Arbor Update

Just as a note, Proposal 2 would only affect Affirmative Action programs in the public sector, and only those based on the specific characteristics listed in the proposal. “If you believe in Affirmative Action as a tool to address discrimination, vote NO.” and “If you don’t believe in Affirmative Action, vote Yes.” seem to be a little bit broad of an interpretation of the proposal.

Affirmative Action programs that use socioeconomic status or school quality or anything else that isn’t gender, ethnicity, race, color, or national origin would be unaffected. And regardless of what some opponents say, Prop 2 would not prohibit women’s health clinics, domestic violence shelters, or prostate screening clinics.

I think a more accurate interpretation of the proposal would be:

If you believe it is OK for public-sector Affirmative Action programs to be based on race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin, vote NO.

If you believe that public-sector Affirmative Action programs should NOT be based on race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin, vote YES.

Earlier this week I watched part of the debate that was held about a year ago at the downtown library. I had seen it before and was again impressed with professor Carl Cohen’s case in favor of MCRI. The arguments of the two people debating against its passage didn’t nearly have the logical clarity, moral clarity, nor the historical context of Cohen’s analysis.

One of the stronger points he made was about the distinction between the rights of groups and those of individuals (persons), only the latter of which are protected under our US Constitution. So, to paraphrase (yet again) the choice we face (and still simplisticly): If you believe that groups have rights, vote No; if you believe that individuals have rights (and groups don’t), vote Yes.

Others in other threads here on AU have asked, if not AA, then what recourse will citizens have against widespread, systemic discrimination? I’ll offer the following possibilities: the courts; citizen/worker actions such as strikes, boycotts, etc. (since every case can’t reasonably be expected to take the route through the courts, though class action suits might be appropriate); education; watchdog groups; and individual actions like letters and phone calls. As with other issues, an involved citizenry is far more valuable than in ineffectual (government) bureaucracy.

I’ve also read the recent LTEs in the AA News in opposition to the MCRI. I was disappointed (to say the least) that some writers based their opposition to it on the impact of affirmative action on our broader economy—not on the economic impacts of discrimination on those who suffer it, but on the impacts on the economy from the ‘bad rep’ of not having AA and less ‘diversity’. That’s pretty shallow and selfish, IMO.

400 years of white affirmative action:

...and you love Cohen’s argument for killing off the last measly remnants of affirmative action.

Will you love the thousands of civil rights marchers that you and Cohen will have to face, if that racist Proposition finally passes?

Steve –
U of M’s Affirmative Action came about because of strikes, sit-ins, and boycotts undertaken by the Black Action Movement in the 1970’s. This “ineffectual (government) bureaucracy” has its roots in the type of direct action you call for.

from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_University_of_Michigan):

“Low minority enrollment was also a cause of unrest. In March 1970, the Black Action Movement, an umbrella name for a coalition of student groups, sponsored a campus-wide strike to protest low minority enrollment and to build support for an African American Studies department. The strike included picket lines that prevented entrance to university buildings and was widely observed by students and faculty. Eight days after the strike began, the university granted many of BAM’s demands.”

So those means have been proven effective. AA has been proven less so. Regardless, the issue is not the effectiveness of various means. After all, we know that discrimination was successful (in negative ways) in the past. If our plan is to discriminate, then discrimination will be perpetuated. We need a plan for fairness and equal rights so that they will be perpetuated. (William McDonough has a useful perspective on this regarding sustainable design, including not only ecology and economy, but also equity. The need for regulation is a symptom of failed design, etc.)

Our government wasn’t designed with equity in mind. We’ve tried to repair that over time, and AA was one attempt. AA is fatally flawed, though, in that it places group rights above individual rights. There’s no getting around that. The resentment of AA on the part of males and members of the majority race may or may not be based in sexism or racism, but it is certainly legitimate.

Racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination exist. I think “unrest” would be appropriate for our state to experience in those circumstances. At least until equity is properly designed into our system. Might that take a long time? Sure, but no longer and with no greater inequity than continuing the current failed system.

What about the messages I see on the TV about this proposal also affecting programs that benefit women, like cervical cancer screenings, scholarships for girls in science, etc? I would hate to see those programs killed off in a blanket vote against affirmative action.

KGS, let’s hope that women recognize these dangers and vote NO on 2.

Proposal 2 still allows programs to benefit the underrepresented. Ten years ago a similar proposal passed in California. The University of California still maintains programs that assist minorities and women. For example, the goal of UC’s Louis Stokes California Alliance for Minority Participation is to significantly increase the number of degrees granted to underrepresented minority students in science, engineering, and mathematics. In addition, UC’s Society of Women Engineers conducts programs such as Girl Scout Day to expose the world of engineering to K – 12 grade girls.

Feel free to check UC’s site for confirmation on both facts:

CAMP: http://www.camp.uci.edu/overview.html
SWE: http://www.seas.ucla.edu/swe/special.html

Same with women’s shelters and breast cancer screenings. Check the California Dept. of Health Services website:

Shelters: http://www.mch.dhs.ca.gov/programs/bwsp/bwsfacts.htm
Cancer Screening: http://www.dhs.ca.gov/cancerdetection/

KGS, those ads you’ve seen are playing on your fears (like David does with the use of the word “dangers”.) They have to use words like “may” and “threatened” instead of “will” and “eliminated” because their worst fears weren’t realized in California.

[Why do they use fear? My guess is that it’s either about lack of power (personal, not political) or about their own fears. From what I’ve seen and read, a lot of the opposition to the MCRI seems to be some sort of groupthink [a phenomenon I’ve studied a bit.)]

Affirmative action won’t be abolished, only those programs by government institutions that give “preferential treatment”. Also see what Steve Sutton wrote. My guess is that the programs he mentions can continue if they’re open to all, even if their goal is to benefit a certain group. Maybe he can clarify that.

Also, I suggest you look at your own words (“I would hate to see those programs killed off in a blanket vote against affirmative action.”) and decide whether you place the interests of a (your) group above the rights of individuals to equal treatment by our government.

I think this is a fascinating and very important subject. I hope others will overcome their own fears and take part in the discussion of it. Thanks for posing a question, KGS.

if not AA, then what recourse will citizens have against widespread, systemic discrimination? I’ll offer the following possibilities: the courts; citizen/worker actions such as strikes, boycotts, etc. (since every case can’t reasonably be expected to take the route through the courts, though class action suits might be appropriate); education; watchdog groups; and individual actions like letters and phone calls.

How is all of this going to help? I can see how that was useful when people were proclaiming their racism loud and clear. These days most are smart enough not to do that. What do you do when the discrimination is more subtle?

“So those means have been proven effective. AA has been proven less so.”

How have you determined this? How are you measuring effectiveness?

“Regardless, the issue is not the effectiveness of various means.”

I disagree.

Why is it that many of the same people who are demanding that AA be abolished in the name of “equality” are also the same people who are now attacking Title IX, which doesn’t rely on AA but on equal opportunity in education? They claim they want a “level playing field” but even there, they are now claiming that “equality” isn’t really equal after all.

http://phibetacons.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzZjZWMzODZhZDM1ZDNjODZkODlmYTA2YWU3NmM3MzI=

What do you do when the discrimination is more subtle?

Good question. (I’m assuming you mean, what do “we” do…) I don’t have a clear solution to offer. The obvious response is to say we should try to identify the discrimination with equal subtlety. However, the assumption we’re making is that discrimination must be ‘fought’ in some way. I’m suggesting that we think about it differently and find ways to design it out of our system.

Have you ever read Daniel Quinn’s writings (Ishmael, The Story of B, My Ishmael), Bruce? One of his main contentions is that our culture doesn’t work (not to mention our impact on our means of survival—the global ecosystem) and we suffer from it by choice, not by human nature. Our culture is an outgrowth of what he calls “totalitarian agriculture”. Without getting into it too much, our move away from tribalism (with few remaining exceptions) to a more global culture based on feeding only humans is what Bill McDonough would identify as our design or plan. Discrimination may just be one of the flaws in that design that won’t go away no matter how much we ‘fight’ it.

“So those means have been proven effective. AA has been proven less so.”

How have you determined this? How are you measuring effectiveness?

More good questions. I wasn’t clear in my comment about AA there. The simplest out would be to ask you to just pretend I didn’t say it. The more complicated explanation is that I was thinking about more than one thing when I wrote it. First, that I’ve heard that women in Michigan earn either 67 or 75 cents (depending on the source) for every dollar a man earns. I’ve also heard various stories of how much further we have to go on racial equality to demonstrate the need for AA. Second, I was thinking about the fact that AA doesn’t directly impact racism and sexism, it impacts the outgrowths of them. So while it may or may not be effective in addressing the symptoms, it’s not directly effective in addressing the underlying attitudes that people have. I am curious though how much it indirectly effects them. I can imagine that over time it might serve to improve them in some people and worsen them in others. In any case, I doubt that we can measure those indirect impacts. Finally, I’ve also heard that if women’s vs. men’s pay is looked at individually rather than per capita, women earn the same or maybe more than men doing the same work. Of course, in that case, we don’t need affirmative action for that anymore, do we? Because that’s the ultimate goal, right, economic equality between groups?

