.

Such a study, which could cost up to $500,000, is necessary to legally enforce the quotas.

“We’ve been told our hands are tied unless we do this,” Councilor Jack Henderson said in Tuesday’s committee meetings.
....
A local ordinance requires a “good faith effort” by general contractors to use affirmative action in hiring subcontractors. It requires contractors to give on average 10 percent of subcontracting work to minority- and female-owned businesses certified with the city.

Well, the “macaca” imbroglio was certainly strange, but there is some strangeness that passed below, or above, Boyer’s radar. He writes, for example, that Webb wants to appeal to Southern white males by becoming, and having Democrats in general become, “less insistent” on such matters of party orthodoxy as “abortion, gun control, and gay marriage.”

Now, assuming for a moment that Southern white males are more or less of one mind on “abortion, gun control, and gay marriage,” do Boyer/Webb really believe they are so dumb as to flock to candidates who are merely “less insistent” on the Democratic orthodoxy on those issues?

But that pales by comparison with Webb’s reversal on racial preferences. As I pointed out in what I’ll now call Tangled Webb 0 and Tangled Webb I, Webb is on record (presumably when he was still a Republican) calling racial preferences “state-sponsored racism.” If Webb is intent on appealing to Southern white males, pulling a Kerry-like flip flop on this issue and now supporting race preferences (but only to blacks, not Hispanics; see Tangled Webb II) is indeed a strange way of going about it.

First, the lede:

Jennifer Gratz is at it again. As a lead plaintiff in one of two legal challenges to race-conscious admissions policies decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003, Ms. Gratz failed in her effort to persuade the court to completely strike down such policies at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.

Now Ms. Gratz is trying to accomplish at the polls what she could not in the courts....

More substantively, Mr. Schmidt asserts as a fact something that is not: that the passage of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) would curtail “outreach” programs by universities. Universities could continue to reach out to whomever they please. What they would no longer be able to do, however, is to prefer members of one group over another in admissions, financial aid, etc. I think this is clear, but what is absolutely incontrovertible is that supporters of MCRI have presented this interpretation of the effect of their initiative vigorously, and a journalist shouldn’t simply assert the opposite with no evidence and no acknowledgment of the fact that supporters of MCRI dispute his claim.

Mr. Schmidt’s claim was itself even broader than his assertion that “outreach” would be curtailed:

[MCRI’s] impact on Michigan's public colleges would stretch well beyond admissions, and affect recruitment, outreach, scholarship programs, and student-support services.

In a similar vein, Mr. Schmidt reports without comment another baseless claim of MCRI opponents:

Few people are more tied into Michigan's power structure than Ms. [Debbie] Dingell of the One United Michigan campaign. She is the scion of one of the Detroit auto industry’s founding families, a former top Washington lobbyist for General Motors, a member of the boards of several Michigan nonprofit organizations, and the wife of one of the longest-serving members of the U.S. House of Representatives, John D. Dingell, a Michigan Democrat.
....
She told the crowd that the measure would be especially harmful to professional women, hindering efforts to help them up the corporate ladder. “We have had to work twice as hard as a man to ever get credit for anything we do,” she said.

There was, however, some good reporting in Mr. Schmidt’s article, including the deliciously welcome welcome observation of “William S. Ballenger, editor of the nonpartisan newsletter Inside Michigan Politics,” who said “he believes that BAMN is ‘killing’ the campaign against Proposal 2 by alienating white voters.”

Schmidt also reports that student leaders at the University of Michigan who support preferences and thus oppose MCRI “have been trying for several years to distance themselves from the militant organization.”

The dog that did not bark here, however, is that no efforts to distance themselves from the close embrace of BAMN were reported on the part of Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Mayor Kwame (Stand In the Schoolhouse Door) Kilpatrick, UM President Mary Sue Coleman, or the state Democratic Party.

I love the way the column begins, which parodies the argument against the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) far better than I can (and it isn’t even trying, which I do):

If you’re an unemployed male autoworker, one day there might be a targeted program to help catapult you into a new career. But first, a proposal to ban affirmative action in Michigan must be defeated in November.

Here’s the deal: We have a surplus of autoworkers who, odds are, will never again have a stable career in the automotive industry. At the same time, there’s a field that is in desperate need of new workers.

