PICTURE
www.flickr.com
This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from cambolah. Make your own badge here.
Join the People Over Profits Grassroots Network.
    CURRENT MOON
    moon info
      The WeatherPixie
        NaJuReMoNoMo
          Winner

          Tuesday, October 10, 2006

          "The so-called Michigan Civil Rights Initiative is neither civil, nor is it right"

          If MLK were still around, the above sounds to me like something he might say. I heard the unattributed quote just last evening, while leaving the meeting at which the Ypsilanti Board of Education unanimously voted to oppose the misleading and misnamed Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI). It (the quote, I mean) couldn't be more true.

          I urge all Michigan voters to oppose this ill-conceived ballot proposal. If it is enacted, Michigan will take enormous steps backward. The clock will be turned back on our civil rights to just after the era of legalized segregation, and 50+ years of progress in constitutional law, including many of the gains of Brown vs. Board of Education, will be of little consequence to residents of Michigan.

          Our great state, despite the progress we have made, contains some of the most segregated cities in the nation. Our state suffers disparity on the basis of both gender and race in educational attainment, employment, home ownership, household income and more. This ballot proposal will do nothing to improve this sorry state of affairs, and instead accomplish the contrary, making things worse for generations to come.

          The politics of race, polarization and division permeate the MCRI campaign.

          The proponents of of the MCRI seek to oversimplify a complex issue and appeal to feelings and emotions by using value-laden, misleading terminology. Fundamentally, nobody can disagree with the truisms they set forth (like "discrimination is bad" and "meritocracy is good"). However, the MCRI does not create a meritocracy, and failure to enact it does not create or cause discrimination. To suggest this is the case, as its proponents do, is to actively mislead and obfuscate the real impact and goals behind the campaign.

          To provide just a few examples, if the MCRI is enacted, it would prevent all public entities from providing their students the opportunity to learn in a diverse environment. It would ban all public educational outreach programs that attempt to increase girls' interest and participation in sports or professions in which they are traditionally under-represented, such as business, medicine, and engineering. It would prohibit all public scholarships that are geared toward increasing women or minority participation in various educational fields and professions. It would eliminate public programs that seek to encourage men to enter fields in which they are under-represented, such as in elementary education.

          I could go on and on. It is important to realize that if the MCRI is enacted, we will see a radical change in our collective ability to provide equal opportunity to all of our citizens and residents.

          MCRI is funded by out-of-state conservative interests.

          The MCRI was floated and paid for primarily by out-of-state interests. Its primary proponent, Ward Connerlly, a resident of California, funded over 70% of the campaign with his own personal contributions and those of his conservative supporters, such as Rupert Murdoch (head of the FOX News empire) and the late Joseph Coors (beer baron known for championing conservative Republican causes).

          This is not a home-grown, grass roots effort. This is an effort by people who primarily live outside of Michigan. This is an effort by people who want to push it in other states and are using Michigan merely because it is easy to get ballot proposals started here.

          MCRI will prevent us from ensuring that every child in our state is provided an equal opportunity to learn and succeed in life.

          Creating equal opportunity does not equal treating everybody the same. If this were the case, we'd simply teach every child the same thing, and if they didn't get it, tough. They'd just fail.

          To provide equal opportunities to all, we must be permitted to take into consideration societal factors that impact the ability of various groups within our society to equitably access education, employment, public and private resources and more. We must be permitted the tools the assess the success of various groups and respond to the conditions that chronically cause them to fail to succeed or be under-represented in certain segments of our society.

          Nowhere is this more important than in our public schools. We have disparities between boys and girls and between races in many areas, including disciplinary infractions, educational achievement, involvement in sports, graduation rates and more. To actively vote to deprive our schools of the tools we need and use on a daily basis to ensure that all our children are prepared for the future and given an equal opportunity to learn would be a tragedy unlike anything in recent memory.

          Vote NO on Proposal 2.

          I urge you to vote against this ballot proposal. Join me, along with an enormous number of organizations, such as the Michigan chapter of the National Organization for Women, NAACP, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission, and more in opposing the MCRI. Vote NO on 2 is the one thing Governor Granholm and Dick DeVos agree on.