So just pretend I didn’t say it. ;-)

“Regardless, the issue is not the effectiveness of various means.”

I disagree.

Good. Please say more.

To whoever posted the cartoon:

What if it was a poor white girl from a bad neighborhood? Is she somehow less deserving of help to get into college? I don’t think anyone is arguing that we shouldn’t help out people who need help… It’s just that doing it based on race is not the proper way of going about it.

Why is it that many of the same people who are demanding that AA be abolished in the name of “equality” are also the same people who are now attacking Title IX, which doesn’t rely on AA but on equal opportunity in education?

I have a vague memory of you asking a similar question in the other thread on this subject, John Q. I think you’d have to ask the people in question. And even then I wouldn’t count on learning the truth. There are racists and sexists out there (on all ‘sides’), does that surprise you?

Making decisions based on the (perceived or assumed) motivations of those we disagree with is one way to operate. I don’t favor it. Do you?

Oh yeah,

With Affirmative Action gone…

...Hiring and school admissions would become color-blind?

Is that what you’re saying?

Look at the past 400 years:

Nothing but color-blind hiring and school admissions…

“Have you ever read Daniel Quinn’s writings (Ishmael, The Story of B, My Ishmael), Bruce?”

No. I can put them on the reading list, but honestly, even I don’t know how long that thing is at this point, so….

“Discrimination may just be one of the flaws in that design that won’t go away no matter how much we ‘fight’ it.”

... could you turn this into a concrete proposal that can be understood by someone who hasn’t read them?

“”Regardless, the issue is not the effectiveness of various means.””
...
“Please say more.”

Other people seem to be content with some abstract arguments about rights and “color-blindness” (as if “skin color” was all this was about). That’s all too abstract for me. In the unlikely event that anyone cares how I vote on Tuesday, they need to show me hard evidence on practical consequences.

From my uniformed point of view, it looks to me like admissions preferences are a modestly effective solution to a very real problem. If someone has a better solution, I’m all ears. So far, though, all I’m hearing is “let’s just throw out affirmative action and then we’ll figure out an alternative later.” But I’m not seeing serious efforts at alternatives. I’m just seeing a bunch of handwaving.

Pie in the sky when you die.

That’s what the MCRI thugs offer you, after they’ve killed Affirmative Action.

Plus:
The tender mercies of white employers and white admissions officers.

What more could you ask for?

Bruce, the MCRI is about rights and equal treatment by government. Affirmative action is about skin color and gender and improved economic opportunities for some (not all) members of certain groups. That’s a pretty non-abstract choice, I think.

But I’m not so much concerned about how you or anyone else votes or with the outcome of the proposal. (I’ll vote and then act appropriately regardless of the outcome.) I’m far more concerned with what we will do after Tuesday. If it passes will we begin a public debate about reparations for slavery (as a New York University professor featured in Ode magazine has proposed)? If it fails, I suspect we won’t get to that conversation here in Michigan. If it fails will we smile when we see a wealthy African-American student on campus because of their skin color and our exposure to ‘diversity’? If it passes, I suspect our thoughts and feelings on seeing that person would be different, and more substantively positive (in the sense that we would be more curious and likely to have followup thoughts and feelings.)

If you see AA as only being modestly effective, what do you think would be a more effective approach and what would the goal(s) be? Would reparations compensate adequately for the historical exploitation and resultant economic inequities? Would changes to our electoral system and redistricting fairly and appropriately increase the political power of minority groups?

Serious efforts at alternatives will require many more of us to be involved. Do you belong to the ACLU? Ask them to be more clear about the differences between rights and efforts to compensate for past wrongs (or present ones, for that matter.) They’re starting to get confused, it appears to me. How about we join the NAACP? NOW?

I encourage you to bump The Story of B up to the top of your list. Ishmael helps set the stage, but you can skip it and get to it later. It will be among the most thought-provoking reading you’ve ever done. Enjoyable too.

“Making decisions based on the (perceived or assumed) motivations of those we disagree with is one way to operate. I don’t favor it. Do you?”

I’m pointing out that many of the same people who are trumpeting “equality” as the justification for supporting Proposal 2 are also attacking “equality” in its true form as embodied in Title IX. I think it makes clear that many of the advocates for Proposal 2 have little interest in equality at all. For them, Proposal 2 is a first step. I did ask the question before and I don’t recall anyone acknowledging that reality.

“If you see AA as only being modestly effective”

You put the “only” in there, not me.

“what do you think would be a more effective approach and what would the goal(s) be?”

Beats me. And that’s exactly why I’m not supporting #2.

And I’m pretty disappointed that people supporting #2 can’t name a “more effective approach” either. What magic bullet do you have that allows you to scoff at the idea of a solution that’s “only” modestly effective?

To Messager Number 19:

So the only way any Black student will win Your respect is, if Affirmative Action is first abolished?

Why should she care about winning a self-declared racist’s respect?
—————————————
UCLA killed Affirmative Action.

So…

Is UCLA now overflowing with extra respect for Black students, having DRIVEN THEM AWAY?

See UCLA “Daily Bruin”-

“Events mourn ‘death of diversity’:

“A decade after passing of Prop. 209, students draw attention to low minority representation at UCLA”

Click here for UCLA Daily Bruin article

Winning Respect: good job! You managed to include a link instead of cut’n’pasting an entire article.

Now could we please convince you to pick a name (doesn’t have to be your real name) and stick with it?

But keep up the “self-declared racist” thing. It helps remind us all that you never try to understand a thing anyone else ever writes. Thanks!

And I’m pretty disappointed that people supporting #2 can’t name a “more effective approach” either. What magic bullet do you have that allows you to scoff at the idea of a solution that’s “only” modestly effective?

I’ll assume you’re directing that to me. First, I don’t support Prop 2. I’m trying to have a discussion about the issues relevant to it and point out what I see as flawed arguments, scare tactics, and fear of honesty about our society.

I also don’t oppose Prop 2. I see its existence as a huge opportunity to have this discussion, so I appreciate it being on the ballot, in that sense if not in others. (I’d prefer that our governor and legislature did something proactive about the problems in this area, but it apparently takes an initiative like this to get some action. That said, I don’t see it as a harmful amendment, nor would I consider its absence from our constitution a barrier to doing better than we are now.)

There are no magic bullets, Bruce. We need to face that fact and start by looking at ourselves, our personal relationships with others, what we model for our children, and our expectations of our governmental representatives and institutions—just like with any other complex societal issue. In other words, we need to be adults and active citizens. (Blaine, to his credit, is active. Now about that adult thing…)

Here’s something to consider: UofM (and UCLA) could achieve greater diversity in their student body if they decided that that was more important than being an “elite” institution. EMU doesn’t have a diversity problem does it? For example, just off the top of my head, UofM could have a lottery system of admissions that selected students with qualifications above a pre-determined floor for GPA and test scores. Will they do that? I doubt it. (My understanding is that minority—or maybe it was African-American—enrollment in all the California state universities increased after their proposal passed, even though enrollment at the “elite” schools decreased.)

Think about government hiring and contracting practices along the same lines and maybe you’ll start to see possibilities for improving equity where you didn’t before.

John Q., I read the story you linked to. I’m lost as to your point. I don’t understand who the “many of the same people” are that you’re referring to or how they’re relevant here.

If Steve Bean wants to announce, on Arbor Update, that he’s a racist…

...and then proves it by plumping for the end of Affirmative Action, a little too enthusiastically,

Then take him at his word.

He is what he says he is.

Thought 1 on Prop 2: Prop 2 doesn’t ban all preferences, just some.

It won’t ban legacy admissions, and it won’t ban the old boys network.

Given the history of racism and racial exclusion, legacy enrollment and the “old boys network” both disproportionately benefit whites. There’s a name for that: institutional racism. It’s not necessarily anyone’s intention to institute a covert racial preference with legacy benefits in admissions, but that’s what happens.

So, how do you confront these built-in biases?

You need to take real, direct action—affirmative action. To counter the preferences built-in for some groups, you need to institutionalize preferences for other groups.

That’s one reason I’m voting NO on prop 2.

I hate to feed a troll, but you do realize that opposing race-based affirmative action does not mean you’re a racist, right? And I think there are definite effective alternatives to race-based AA, such as AA based on the quality of your K-12 education. Or perhaps improving our failing K-12 education system.

It’s obvious that there are major disparities in quality of public education between, say, Ann Arbor and Detroit, but that still does not support race based college admissions. A white kid from a bad neighborhood received the same education (or lack thereof) as a black kid from the same neighborhood, and deserves to be treated exactly the same by our government.

We really should be working towards making sure everybody has access to a quality primary education rather than nitpicking over skin color. Once that happens, I would guess that the disparites between races would vanish.

It is just amazing how many good things you imply that you will be “working towards”...

just as soon as you can clear out those Black students from YOUR University.

You will lose on November 7.

You will never turn back the clock.

Never.

Black children will NEVER be convinced to wait until YOU decide they are qualified to enter YOUR Universities.

Chuck, direct action in this case would be to ban those legacy benefits in admissions to our public institutions. We don’t “need to institutionalize preferences for other groups.”

Thought 2 on Prop 2: A religious perspective.

Jesus taught that “some who are first shall be last and the last shall be first.”