The field? Nursing. By 2015, the shortage of registered nurses in the state will reach 18,000, according to the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth.

Why not devise a way to affirmatively move the displaced autoworkers into the nursing profession?

But what about Ms. Cooper’s smoking gun?

The Michigan Center for Nursing is devising a poster that will help make men aware that nursing is a viable career option.
....
But if voters approve Proposal 2 in November, it may seriously hamper the nursing industry's ability to attract underrepresented groups, including men, into the profession.

In fact, maybe somebody in Michigan should be telling women that they can be autoworkers, too.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

In a recent post discussing some of the fallout from Martin Luther King’s birthday, I asked “What Do We Honor When We Honor Martin Luther King? (And Who Are ‘We’?)” There had been many protests of President Bush laying a wreath on King’s grave, nearly all of them criticizing him for betraying King by his opposition to racial preferences. Indeed, nothing seems to send preferentialists around the bend and over the top faster than critics of preferences quoting King’s “I Have A Dream” speech, as we always do.

And they always respond with one version or another of “if King were alive today” he would be a strong advocate of racial preferences. I have some reservations about this assertion, but on balance I suspect it is true. After all, all King’ followers, the NAACP (which had advocated a strong version of colorblindness in court for decade after decade), and virtually the entire Democratic party did an about face on colorblindness starting in the late 1960s, and there is no compelling reason to suppose that King himself would have stood against this trend.

Taking a page from the original meaning book, however, we can see that the proper response to the posthumous King’s probable position is, So what? King’s specific intent does not determine the meaning of the principle he evoked, either for his contemporaries or for subsequent generations. [P.S. It is also worth noting, however, as Randy did in his talk, that when we play the “if X were alive today...” game, we are not talking about actual intent but predicted intent, which is far different.] Of course in this case the text in question is not so dense and opaque, like “due process” or even “equal protection.” What part of wanting people to be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin is so difficult to understand?

Now, King’s speech is not a part of the Constitution (at least not of its text), but it has achieved a well-deserved iconic stature. It gave voice to an understanding of equality that traces it roots back at least to some of the abolitionists, that achieved partial but limited success in the Reconstruction Amendments, and that, finally, was embedded in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the year following King’s delivery on the Mall.

Thus I beg to differ with a commenter on my King’’s birthday post linked above. Begrudgingly, “[f]or arguments sake,” she was willing “to admit the possibility that one can disagree with another's ideals while still honoring the person.” I believe those of us who continue to resent benefits or burdens being based on skin color are honoring the meaning of Martin Luther King’s ideals much more fully than preferentialists who argue that if he were alive today he would agree with them.

Writing, as I am, about fifteen minutes from Monticello, it seems all too obvious to me that there are some ideals that are not discredited simply because their authors fail to live up to them.

But if you want to see a real case of reversing the meaning of one of the heroic, iconic events in civil rights history, you need look no further than how Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and other opponents of colorblind equality in Michigan have stood the legacy of Rosa Parks on its head. (See, for example, the governor’s web site, here, and the event it links.)

Mrs. Parks was arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama, bus to a white passenger. (The Montgomery buses had a policy that required blacks to fill up the buses from the back to the front; whites from the front to the back; and blacks to give up their seats to whites when there were no more seats.) The principle that she, and the bus boycot that followed her arrest, demanded was, first come, first served, without regard to race.

In stark contrast, racial preferences in admissions and hiring and assigning school students to elementary and high schools based on their race stands on its head the principle that Mrs. Parks stood for when she refused to stand. Abandoning the “without regard” principle is wrong, whether the justification is compensation for past wrongs or “diversity.”

Moving from segregation farther back into our past, one of the most shameful compromises that went into framing the Constitution was the decision to count slaves (never mentioned, but called “other persons” in Article I, Section 2) as three-fifths of a person for apportionment purposes. That was shameful, but by abandoning racial equality for racial preferences liberals and the civil rights movement have abandoned a fundamental principle just as clearly as they would have if they had abandoned the principle of “One person, one vote” and demanded that each black person’s vote be counted as the equivalent of 1.3 white votes.