          Voting for the MCRI will be a disaster for Michigan and for its citizens. Vote NO on Proposal 2.

          UPDATE: You can listen to my comments from the School Board meeting on this issue by clicking here (Quicktime required). If you don't have Quicktime, you can download it by right-clicking and then re-associating the file with whatever you use to listen to mp3s.

          Comments on ""The so-called Michigan Civil Rights Initiative is neither civil, nor is it right""

           

          Blogger Steve Sutton said ... (3:48 PM) : 

          Before you vote, make sure you know the facts.

          Myth: Affirmative action will be eliminated.

          Fact: Only those programs that grant preferential treatment will be eliminated. The State of California which passed their own version of Proposal 2 still maintains affirmative action and outreach programs. Some programs had to be modified to be inclusive of all people needed outreach rather than just those who had the right skin color.


          Myth: Proposal 2 will eliminate outreach programs to encourage women and minorities to enter key fields - such as engineering, law enforcement and health care - or to attend college.

          Fact: For a list of outreach programs run by the University of California system, visit http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/collegeprep/studentprep.html. While you’re at it, you check in with UCLA’s Society of Women Engineers to see how they encourage women to join the engineering profession: http://www.seas.ucla.edu/swe/.


          Myth: Gender-specific programs including breast, prostrate and cervical cancer screenings will be at risk.

          Fact: Proposal 2 applies to public employment, public education, and public contracting. If you are headed to California and need cancer screening, visit http://www.dhs.ca.gov/cancerdetection/ to find out where you can undergo breast, prostate, and cervical cancer screenings.


          Myth: Scholarships and financial aid aimed at women and minorities will be eliminated.

          Fact: Proposal 2 will not affect private scholarship or financial aid programs. It will prevent the state from offering scholarships and financial aid just because you are a member of a protected class. Instead, scholarships will need to given based on merit and financial aid based on need. But, is it bad to give scholarships based on merit and financial aid based on need?

          Myth: Michigan will go back to the 1960s, when there were few opportunities for women and minorities.

          Fact: Both California and Washington have passed version of MCRI. Neither state has been rolled back 40 years. Proposal 2 is based on the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, after it passed in California an opposition group sued on the grounds that it violated these laws. The Ninth Circuit Court ruled that Proposition 209 [California’s version of Proposal 2] was “entirely consistent” with the 14th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act, and Title IX. In fact, the opinion written by Justice Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain seemed to mock the plaintiff’s claims by stating:

          “Proposition 209 provides that the State of California shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race or gender. Rather than classifying individuals by race or gender, Proposition 209 prohibits the State from classifying individuals by race or gender. A law that prohibits the State from classifying individuals by race or gender a fortiori does not classify individuals by race or gender. Proposition 209's ban on race and gender preferences, as a matter of law and logic, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause in any conventional sense.”

          Vote Yes on Proposal 2.

           

          Blogger trusty getto said ... (4:37 PM) : 

          Mr. Sutton: It's really not honest to masquerade your own personal analysis under the guise of statements of fact. Your attempt to characterize equal opportunity as a "preference," doesn't make it true or legitimate.

          You also failed to address why most of the money behind this is coming from non-Michigan, conservative interests. Since you didn't call that a myth, it must be true.

          As to the merits of your analysis, you cannot properly equate what has occurred in other states with what will happen in Michigan. You fail to account for the current makeup of the Michigan Supreme Court, which is the most conservative in the country. The Michigan Supreme Court will use the wording of this proposal to eliminate affirmative action. If you believe otherwise, then you obviously haven't had much experience with our Supreme Court.

          Your second point is also incorrect. Again, our Supreme Court will interpret this proposal strictly. Outreach will be eliminated and deemed "preferential treatment."

          Your third point is irrelevant. I'm not making that claim.

          Your fourth point is intentionally misleading. ALL scholarships that come from the public sector will MOST CERTAINLY be eliminated. Your proposal seeks to eliminate any and all tools that might be used by the public sector to provide equal opportunity. To rely on the private sector is to delegate this important function to people and organizations that don't have a continuing duty to provide equal opportunities in this manner.

          Your final point is wrong as well. I guess you can delight that a judge mocked a group of individuals who wanted nothing more than to preserve equal opportunity for all, but that's not an appropriate response to his opinion, in my view.