Indeed, that’s how he lived and how he calls his followers to behave. In a world that praised the wealthy, the strong, and the powerful, Jesus put the poor, the weak, and the opperssed first.

That’s what he calls his followers to do.

Now, what would things look like if Christians followed that example today? How would the schools in Grosse Pointe and Detroit look? How would our public health system address the racial disparities in diabetes and heart disease?

What would it mean to really put the last first?

Contemporary affirmative action programs fall well short of truly putting the last first and the first last, but I do believe they are important. And I certainly don’t want to see them banned.

Now, of course, I don’t want the politicians in Lansing legislating from the Bible. After all, I don’t really believe that god hates shrimp, which is why it’s important to me to know that Affirmative Action has broad support from many religous faiths , not to mentions schools, business groups, women’s organizaitons, LGBTQ organizations, and civil rights groups (check out the list of One United Michigan Endorsers , it’s pretty impressive).

But for me, it is a faith issue. I want to follow my religious traditions call to put the last first, and affirmative action is one part of that, and it’s a part that I can support while respecting the separation of church and state.

Chuck,
Do you really apply that philosophy, of supporting the powerless, the oppressed, against the powerful… across the board?

You speak strongly for the poor in Detroit, which is nice.

You don’t speak at all, on the oppression of the poor in Palestine.

Why?

What were you saying about Jesus and the poor?

Chuck W. wrote, “Jesus taught that “*some* [emphasis added] who are first shall be last and the last shall be first.” ”

I checked two paper Bibles, and versions online, and cannot find one translated this way; none say ‘some’. I have never heard this passage from Mathew as being anything but absolutely “the first shall be last and the last…”

Chuck, your added ‘some’ colors your following remarks. Is that what you intended?

abc, that’s what I get for quoting from memory. The New International Version translastes it as “But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.” (Mat 19:30 ), and the Bible in Basic English translates it as, “But a great number who are first will be last, and some who are last will be first.”

A similar statement is recorded in Matthew 20:16, which is in the more absolute form that abc recalled it, “the last will be first and first last” (The Five Gospels), and the Jesus Seminar finds this more absolute form to be more likely to be true to what Jesus actually said (remember, Matthew was written about 85 C.E., about 50 years after Jesus’ ministry).

After that diversion into translation and historical criticism, I still say vote no on 2.

on the issue of “other solutions”: imo, a big part of the inequality in education stems from the local systems being able to funnel more money into their buildings, teachers, and materials. a couple of questions about this disparity. has anyone in government exmained a uniform base salary for all teachers across the state? or centralizing the funding for education? or building/renovating schools based on a state-wide ranking (i.e. the areas of greatest need would be funded first, followed by those of lesser need)? would ann arbor or west bloomfield taxpayers accept having their education dollars being redirected to the UP or detroit? is that legal? i’m not saying that the only solution to this disparity is money, but after having student taught in Detroit, Ypsi, and Ann Arbor, I know that the facilities are not similar and the teachers are definitely not equally qualified. one of the other major differences is the amount of parental involvement/interest. money can fix broken buildings and recruit more qualified teachers, unfortunately, it can’t fix uninvolved parents, which imo, is a bigger factor than either of the first two.
thoughts? i’m still undecided. but either way i vote, and either way it turns out, i think AA is like a bandaid for a gunshot wound and we have to come up with something to replace/augment it.

For some expert opinion (by Rosa Parks herself) on affirmative action and Proposal 2 (“MCRI”), see my current Arblogger post Rosa Parks vs. the KKK on Prop 2 .

The problem with the argument from disadvantage is that AA does virtually nothing for truly disadvantaged minorities—it is window dressing that salves the conscience of the university. The minority students who are admitted to Michigan under AA constitute a tiny fraction of the minority population in Michigan and they’re not disadvantaged (at least by the U’s definition of disadvantage). That’s because Michigan has a separate preference for disadvantaged students that is unrelated to race. Back before the supreme court decision when Michigan was still using the point system, a 20 point bonus was offered for disadvantaged students and a separate 20 point bonus for underrepresented minorities, but you couldn’t be award both bonuses. So the only minority students who needed the race-specific AA bonus were those who did not qualify as disadvantaged.

And it’s not just minority students in crumbling Detroit schools who are underperforming—minority students in Ann Arbor do poorly too, as a group (as anyone who’s been paying attention to the achievement gap knows). And what of disadvantaged minority students in Detroit? AA at Michigan does nothing for them—they are not coming to Michigan. Mostly they’re either not going to college at all, or are headed to community college or Wayne or Eastern. And have you checked the six year graduation rates at Wayne and Eastern? They are appalling—the percentages are in the 30s.

Affirmative action has been around for decades and has, IMHO, done nothing to change the system—rather it is firmly part of the (broken) system. And I really dislike the tactics of many of proposal 2’s opponents, the anti-democratic legal brinkmanship, the knee-jerk accusations of racism, and the cynical (and ironic) attempts to make this about sex rather than race. Why ironic? Because women already outnumber men in higher-education and some institutions have already started (quietly) to give preferences to male applicants (though I don’t know that Michigan has).

BUT—the minority community in the state seems to really want AA to be maintained. And without AA U of M will be in a tough spot. The minority students who used to get into Michigan with AA will go to State and those who qualify for Michigan without preferences will probably be offered admission and scholarships to even more elite institutions that still can practice AA. So if Prop 2 passes, I predict the U will be embroiled in turmoil for several years and, alone among Michigan universities, will end up with very, very few African American and Hispanic students. Neither of which would be at all good for the institution.

If I were a minority, I would vote for 2, but as it is, I’ll hold my nose and vote against (or, if I can’t manage that, abstain).

I think we tend to look upon affirmative action as the silver bullet for fixing racism, sexism, etc. and just say that it hasn’t worked because those things still exist. In reality, affirmative action is but one tool that can be used to help change some ongoing inequities and in many cases it does work, and work well.

One example: I first started working at the University as a secretary years ago. After a few years, with the urging of both my current and future bosses, I applied for a job in the IT department in my building. Unfortunately, like most women at the time, I didn’t have any official experience in IT so the HR department questioned why I should get the position rather than one of the other applicants (all men) with more experience. Then my future boss pointed out to his boss and the HR department that there was a University gender hiring preference connected to this particular IT position. So, in light of the gender preference, HR set aside their concerns and allowed my boss to hire me. To make a long story short, it worked out well for everyone. I might not have been the most technically skilled applicant for the job, but I brought a new perspective, a new personality, and a wealth of knowledge of software to the department, something that had been lacking. In addition, many of our clients felt more comfortable asking me questions, where they didn’t feel comfortable asking the men so more problems were being fixed. This same scenario played itself out across campus. As more people saw professional women working in IT departments, more women applied for the jobs and worked toward those positions. Today it is no longer unusual to have woman in IT at the U and there are women at all levels of IT positions. In addition, supervisors realized that it takes lots of different types of people to have a successful IT department and now interview and hire (both men and women) with different personalities and from less traditional IT job paths. A few years ago, that gender-based hiring preference was removed from IT positions at the University as it was no longer necessary. The barriers to hiring women had been removed.

This is one small example, but it shows that affirmative action programs like gender or race preference can be effective and can change things for the better. Often the best candidate for a job or as a student isn’t the person who is just like everyone else, but the person who is different from everyone else. Affirmative action policies encourage these differences, rather than discouraging them.

I have yet to see a valid arguement for the opposition of proposal 2. I find the posting of the slavery pictures and cartoons repulsive and unneccesary and is not addressing hte issue at hand. In reference to the cartoon above. You are assuming that black people all come from dispriveledged backrounds and that proposal 2 will eliminate their chance to rise above. This is severely not the case. Proposal 2 still maintains programs for socioeconomic status and affirmative action for dispriveldged backround. What it is eliminating is the race componenent. Do you think it is fair for an african american boy whose dad makes 1 million dollars a year and enjoys prosperity to get extra “kudos” points for college. Absolutely not, his acceptance shoudl be based on his performance. Granted there is a correlation between minorities and dispriveledged backround but we should concentrate on the hardships they overcome rather than simply the race or gender.

That is all

It’s amazing Donald Trump made all that money with such poor spelling. I always knew I would never be really rich because of my poor spelling (which many AU readers have noticed).

Anyway, what I see missing from Donald and Steve’s posts is a recognition that racism creates disadvantage for people of color.

For example, a study at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business found that “applicants with white-sounding names are 50 percent more likely to get called for an initial interview than applicants with African-American-sounding names.”

We’re not talking poor schools, bad neighborhoods, or any of that. We’re just talking racial bias here. Similar studies have consistantly found similar results. It’s more that the “correlation” that the Donald mentioned above.

So, how does Affirmative Action help remedy the situation:

1. Evidence to Overcome Stereotypes: It was easy to maintain stereotypes about a “girl cop,” a woman docotor, or in Juliew’s case, a female IT person until we started to build up a critical mass of women in those positions. Affirmative Action helps bring under-represented groups into employment situations where they can show their competency and help dismantle the stereotypes that perpetuate their under-representation.