Let’s take a closer look at that opinion, since so many of the arguments here against racial preference seem to me to be pointing us down the Indian road.

Here are some excerpts taken from a recent article in The Hindu that reproduces much of the opinion:

“Equality of opportunity has two different and distinct concepts. There is a conceptual distinction between a non-discrimination principle and affirmative action under which the state is obliged to provide a level playing-field to the oppressed classes,” said a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal.

“It is the equality in fact which has to be decided looking at the ground reality. Balancing comes in where the question concerns the extent of reservation. If the extent of reservation goes beyond the cut-off point then it results in reverse discrimination. Anti-discrimination legislation has a tendency of pushing towards de facto reservation. Therefore, a numerical benchmark is the surest immunity against charges of discrimination.”

Or maybe not, since there seems to be a magic number:

The Bench said, “Reservation is necessary for transcending caste and not for perpetuating it. Reservation has to be used in a limited sense, otherwise it will perpetuate casteism in the country.”

Dealing with the extent of reservation, the Bench, quoting the Indra Sawhney judgment (Mandal case), said the 50 per cent rule should be applied, otherwise the open competition channel would get choked for some years and meanwhile general category candidates might become age barred and ineligible.

Now we get to the nub of the matter:

“We reiterate that the ceiling limit of 50 per cent reservation, the concept of creamy layer [see my previous post, linked above] and the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency are all constitutional requirements without which the structure of equality of opportunity under Article 16 would collapse.”

The judges said: “The equality of opportunity under Article 16 (1) is for each individual citizen, while the special provision under Article 16 (4) is for socially disadvantaged classes. Both should be balanced and neither should be allowed to eclipse the other.”

The Bench said: “The state is free to exercise its discretion of providing for reservation subject to limitations, namely, that there must exist compelling reasons of backwardness [and] inadequacy of representation . . . , keeping in mind the overall administrative efficiency....”

It said: “If the extent of reservation is excessive then it makes inroads into the principle of equality under Article 16 (1). Backwardness and inadequacy of representation are compelling reasons for the State governments to provide representation in public employment. Therefore, if in a given case the court finds excessive reservation under the State enactment, such an enactment is liable to be struck down since it would amount to derogation of the constitutional requirements.”

I began by suggesting that the Indian legal system was far different from ours, but is it? Our Constitution and legislation recognize an individual right to be free from racial discrimination, but our courts have legitimized (after exercising an inscrutable amount of “scrutiny”) official dispensation of rewards and burdens based on race. We don’t allow “quotas,” but we become misty-eyed over allegedly “holistic” evaluations that lead inexorably, year after year, to a “critical mass” of minority acceptances that is indistinguishable from a quota.

Recall that panel of five Indian judges responsible for this decision was headed by Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal. I think “Sandra” must be the American equivalent of “Sabharwa.”

She is going it alone in East Grand Rapids. Mayor Cindy Bartman came out swinging against the affirmative action ballot issue on Nov. 7. But she doesn’t have anyone falling in line behind her at work. Asked by resident Armand Robinson, who is black, to condemn the ballot issue, the City Commission referred it to a subcommittee last month. “It is their recommendation from the subcommittee that — while this is an important issue — we have decided not to take a public position on this,” Bartman said. “I’m going to speak as a local leader to ask voters to take a really hard look at this. All of us want to live in a world without racism. But the fact that we have to vote on this tells me we’re not there yet.”

I wonder if Her Honor Mayor Bartman thought that the fact that it was necessary for Congress actually to vote to outlaw discrimination based on race meant that we were “not there yet” and so we didn’t need the Civil Rights Act?

And people wonder why I find so many arguments against MCRI to be absolutely batty.

As part of his remarks the good reverend committed one of the worst, and least apt, sports analogies I’ve ever heard.

To encourage the 1,700 people who attended to vote no on Proposal 2, which would ban affirmative action programs, Jackson pointed to a local example of how diversity can lead to success: Men of all skin colors play for the Detroit Tigers, he said, and no local baseball fan would think to root for a white St. Louis Cardinals player simply because of his skin color.

“Affirmative action is a majority issue, not a minority issue,” he preached. “It’s not a race issue; it’s a plan for growth. ... Whatever the playing field, it’s the same distance between the bases for all.”