          What is most disturbing about the pro-MCRI movement is the utter and complete absence of a plan or realistic dialogue aimed at ensuring diversity, providing equal opportunity and helping women and minorities obtain equal opportunities educationally, vocationally, and professionally. This important function of goverment, according to pro-MCRI advocates, should be left to the marketplace which might or might not achieve these goals or solve these problems. The important thing to remember is that the pro-MCRI movement does not actually want to solve problems, they wish to merely deny that they exist.

           

          Blogger Steve Sutton said ... (8:03 AM) : 

          I’ll accept that my personal analysis does not equate to fact. No one can really know how the courts will rule on any particular issue. After all, who would have thought that Sandra Day O’Connor would say that preferential treatment gets a 25 year exemption from the Equal Protection Clause.

          However if my personal analysis does not equate to fact, neither does yours. So let’s evaluate each other’s personal analysis. Mine is based on what has happened in California. Following passage of Proposal 209, all affirmative action and outreach programs did NOT disappear. Universities and government agencies still maintain programs because not all AA programs give preferential treatment.

          On the other hand, your analysis is based purely on speculation. Ironically, you contradict yourself when you say “our Supreme Court will interpret this proposal strictly.” Proposal 2 is very specific. It limits itself to public employment, public education, and public contracting. In addition, it includes safeguards to allow any programs necessary to comply with federal regulations.

          As far as money coming from out of state, so what? I’m sure the racists in the south during the 60’s were upset about them Yankees trying to impose their views on the good old boys. When the government treats people differently based on their race, religion, or ethnicity, it’s wrong no matter where they do it.

          Since it’s your blog, I leave the last word to you. Obviously I won’t be changing your mind and you won’t be changing mine. Thank you for the opportunity to state my opinion on your site.

          See you in the voting booth on Nov. 7.

           

          Blogger trusty getto said ... (10:33 AM) : 

          The ballot language is not the language that will be written into our Constitution. The ballot language is written by the Secretary of State, and merely attempts to summarize what will actually be adopted. The language that will be added to our constitution is:

          "(1) The University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, and any other public college or university, community college, or school district 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."

          "(2) 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."

          Make no mistake. The "or grant preferential treatment to" will eliminate affirmative action in Michigan. Affirmative action seeks to provide equal opportunity most frequently to minorities and women as redress for past discriminatory practices that have left these groups with objectively recognized disadvantages based on historical practice. Equal opportunities are provided by offering preferential treatment under a number of well-defined circumstances in an effort to increase participation in a number of areas, including education and employment.

          If enacted, our Supreme Court will interpret "shall not" to mean "shall not." I'm just not seeing how anybody can plausibly argue the contrary.

           

          Blogger Rod said ... (1:14 AM) : 

          Nice to and fro guys.... now to the meat and potatoes of the issue.

          If you stepped outside today, you were reminded that this is definitely not California.

          If you stepped into Ypsi's South side today, or took a drive down Ford Boulevard to the lake, you were reminded that equal opportunity is a long way from reality in this country.

          Hurricane Katrina provided this country with a graphic reminder of just how long that road to equality is.

          This country is so far behind the rest of the civilized world in its ability to deliver on "Liberty and Justice for all" that it is a laughing stock on that issue. It has many other redeeming qualities and I love living here, but lets not kid ourselves about equal opportunity.

          ANYTHING that weakens the (albeit inadequate) efforts at redressing that issue WILL throw this country backwards.

          Now, let's talk Michigan. Failing miserably due to the export of the Auto industry, a depressed economy looking worse because its hard to get past the dependency on the BIG 3.

          In tough times, economies become conservative, and people become desperate.

          Into this mix, you want to undermine the ability of the already repressed to get ahead?

          That's insane.

          "Liberty and Justice for all" is an oath sworn by most Americans on a regular basis. Proposal 2 would imply "Liberty and Justice for all...of "us"...to hell with "them""

          Cameron is right, this legislation is neither civil, nor is it right.

           

          Anonymous Anonymous said ... (10:09 PM) : 

          Dude -

          It's spelled "Trustee," not "Trusty."

          That's right up there with "Truthy."

           

          post a comment
          links to this post