2. Diversity in the pipeline: As any job seeker knows, most jobs aren’t filled through the classifieds but by personal referrals. Since our peer networks, neighborhoods, and houses of worship remain segregated, who do you think an all-white management team will recommend for a job when it comes to “I know this guy from…”? At diverse workforce becomes increasingly self-sufficient as employees from a wider variety of backgrounds can reach more diverse networks for recruitment

Racial discrimination has been part of the American experience since before the Revolution. It’s going to take a long time and a lot of work to dismantle. Affirmative Action is one tool to help in that struggle. As tim mentions above, we will need to strengthen our schools below as well remove the glass ceiling above.

To make a long story short, it worked out well for everyone.

Julie, you’re overlooking the obvious.

Anyway, what I see missing from Donald and Steve’s posts is a recognition that racism creates disadvantage for people of color.

I’ll acknowledge it now.

It is also emotionally painful, I would imagine (and understand from Dr. King’s and others’ writings.) Emotional pain is also evident in those with racist or prejudiced feelings (probably proportionate to those feelings), and those individuals are also likely to be otherwise disadvantaged. So, again, AA is about improving the economic circumstances of members of certain groups, regardless of need, and not those of the most needy of other groups. And it’s the indirect effects that are appreciated, regardless of how localized.

Maybe this just boils down to a contentment with the ends (reducing discrimination) justifying the means (discrimination), regardless of the irony.

What are the other tools that either of you are aware of that you refer to?

BTW, while checking the definition of racism, I determined that I was incorrect in identifying myself as a racist in another AU thread. I don’t believe any race is superior, and I can’t remember ever personally discriminating against someone on the basis of their race. If anything I may have practiced my own form of ‘affirmative action’ at some point in my past.

So I will now ask that Blaine stop using that term in reference to me, and I’m sure he’ll comply. Thanks.

Ugh. Even I don’t like posting this much.

How many years have Black students lost, since UCLA shut them out?

It may be 0. See what I wrote in #24.

Any comment from Steve Bean, Carl Cohen, and the rest of the ban-Affirmative-Action crowd, about that?

Are they looking forward to an all-white U of M?

It’s not about me, Blaine. If those students are accepted and choose to come here, great. If they decide that UofM is not the place for them, I’m sure they’ll get a comparable education (or at least a comparably valuable degree) elsewhere (for less money.)

Oh, and that last question is ridiculous even for you.

actually, the biggest enrollment change at ucla from 2003-2005 was a +.6% in asian/pacific islander. the biggest decrease was “unstated” at -.4%. white (non-hispanic) was +.4%, african-american was -.1% the hispanic segment showed absolutely no change over the 3 years, and considering the sky-rocketing hispanic population in CA, that should be receiving more attention than any other population segments.
http://www.aim.ucla.edu/data/students/fall/iars.thirdweek.campus.2005-06.pdf

To make a long story short, it worked out well for everyone.
Julie, you’re overlooking the obvious.

Ah, you mean the one mythical person who was fabulously qualified on paper, but didn’t get the job because of an affirmative action policy? That person really doesn’t exist. I have seen lots of hiring decisions in the last several years and you know what? There is always one person who gets the job and lots of peole who don’t, for all kinds of reasons. If it was so clear, we wouldn’t have interviews or hiring committees. In my case, I was hired because my boss already knew me and knew I would be good. The policy just allowed me to be hired.

We could use an election prognostication thread but I use this one to say that I expect that Prop 2 will pass by 55/45 margin. I also predict a spate of lawsuits and arguments over which programs constitute AA and which do not as we’ve seen with the gay marriage ban amendment. I predict that we’ll see a significant drop in minority enrollment at U-M and that impact will cause serious angst in the campus community.

“Ah, you mean the one mythical person who was fabulously qualified on paper, but didn’t get the job because of an affirmative action policy? That person really doesn’t exist.”

Yeah, hiring isn’t a game with the prize awarded to the most deserving applicant. I assume people get hired because they fill some gap in a group’s skills, or because somebody the employer trusts knows the applicant and can vouch for their not being nuts, or because they just happened to be free one day when there was an urgent need, they worked out, and they stayed on.

Ditto for college admissions—maybe you’re a ho-hum student, but the college choir had a sudden tenor shortage that year. So I just don’t buy the argument that any deviation from some mythical objective hiring or admissions criteria is a fall from grace.

So, yes,

“Maybe this just boils down to a contentment with the ends (reducing discrimination) justifying the means (discrimination), regardless of the irony.”

I’m willing to meddle with these highly capricious, idiosyncratic processes if it seems to be an improvement.

And “reducing discimination” is a dumb goal—how will you ever measure that? How will it help people who never know to apply? (Lots of positions are created with a candidate already in mind, and there are good reasons that happens.)

I think it’s kind of a cop-out to say that all you need to do is reach some mythical state of enlightenment where you never take into account anyone’s race or gender and then say that the problem is by definition solved.

I’m strongly opposed to Proposal 2, at least in part because I don’t want to see black students disappear from the University of Michigan.

But we’re going to lose. The telephone-based polls are misleading: pay attention to the ones done on paper with actual ballot language. Prop 2 will carry by at least 60/40.

John Q in post #50 is right about everything except the slender winning margin.

Juliew’s story in #39 is a fine example of why we need to keep affirmative action.

I think it’s important to point out that Proposal 2 also affects opportunities for women, who still have not achieved gender equality. It is premature to eliminate a proven method of progress while women are still underrepresented in non-traditional careers and earn only $.67 to every dollar earned by a comparably employed man. Now, is not the time to rescind the opportunities and progress that women have fought so hard to gain. If passed, Proposal 2 would eliminate local, state and university programs that encourage women to pursue educational opportunities and careers where they are currently underrepresented, such as the medical, science, engineering and technology fields. For example, at my alma mater, the University of Michigan, only 24% of the bachelor degrees granted by the College of Engineering went to women graduates and only 15% of doctorates in engineering were conferred to women. If Ward Connerly, the wealthy Californian who wrote Proposal 2, thinks that all things are equal in Michigan, he is sadly mistaken.

I don’t think anybody is impressed by threats of demonstrations against racism. Why aren’t such demonstrations happening now?

Southeast Michigan is perhaps the most racially segregated metropolitan region in America. Draw a line around Detroit and Highland Park and a handful of other places, and you’ll find that more than 90% of the black population lives inside that line, and more than 90% of the white population lives outside it. Might be 95%, I forget.

Those inside-the-line communities need doctors and lawyers and dentists and the other educated and trained folks that U-M provides. Cut off the flow of black graduates from U-M, and there will be fewer available to serve those communities, fewer role models of educated professionals, and greater deprivation.

The hard reality is that very few white doctors and such are interested in working for an all-black clientele. And as long as we have such extreme segregation, we are going to have an enormous population in cities and neighborhoods that are nearly 100% African American.

Passing proposal 2 is going to drive the state deeper into apartheid.

Well, as mw points out, a lot of gender-based educational preferences now go to men, although I’m not saying that this is a reason to vote for or against Proposal 2. Actually, as an argument against Proposal 2, I can’t imagine that women’s representation in science is all that effective, because it’s still acceptable in many circles to state openly that women may be innately inferior.

I also expect that Prop 2 is only the opening salvo in an attack on “equality” programs. While I don’t expect people like Steve Bean to support dismantling Title IX and legislation like it that guarantees equal treatment for women in education, etc., there’s a conservative movement to rollback Title IX and similar programs because they are “too equal”.

That was quite a jolt: Affirmative Action will be defeated by 60/40? By 55/45?

If that turns out to be true…

...Then the very next City council meeting should pass this ordinance, I hope unanimously:

PROPOSED RESOLUTION-

* To fight the cancer of racism, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor campus, is hereby required to admit every Black student who graduates from any Michigan high school, upon receipt of that student’s application.

If the University fails to do so, in the very next admission cycle, then the City of Ann Arbor will, to the maximum extent allowed by law:

1. End all cooperation with the University of Michigan, and

2. Require the University of Michigan to pay property taxes to the City of Ann Arbor.

Those tax payments will be used to create a fully-equipped, free Ann Arbor City hospital from which no one will be turned away.

* To further fight the cancer of racism, the City Council will order the immediate divestment of all City pension and other funds which may be invested in the State of Israel, and will ask the State of Michigan to sell its $5 million Israel Bond immediately.

There is always one person who gets the job and lots of peole who don’t, for all kinds of reasons.

Yes, of course. The only difference here is the government policy of discrimination.

Your case was an anomoly, Julie. (And leave it to groupthinker-cum-kneejerker David to latch onto it as a basis for how to vote.) From your boss’s perspective you weren’t given the job because you’re a woman, but because you were the best candidate (or maybe because you were in an existing position by dint of past racial discrimination and had the right ‘connection’.) From the perspective of the other applicants, though, you got it because of AA and your sex, and IT WASN’T FAIR and our government made it that way. Was some inequity mended? What human dignity was repaired? Yes, there may be positive aftereffects and indirect benefits. I don’t find that possibility sufficient or satisfying. (And I’d still sincerely like to know what other tools you and John Q. were referring to.)

My point is that AA is flawed. If Prop 2 fails, let’s please not be complacent and satisfied that:

Every white has benefited, and still benefits, from massive[sic?], society-wide[sic] Affirmative Action.

(What a pitifully selfish/self-congratulatory/pandering statement. Go to the One United Michigan link Chuck provided for more similar endorsements of a “No” vote on Prop 2.)