Several times during his speech, Jackson had the audience repeat after him: Affirmative action. Expands. Education. Affirmative action. Expands. Productivity.

From the data we obtained [from the University of Michigan] under a Freedom of Information request, we calculated that the odds of being admitted if you were a black student with the same qualifications as a white applicant were 174-to-1.

The Pistons’ roster lists 14 players (and one “unsigned draft pick” whom I’m not counting; no picture for him anyway). Based on a look at accompanying photos, 13 of them are black and only one, Carlos Delfino from Argentina, is not. (The roster page does not have a picture of Will Blalock, but one is here.) Is Jackson not worried about all the aspiring young white baskeballers to whom the Pistons so cruelly deny a “role model”? Is he not worried that the obvious lack of “affirmative action” by the Pistons undermines their “productivity”?

Sure he is.

ADDENDUM

According to Jill Greenberg in The New Republic blog, Jackson is even wrong about fans rooting based on race, religion, ethnicity, etc.

... tonight, I was at a party and ended up talking to a rabid Detroit fan and he brought up to me a very interesting point: I should root for the Tigers because Detroit is a town of Jews. He raved to me about the virtues of the Stage Deli and he insisted to me that there were more Jews in Detroit than St. Louis (and that they knew how to do deli right)....

The number of Jews rooting for the Tigers was not enough to convince me. But, the history of the Jews and the Tigers just might do it. Hank Greenberg (of no relation), one of the greatest Jewish baseball players of all time, played for the Detroit Tigers. So did Larry Sherry as well as the precursor to Rod Carew, Elliot Maddox.

University of Nebraska-Lincoln faculty members need to read and comment on the proposed UNL Strategic Plan for Diversity by Halloween. The timing is utterly appropriate. The policy is available at the following link:

http://www.unl.edu/ucomm/chancllr/index.shtml.

1. From now on, your annual evaluations will include being graded on the extent to which you have contributed (or not) to a climate of “inclusiveness” and the extent to which you have participated in “campus programs to improve climate ...”

“Inclusiveness” is not defined in the document, nor is the nature of these programs specified. Thus, these words can mean whatever your department chairperson or others in the administration want them to mean - and can’t we all guess?

Does anyone doubt that all this constitutes a politically based litmus test for continued employment? Simply expressing disagreement with affirmative action, or with UNL’s implementation of it, could easily be cast as contributing to a “non-inclusive climate.” Having the “wrong” book on your bookshelf or the “wrong” cartoon on your office door could be judged “non-inclusive.”

2. All potential new hires must be grilled on their willingness and ability to “contribute positively” to the “campus climate.”

As a candidate, if you slip up during an interview and reveal that you think the diversity emperor has no clothes, you’ve lost your chance at a UNL job — based on your political opinions....

3. All academic units will have “diversity curricula” and an assessment of their effectiveness. This asserts administrative hegemony over one of the very few areas over which faculty members still maintain some control: curriculum. This is a direct violation of the academic freedom of faculty members.

4. There are to be recruitment “targets” for female and minority faculty. Deans and department chairpersons will be graded on their ability to meet those targets. The administration will thus force lower and mid-level administrators and faculty search committees into illegal reverse discrimination.

If you plan to join a search committee, keep in mind that you may therefore be called upon to display “non-inclusive” behavior. That is, you may be required or “encouraged” to exclude non-Hispanic white male applicants. Thus, you will be in violation of the other parts of the plan that require you to be “inclusive....”

Now a Princeton student has asked whether or not Princeton gives such preferences.

Princeton's Dean of Admission Janet Rapelye declined to comment on whether the University will make this move but emphasized the University’s commitment to diversity in all its forms.

“We value students from all backgrounds, and diversity has a broad definition for our work,” she said in an email.

“In terms of the admissions process, we give students every consideration if they have a diverse background including students who are gay, or who may be involved in LGBT groups in their high schools, communities or national organizations.”

Interestingly, some Princeton LGBT students don’t want any preferences.

Some LGBT students also are concerned about the effects such a policy could have. “People tend to question your merit when you are a minority or your parents graduated from a school,” said Yujhan Claros ’10, who is gay. “I don’t know if I want that for the LGBT community.”