Blaine, I think massive protests against racism would be appropriate today, before the election. Most likely though, they’d involve “activists” like yourself who only make matters worse (in spite of your courage and legitimate righteousness, which I respect), along with the groupthinkers who rationalize that when a woman or a member of a racial minority gets a job or gets admitted, it’s the best outcome, regardless of how little inequity is remedied or how little net human dignity is gained (or how much it is set back.)

We can do better. Maybe after tomorrow we’ll have a ‘reason’ to.

I’m not sold on Larry’s prognostication, I really think this vote could go either way. Here’s why:

1. Last poll I saw had a 5% spread with 15% undecided. Undecides usually break “no” on ballot initiatives.

2. Get out the vote: I see a much stronger Get Out the Vote effort by One United Michigan than by the so-called MCRI.

3. Confusion overrulling mis-reporting: Bear with me here, this is a bit of convoluted thinking on my part. Many people argue that the true “yes” vote is larger than the polls indicate becuase respondants mis-report their vote so that they do not look like a racist. Others say that many people misunderstand the proposal. Maybe, just maybe, these two will play off each other.

We’ll see soon enough.

Steve, Michigan already has strong anti-discrimination laws on the books.

Proposal 2 would ban race and gender-conscious policies. How do you overcome racial disparities if you cannot use race-conscious policies.

“Ignore it and it will go away” may work for your health, but it doesn’t work for inequality.

Here’s an example of a program that would be threatend under Prop 2. The U-M School of Public Health and other oganizations collaborate in the REACH Detroit Partnership.

REACH stands for “Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health.” It recognizes that even when income, education, and other factors are considered, there are significant racial and ethnic disparities in diabetes rates and other public health indicators.

REACH responds to this inequality with race and ethnicity conscious programs that provide black and Latino communities in Detroit with public health services such as exercise programs, culturally-appropriate healthy cooking classes, and access to fresh produce.

REACH includes many partners that would be barred from race-conscious programs under the MCRI, such as the UM Schools of Social Work and Public Health, the Detroit Department of Public Health, and the Michigan Department of Public Health.

REACH is a program that works to provide needed services to address real disparities in public health, and as I read it, Prop 2 would eliminate it.

Cut off the flow of black graduates from U-M,

Larry, that’s an exaggeration…

and there will be fewer available to serve those communities, fewer role models of educated professionals, and greater deprivation.

… and a baseless claim (which I wonder might also be insulting to past and future graduates of Wayne State University’s medical school.)

Proposal 2 would ban race and gender-conscious policies. How do you overcome racial disparities if you cannot use race-conscious policies.

Through equality-conscious policies; policies that respect and acknowledge human needs, desires, and fears; policies formed through the questioning of every aspect of the status quo.

(What’s with the “strong” laws that apparently don’t work? Something doesn’t make sense.)

“Ignore it and it will go away” may work for your health, but it doesn’t work for inequality.

Who are you addressing, Chuck? Have you not read what I’ve written? When did I or anyone else here, for that matter, argue or even insinuate for ignoring anything?! Read up on groupthink and get a handle on your rationalizing.

The side of the box you guys are in is right in front of you. You can break out of it if you want to. (And that’s not some kind of white-male message, it’s about thinking.)

(What’s with the “strong” laws that apparently don’t work? Something doesn’t make sense.)

Well, it’s not against discrimination laws to decide you’re going to hire your golfing buddy or your brother-in-law before screening a wide range of applicants. I’m fairly ambivalent about the kind of preferences Proposal 2 seeks to end, but of course discrimination laws aren’t going to take care of the whole problem.

What’s the “inequality” that REACH addresses, Chuck? The program seems to be inaccurately named. Isn’t it about providing diabetes and other health treatment to exactly the people who have the health problems? Maybe there’s more to it than you’ve explained (or maybe this is one of those cases of scare tactics by Prop 2 opponents—not you, but those you got the info from.)

aaio, maybe we need to distinguish between government and private practices before going further with that part of the discussion.

I’d like to clarify my last parenthetical comment in #65: it’s about thinking differently. No disparagement of anyone’s intelligence intended.

Juliew, could you please indulge me?

One fictitious example: I first started working at the Hospital as an orderly years ago. After a few years, with the urging of both my current and future bosses, I applied for a job in the nursing department in my building. Unfortunately, like most men at the time, I didn’t have a lot of experience in nursing so the HR department questioned why I should get the position rather than one of the other applicants (all women) with more experience. Then my future boss pointed out to her boss and the HR department that there was a University gender hiring preference connected to this particular nursing position. So, in light of the gender preference, HR set aside their concerns and allowed my boss to hire me. To make a long story short, it worked out well for everyone. I might not have been the most technically skilled applicant for the job, but I brought a new perspective, a new personality, and a wealth of other knowledge to the department, something that had been lacking. In addition, many of our patients felt more comfortable asking me questions, where they didn’t feel comfortable asking the women so more problems were being fixed.

Your conclusion: This is one small example, but it shows that affirmative action programs like gender or race preference can be effective and can change things for the better

Now don’t get me wrong I don’t think I disagree with your direction I just don’t like the logic you use to get there and I don’t see it supporting your argument. Just because you were right for the job doesn’t mean that every woman would have been right. (There can also be two rights for one job, who knows.) While you have contributed to reasonable hiring practices in IT departments men have been fighting to break into the nursing fields for years with possibly less support.

I see AA as appropriately forcing alternatives to be looked at a little harder and more carefully. I once had the fortune to group teach an arts curriculum where grading the large group was very difficult. When we were done we would always tally and compare and contrast our results before we committed to the final grades. More than once we found ourselves with biases (based solely on the work) and had to ask if the grades were commensurate to the work offered or whether the grades reflected our own taste. It always proved interesting and challenging.

What I think every good-minded person should want is to not look over a competent person just to fill up the slots with people who look like the employer (in the case above). Hopefully the University would not have considered you if they thought you were incompetent and incapable. I don’t see dumping AA as making any selection process more deliberative and inclusive.

ABC, I think your example is good. It is exactly why the University currently has a hiring preference for men in nursing jobs. Hopefully that will help to move more men into nursing fields. The more male nurses people see, the more likely it is to be a profession men gravitate toward. Exactly the same situation as women in IT ten years ago and the University is working to eliminate the barriers. I would like to see all jobs open to all people who are qualified for the positions. These affirmative action policies don’t in any way require you to hire someone who isn’t qualified, they just encourage a certain diversity. A supervisor might have to write why they didn’t hire a candidate who fit the preference, but “not qualified” is a perfectly good answer.

Just because you were right for the job doesn’t mean that every woman would have been right.
And where, exactly, did I say that all women would have been right for the job? This is your own interpretation of my words, and frankly, it is insulting. It isn’t about hiring someone who isn’t qualified or saying someone of a certain gender or race or age is better than anyone else, it is about ensuring that the best person for a job is allowed to submit a resume or interview, that resume or interview is treated with respect, and that the person can subsequently actually be hired if chosen.

juliew, I wasn’t insulting you (at least that was not my intention) I was carrying your argument to a place it could logically go; a place we both seem to disagree with. This is why I said that I didn’t think your logic best supports your argument.

“It isn’t about hiring someone who isn’t qualified…” but that is exactly why some people are against AA; they think that that is the result. I agree with you, though, we should be treating all applicants with respect and I think with AA this will more likely be the case.

Steve, your call for “equality-conscious policies” confuses me. How can you have an equality-conscious policy if schools, governments, and public health officials hands’ are tied when looking at racial, gender, and ethnic inequalities?

That’s why I made the comment about ignoring inequality. Banning race and gender consicous programs forces institutions to ignore race and gender-based inequalities.

I agree that you are not ignoring racial inequalities, but the policy you are advocating for would force public institutions to ignore these inequalities in their admisions, outreach, and contracting policies.

Regarding REACH.
REACH looks at one component of health systems, racial and ethnic disparities in health coverage and then tailors programs to communities exhibit those disparities (just like affirmative action in admissions looks at racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in higher education and tailors programs to address those disparities).

As such, as I read Prop 2, REACH is a “preference” based on race and ethnicity, so as I read PROP 2, it would drive state and local agencies out of the program. Just like the UM Women in Science and Engineering program would be threatened. And (nod to abc) programs that recruit and support men in nursing would be gutted.

Steve, your call for “equality-conscious policies” confuses me. How can you have an equality-conscious policy if schools, governments, and public health officials hands’ are tied when looking at racial, gender, and ethnic inequalities?

I think the answer is to base it on equal treatment of individuals, not groups. I’m sure Carl Cohen has a clearer perspective on this than I do, though. I’ve made that point several times now and you don’t seem to have given it much consideration.

That’s why I made the comment about ignoring inequality. Banning race and gender consicous programs forces institutions to ignore race and gender-based inequalities.

Thanks for the clarification, Chuck. Still, you’re equating (sorry) inequality and race- and gender-based inequality. The latter forms would be “ignored”, but the former wouldn’t.

Yes, institutions would then be ‘forced’ to examine inequity at the individual (person) level (or non-race-based or non-sex-based groups, like health or economic status), rather than on some tenuous ‘blanket-effect’ links between past injustices to groups that may be currently affecting certain group members in certain circumstances. In other words, they would be required to work towards fairness, not the appearance of fairness.

It is exactly why the University currently has a hiring preference for men in nursing jobs. Hopefully that will help to move more men into nursing fields. The more male nurses people see, the more likely it is to be a profession men gravitate toward

I think that if the benefits accrue to the patients in having more male nurses, then that preferential program would not be eliminated. If the program is designed to counter discrimination, your description doesn’t seem to indicate that, Julie. Again, is there an inequity to mend, or is the current situation simply an outgrowth of individual choices?

ABC, I think your example is good. It is exactly why the University currently has a hiring preference for men in nursing jobs. Hopefully that will help to move more men into nursing fields. The more male nurses people see, the more likely it is to be a profession men gravitate toward.

But is balancing race, gender and ethnicity in occupations really a compelling state interest? Think about it. In engineering, right now, for example, women are underrepresented. But given the overall percentages of men and women at the U, men must therefore be underrepresented in other fields—should there be male preferences for those fields? Overall, women outnumber men on college campuses by a substantial (and growing) margin, which would imply, by your logic, that general preferences for male applicants and specific preferences for male applicants in many fields would be in order—do you agree?

And back in engineering, Asians are substantially overrepresented and Whites underrepresented according to their percentages of the populations—should Whites be preferred over Asians? This is not a purely hypothetical question—at UC Berkely, for example, African Americans are now underrepresented, it’s true, but so are Whites, while Asians are overrepresented:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/12/14_enroll_table.shtml

And the overrepresentation of Asians isn’t small, it’s huge—Asians make up 12% of the population of California but 47% of freshman class of 2005 while Whites make up 77% of the population but only 30% of the freshman class—which is even more out of whack, believe it or not, than for African Americans who make up 6.8% of the pop of California and 3.4% of the freshman class. So should there be policies to correct this large Asian imbalance? (As the Ivy League once put in policies to make sure their student bodies didn’t get to be ‘too Jewish’).

Right now, ‘engineer’ is a very high status occupation among Asians and Asian-Americans (more so than among Americans generally) and this leads more Asians to go into engineering. Is this kind of cultural difference necessarily a bad thing that should be corrected? And if there are systematic differences between fields that men and women find attractive (even assuming the differences derive purely from culture and not innate tendencies), should it be the role of law to try to reduce or eliminate all ethnic and gender differences in occupation choices? If so, why?

Think about it. In engineering, right now, for example, women are underrepresented. But given the overall percentages of men and women at the U, men must therefore be underrepresented in other fields—should there be male preferences for those fields?

Well, first of all, that is exactly what’s happening at many schools, if not the U, and an argument for it that I find semi-convincing is that students like gender-balanced campuses. Second of all, you must be talking about the undergraduate population. Women are still far underrepresented on the tenured faculties of almost every department.

This is about higher education for Black students.

Think of it:
Only 3.4% of UCLA’s freshman class is Black.

You’ve built your White Disneyland on the backs of 400 years of Black sweat and tears.

That’s enough.

Move over.

Open the doors of U-M to those you excluded for so long… those you tried to exclude from EVERYTHING.
————————————-

Surrender your arrogant White Sense of Entitlement, that demands frequent humiliation rituals from Black America, about which “individual” meets your ivory standards for a crumb of charity.

Let us not ask Steve Bean or Carl Cohen for permission to use Affirmative Action or any other tool to get that 800-pound White Privilege Elephant off of humanity’s throat.

As they calibrate (with an eyedropper) what help they will dole out to “individuals, not groups”...

...let us leave them to their micrometers and electron microscopes.
——————————————
If Affirmative Action is beaten on Novemeber 7th, then wake up November 8th and take action:

* Tell City Council to open the University of Michigan to every single Black student who applies, after graduating from any Michigan high school.

* That should challenge the California Legislature, or even the Los Angeles City coucnil to demand that UCLA do the same.

After 400 years of hogging all the goodies, hogging them by sheer brute force, White Privilege will have to yield a little bit.

Whether Cohen and Bean like it or not.

Let them shame themselves, by screaming for Bush to save their lily-white University of Michigan from those who were so long, and so effectively, excluded.

Steve, as a graduate of Wayne State University’s law school, I was certainly NOT looking to impugn that institution. I didn’t say there would be “no” graduates available, just “fewer”.

Chuck, even aside from misreporting, telephone surveys on ballot proposals are pretty worthless, because they pose the question differently. Most voters are going to react to the language they find on their ballot and vote accordingly.

Surveys done with actual ballot language on paper are finding an overwhelming “yes” votes on Prop 2 among white voters.

Thought experiment: what will the “yes” percentage be in Macomb County? I’m guessing over 70%, maybe 75%. And that’s the state’s third largest county.

.bq “Still, you’re equating (sorry) inequality and race- and gender-based inequality.”

Yes, I am, because race and gender-based inequality are present even when other forms of inequality are held constant. That’s why I don’t think you can have “equality based” programs that are blind to racial and gender inequality. Yes, groups are affected, and every member of those groups are affected, and they are affected now, not just in the past, that’s why I think we shouldn’t ban tools that look at and work to overcome those group-level inequalites.

So maybe some of the difference is how we interpret that data. When I look at the research such as the Chicago study above, I see clear evidence that racism continues to create barriers for all people of color (even if some of those barriers are mitigated by social, cultural, or economic capital).

As I read it, Steve thinks that there is at-best, “some tenuous ‘blanket-effect’ links between past injustices to groups that may be currently affecting certain group members in certain circumstances.”

The research I look at and the people I talk to tell me that racism is more pervasive and more destructive than that. I’m voting no on 2 so that my elected officials can continue to use all of the constitutional tools available to them to overcome racism and sexism and to create a diverse workforce that is competative in a global economy.

It comes down to children.
Black children.

Every anti-Affirmative Action proposal is designed to kick them while they are down, and to keep them down.

Think of it:
Only 3.4% of UCLA’s freshman class is Black.

You’ve built your White Disneyland on the backs of 400 years of Black sweat and tears.

You need to adjust your rhetoric to the actual facts. If you bother to check, you’ll find Whites are also underrepresented at UCLA (though not as heavily as at UC Berkeley). A black & white analysis (in both senses of the term) of the situation in California makes less and less sense at a time when there are five times as many Hispanics as Blacks in California and twice as many Asians:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

BTW—I misread the census data earlier. Whites are 77% of the Calif population but ‘Non-Hispanic Whites’ are only 44%, so Whites are still underrepresented at UC Berkeley and UCLA—just not so much. But, on the other hand, at 44% of the population in CA, Whites aren’t just underrepresented in the undergrad population at elite California schools, they are now, in fact, an underrepresented minority (which is pretty strange).

So you (I guess together with Cohen and Bean) are the Champion of the Supposedly Under-represented Whites of America.

Hmmm.

In the last 200-plus years, there have been a grand total of 5 (count ‘em, five) Black Senators.

Right now, there is only 1.

Well, first of all, that is exactly what’s happening at many schools, if not the U, and an argument for it that I find semi-convincing is that students like gender-balanced campuses.

But if it turned out that students liked campuses that didn’t have ‘too many’ of any ethnic group, would that be a semi-convincing justification for preferences to even out the percentages?

Second of all, you must be talking about the undergraduate population.

Yes. And UM is actually still very close to 50-50 male and female, not doubt in no small part because of the predominantly male engineering program. Liberal arts colleges without those programs are the ones worried about 60:40 female to male ratios.

Women are still far underrepresented on the tenured faculties of almost every department.

Yes, and there are significant time lags involved in having changes in undergrad populations be reflected in tenured faculty (on the order of a couple of decades)—not to mention that getting tenure requires a single-minded commitment to research and publishing during the time most people are raising small children.

Larry, the exaggeration was “cut off the flow”. “Reduce” or “slow” would have been an accurate verb. There will be fewer from U of M, at least initially. Do we know there will be fewer overall? That’s the baseless claim part.

and to create a diverse workforce that is competative in a global economy

Eew. :-{

From the study you linked to, Chuck:

“We’re not claiming that employers engage in discriminatory behavior consciously, or that this is necessarily an issue of racism,” says Bertrand. “It is important to teach people in charge of hiring about the subconscious biases they may have, and figure out a way to change these patterns.”

That need is outside the scope of affirmative action programs (unless I’m mistaken.) It gets to the core issue, not deflected to the tenuous links. It’s our government, we can teach our employees how (and expect them) to better make fair hiring decisions. As for the private sector, the problem will continue if Prop 2 fails and affirmative action supporters don’t follow up that ‘victory’ with something to address the discrimination occurring there.

We are fighting against 400 years of this…
_____________________________________

“If it is necessary every Negro in the state will be lynched, it will be done to maintain white supremacy.”

—Mississippi Governor James K. Vardaman

(Sounding a lot like today’s Zionists, on preserving their own “pure” ethnic state).

Sorry, another clarification: “if Prop 2 fails” implies I favor it passing. As I stated before, I believe the follow up to be far more important than the ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of the proposal. Please read that as “if Prop 2 isn’t adopted”.

Steve seems far more angered by gender/racial preferences—for underrepresented groups—which have lasted a couple decades, than by alumni/legacy ones (largely for white affluent Gentile Protestant males and their families, though there thankfully is some more representation of Jews and Catholics and Muslims, etc., these days) which have lasted literally hundreds of years. Hm.

“As I stated before, I believe the follow up to be far more important than the ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of the proposal.”

Sorry to belabor this but Steve, you seem to be living in some kind of progressive fantasy world. Do you think once Prop 2 passes that Jennifer Gratz and Ward Connerly are going to turn their energy to developing alternatives to affirmative action that address income and class inequality?

Oh, good. Blaine AND The Amazing David Boyle. Guys, please don’t show up on my doorstep, okay?

John Q., I don’t consider a question in a discussion to be belaboring anything. It’s kind of a … silly … question, though. Of course I don’t have any expectation of them doing anything further. Remember my comment about motives? I don’t care what they do (and I don’t understand why you do, unless you’re just angry about what they’ve done.) It’s what the rest of us do that’s important. That’s the truth, not a fantasy. The reality is that Prop 2 may pass, and many of its opponents are in denial and defensive mode. I’m the only one here (or anywhere?) trying to encourage them to be prepared to think broadly and creatively about better alternatives. Should we not expect them to do anything along the lines of your question in that case?

(The general sentiment here seems to be, “But Steve, you’re making us uncomfortable. Can’t you just be quiet and vote ‘No’?” I thought maybe we’d be past that by election day. Oh well.)

The opinion that you and those whose One United Michigan endorsements I’ve read seem to have of our fellow Michiganders is really sad. The quote I cited from the Chicago studied (linked to by Chuck) indicated that the problem is largely due to subconscious biases. People are capable of recognizing, acknowledging, understanding, and overcoming such biases. How else could we all have gotten to this point in our own personal growth? Give the rest of the state some respect already.

Michiganders aren’t hateful bigots, but if you treat them that way their subconscious will come out in self defense. I’m not a psychologist, but I think I understand enough to say that with some confidence. Maybe there’s one out there who’d be willing to weigh in on this.

Steve,

As I’ve noted elsewhere, some of the same people supporting Proposal 2 have already started to attack Title IX and other programs that simply guarantee equality in education. You seem to have this head in the sand attitude that if we just stopped calling people racists, maybe they would stop trying to roll back progress made by women and minorities. You seem to act like once Proposal 2 is passed, the proponents of measures like Proposal 2 will be satisfied that we’ve finally reached color-blind equality. Except that they’ve already shown that they don’t want to stop at Proposal 2. And you’ve shown that you don’t want to be bothered with the truth.

Michiganders aren’t hateful bigots, but if you treat them that way their subconscious will come out in self defense.

As resources, jobs, and access to higher education grow scarcer, I anticipate that the white working class will become even more territorial and less willing to think creatively and broadly about racial and economic equity. Which is why I’m not going to vote to eliminate programs that promote social mobility that were created in times of relative plenty, no matter how egalitarian the rhetoric in favor of it is. Brokering these reforms was difficult enough the first time around.

”...Prop 2 may pass, and many of its opponents are in denial and defensive mode. I’m the only one here (or anywhere?) trying to encourage them to be prepared to think broadly and creatively about better alternatives.”

The only one anywhere. Lucky us, that enlightened human Bean, the Prophet Steve, has graced us with his visionary presence. I see the KKK is “”visionary”” enough to embrace Prop 2, too. “Great minds think al…”

John Q., you think that calling for action after the election is “head in the sand” behavior? There’s no reason to say “you seem” about things I haven’t commented on, when I’m right here. (BTW, sorry I confused you with Chuck, who was the one who mentioned other tools…and still hasn’t responded to my request to say more about them.)

David, I’ve been on this thread for days and answered every question and challenge thrown in my direction, yet you couldn’t ask me a simple question (in #87). If you want to know something about me, please ask. Your musings on the unstated thoughts and feelings of others are inane.

Okay, I give up. It’s been swell standing in for those so many of you despise. I’ll be selling punching bags with my likeness painted on them at the polls later today.

To those of you who have been thoughtful and curious, thanks, I hope to talk to you in person sometime. To those of you whose mind reading is given greater weight than your word reading:

The following message went out this morning from Mary Sue Coleman to UM Faculty, Staff, and Students:

In these last few days before the election, the public rhetoric surrounding Proposal 2 has been growing ever more intense. I regret that some of the rhetoric distracts from our efforts to sustain a diverse and welcoming community.

Mary Sue Coleman
President

Mary Sue writes “Regardless of whether Proposal 2 is defeated or approved by voters, we have much more work to do at the University of Michigan to live up to our ideals of what a diverse learning community should be. We must recruit and retain students, staff, and faculty who are diverse in the broadest sense of that term; we must encourage an inclusive campus that is respectful of differing perspectives; and we must do everything we can to support the success of every member of the University community. ”

She will be giving an address on the Diag Wednesday at noon (in case of poor weather, in the Union ballroom).

So yes, Steve, others have been thinking about what’s next. But, since I don’t want REACH’s, the UMs, or other groups’ hands tied to look at the tools for what’s next, that’s why I’ve been in campaign mode. I’m focusing on the task at hand, defeating proposal 2. I agree that after today we’ll all have to look at what’s next in the struggle for civil rights.

I’m sorry that you’ve become a “punching bag.” I didn’t like when you accused me of groupthink, I can only imagine how much accusations that you’re in league with the KKK must hurt you. I do see your commitment to equality, even if we disagree on how to get there.

These U-M administrators will give many pretty speeches this week.

They are so committed to… etc.
————————————————-
But,

The U-M President can make a 1-sentence speech that will say it all, if she wants to:

“Upon graduation from any Michigan high school, every Black applicant will be admitted tuition-free to the University of Michigan’s Ann Arbor campus.”

If she can’t say that, then you can save those pretty speeches, for whoever believes that she cares.

If she is really against racism, let her break down the walls to this lily-white museum of White Privilege.

How the official Republicans are now running for office, in good old cosmopolitan New York…

With racism so far out into the open…

...you better believe I will ask that ALL Black students be admitted to the U of M, upon graduation from any Michigan high school.

I hope you will too.

Proposition 2 is NOT the last word.

So, according to that ad (ignoring the rape imagery and reading the text), sober, responsible guys like John Dingell and Carl Levin are going to DESTROY “Our Values”?

Need some definition of terms here.

For those who deny the weight of White Privilege…

Meet Robert Davis, retired teacher.

He was brutally beaten by white New Orleans police on October 8, 2005.

You never heard of him?

That tells you a LOT about your media.

The BBC wrote:

“The man was being arrested initially by two officers, and then a number of others joined in.

“He appeared to show little aggression towards the police, who pulled him to the ground, punched and kicked him in the face.

“He was handcuffed and the film shows a pool of blood on the pavement as a result of his injuries.”

Remember.

I will not hesitate to ask that EVERY Black child in Michigan be admitted to the University of Michigan’s Ann Arbor campus, the very moment he or she graduates from high school.

I hope you will do the same.

White Entitlement is not forever.

Is there some way to disable the posting of images within the comments section? For the time being we’re still using dial-up at home and the images really add to the time it takes for the pages to load.

Also, all the blood and gore makes me horny.

Whites really don’t want to face what White Privilege means, in real life.

It means that, if you’re Black, your sons are never safe.

It means your 64-year-old grandpa is never safe.

It means this, if you’re Robert Davis, retired teacher:

Blaine – why can’t you post with your own name?

__________________________________________

You don’t want to face what you have already done to Black America.

California’s version of Proposition 2 added insult to injury:

“In two areas—minority enrollment in the state’s top public universities and contracts awarded to women and minorities—the vote on Proposition 209 was a watershed event.

“In 1998, UC Berkeley enrolled less than half the number of blacks it had the previous year and nearly half the number of Latinos.

“At UCLA, the numbers of incoming ‘underrepresented’ minorities also dropped precipitously.

“In 1997, Berkeley’s law school, Boalt Hall, enrolled only one black first-year student out of a total of 268—in large measure because some blacks offered admission were wary of coming to a school where they were likely to be racially isolated. UCLA fared not much better…

“The impact on small entrepreneurs was even more striking…. ‘all the firms were wiped out.’ ”

__________________________________________

Count me among those who want everyone treated as individuals and not as groups—I voted YES on 2.

Just imagine if we had affirmative action (i.e., quotas) in professional sports. Imagine the NBA being 90% white, with a much smaller of black players (not to mention Asians, Hispanics, etc). Would it be the best basketball league in the world using AA? No way. The league works as well as it does because all players in the league gain their jobs through merit, and not because someone said we need x more of some “underrepresented” “group.”

I could also mention that I was denied admission to U-M back in 1990 as being a white male who achieved only a 3.86 GPA in junior college, well, that wasn’t good enough for the numbers of my “group” they wanted to admit to the university for my major.

BTW, my ancestors came to the USA from Poland in the late 1800s. My ancestors NEVER owned slaves, and were trying their best to keep from getting stomped by the Germans and Russians. So don’t even TRY to lay that “white privilege” guilt-trip on me.

“I could also mention that I was denied admission to U-M back in 1990 as being a white male who achieved only a 3.86 GPA in junior college”

Admissions isn’t based just on GPA. There are a number of factors that go into the admissions process. How many AA students do you think were admitted that year that you imply were admitted instead of you? Only 1 in 4 applicants are admitted. So even if all of the AA applicants had not been admitted, it’s still unlikely that you would have been admitted in their place.

As for the “white privilege” guilt trip – ask yourself this – can you honestly say to everyone here that no matter where you go in society that you would be afforded the same treatment and opportunities as a black man as you are accorded as a white man? I don’t feel responsible for slavery, etc. But I can admit that life is easier for me as a white man in society than it is for a black man, women and other minorities.

____________________________

You Want Black Gladiators, Not Black Professors?

Tough.
Those days are over.

This picture was taken on June 11, 1963.
Do you see Governor George Wallace, trying to block the doors of the University of Alabama, to prevent Vivian Malone and James Hood from enrolling in classes?

You will fail, like he did.
—————————————————-

Who cares about your fantasyland Lily-White NBA?

You stole almost all of the big, resource-rich Universities.

Now that the Civil Rights Movement forced you to open the doors to your Universities, a little tiny crack of the way, you are trying to shut the doors to all of the “unworthy” (which always translates as Black, in the minds of people like you.)

You have nearly succeeeded at UCLA.

You may imagine you’ll succeed at the University of Michigan too.

But you will never turn the clock back.

Never.

Dovitsenya,

____________________________

“I will not hesitate to ask that EVERY Black child in Michigan be admitted to the University of Michigan’s Ann Arbor campus, the very moment he or she graduates from high school.”

Blaine, if prop 2 passes, which the polls now saying it will, that would be illegal because it is granting so-called preferential treatment based on race. Just out of curiosity, what law school did you graduate from? You should know this.

What would probably be an appropriate, albeit an imperfect response to prop 2 would be geographical affirmative action.

I personally stood against prop 2, voted against prop 2, and would support any measure to rectify the problems caused by its passage. I liked UM Regent Kathy White’s idea of challenging it in court. That would be a good start.

I think all the posters here who simply ignore white privilege really need to step outside of the ideological box and examine the lasting effects racism has had on our society.

And, Blaine, you’re so fake. You don’t care about racism. You’re just an attention getter. Everyone has for a long time seen your tactics as the ruse they are. You’re the laughing stock of all of Ann Arbor. Do us all a favor and break your computer.

“Is there some way to disable the posting of images within the comments section?”

There’s supposed to be, but it’s not working. We haven’t figured out why yet.

“For the time being we’re still using dial-up at home and the images really add to the time it takes for the pages to load.”

Yeah, understood.

Thanks, Bruce. I appreciate your trying.

Blaine and others: If you have a really long URL, please make a link using the usual textile syntax rather than including it verbatim. (I’ve deleted a comment with an overly long URL.)

This is response to those claim to be against Michigan racism, but cannot find it in their hearts to be against Israeli military racism…

__________________________________________

* 45% of Somerville (Massachusetts) just voted for Palestinian Refugees’ Right of Return (not 40% as originally reported below).

* 31% voted for divestment from the Israeli military (not (30% as reported below):
———————————————————-

From THE BRIDGE (Massachusetts)

November 8, 2006

“Question 5 [For Palestinian Right of Return]: 60% no 40% yes

“Question 6 [Divestment from Israel]: 70% no 30% yes

“SDP [Somerville Divestment Project] says:

‘Despite the visible opposition of mainstream political figures including now Governor Deval Patrick, and Lt. Governor Kery Healey, the mayor and the popular local congressman Capuano, 40% of the people of Somerville stood for fundamental human rights and 30% going as far as favoring sanctions on Israel.

‘That’s more than enough to drive forward a social change movement. Which is exactly what we plan to do.’ ”
__________________________________________

If you are against racism, act like it.

Demand divestment from Israel.

And demand OPEN ADMISSIONS for every Black student who will graduate from any Michigan high school.

No more interminable waiting for what Black America has EARNED, earned 100-fold.

..or else stop pretending you are against racism.
———————————————
As for the “Daily”...

The “Michigan Daily”, which is able to travel any distance to cover Elie Wiesel, and Tel Aviv musicians (see today’s “Daily”)...

...has enforced silence for too long on the divestment movement, in Michigan and nationally.

_______________________________

To all you Zionist “liberals”:
To all you racists who will do nothing to get U-M de-segregated FOR REAL:

When you demand repayment, 1000-fold, for the Nazi Holocaust,

and your repayment comes in the form of a very Nazi-like State of Israel, plus billions of dollars to the State of Israel EVERY SINGLE YEAR,

Why do you resist a such a very small repayment for the Holocaust against Africa, in which untold millions of Africans died, in which untold millions of African Americans built this whole economy for you?

Open admissions to the University of Michigan, for all Black students who will graduate from any Michigan high school, is a very small, very overdue repayment to Black America.

Do you say that Black people have not earned it?

Then how did you earn your omnipresent White Privilege?

(Clue: you didn’t.)

Why do you personally oppose such a small repayment, OPEN BLACK ADMISSIONS TO THE U-M, when Black America has earned it, 1000 times over?

OPEN BLACK ADMISSIONS NOW.

TO HELL WITH THE RACISTS WHO PUSHED FOR PROPOSITION 2.

_______________________________

I can understand why Prop. 2 passed. Its supporters had a very well-run campaign based on the alluring, if misapplied and misleading, language of equality and personal justice.

Proposal 2’s opponents, I feel, did a rather poor job of explaining why this was a bad idea. I know that I personally was able to convince some people to vote “no” on 2, but they seemed not to have ever heard, as of a few days ago, a good explanation of why Prop 2 should fail.

We’ve probably got 50 examples of the problem with the No on 2 campaign here in this thread. The reasoned and potentially convincing arguments are nearly lost in the chant of U R A RACIST! U R A RACIST!

I’d say the commenter(s) who have taken an assaultive approach to opposing Prop 2 here are doing significantly more harm than good – shaming is rarely a motivator to high-quality, continued involvement, especially when the party attempting to shame others is somebody that others desperately want to distance themselves from.

Shaming only works, Blaine, if people already see a reason to agree with you. If people see you as a raving zealot, your tactics only push them away. I’ve told you this before, with regards to your approach to issues of divestment, but you obviously don’t listen very well, so I’ll tell you again: you would do more for your cause by shutting up and getting out of the way of people who are attempting effective action (e.g. Chuck, Juliew) than you are doing right now. At present, by outright attacking those people who are actually fighting for “your” cause, you are hurting your cause.

Please. Shut up.

Can’t wait for Murph, Chuck, and Julie to show us the RIGHT WAY to push for divestment from Israel.

Still waiting.

Chuck’s way was to physically hack out the very Middle East Task Force that was pushing for divestment inside ICPJ, with ICPJ’s agreement.

It is now officially gone from the ICPJ Web site entirely.

I hope that is not Murph’s way of pushing for divestment.

Still waiting.

Show us the way.

Racist Dogs!!!! Black arent on the same equal competitive playing field as whites….We have long been denyied school entrance and jobs because they want a white face…they control and run everything…we just wanted some equal initive…thats all we ask and you racist dogs shoot us down on the one oppurtunity we can get at remotely getting employment…A white person will always get a job or good education because they are white…and they just had to be selfish and literally dominate and make sure that we minorities are left out for good….Well lets make it even….Since Negros invented the stoplight, ice cream, refridgeration, heart surgery techniques etc…I want our things back as well…..Were not asking to be able to hob nob with you racist mental cases …we just want to be put on an equal platform economically, and in education, and healthcare…and we will stay to ourselves and you racist can go burn croses for fun…but you wont put us on an equal ground because you know we will compete and take over everything….we are from the place that man originated….alphabets and mathmatical numerals were on the walls on the pyrimids in Africa…before you reccessive allels were even thought of….We are the original man and your jealous and that’s why you push and toil to knock us down but we keep rising the hell back up….

Thanks, Chuck. I appreciate the sentiment and the indication that my comments haven’t been totally misconstrued. David’s defensive KKK jab didn’t hurt—why would it? It was the lack of engagement from you (in campaign mode—understandable), John Q. (likewise? or caught up in emotions?), and Julie (too busy to respond?) in the questions I posed and the direction I tried to take the discussion.

Oh well, now maybe that discussion can ensue. I think I’ve said my piece for now, though. If it picks up again (it will, won’t it?) I’ll join in later.

BTW, I just finished My Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn, to finish the series. Wow. I could criticize some aspects of it, but they’re obvious and irrelevant in the big picture, so I won’t bore you. Don’t let them become a reason for putting it down once you’ve started. And do start. Now. Go buy Ishmael if it’s not at the library. All of you. Then pass it on and continue with The Story of B and My Ishmael. They’re all far more worth the time than anything you might possibly see on TV.

Excerpt from My Ishmael:
“It’s my bizarre theory … that the people of your culture are destroying the world not because they’re vicious or stupid, as Mother Culture teaches, but because they’re terribly, terribly deprived—of things that humans absolutely must have, simply cannot go on living without year after year and generation after generation. It’s my bizarre theory that, given a choice between destroying the world and having the things they really, deeply want, they’ll choose the latter. But before they can make that choice, they must see that choice.”

I was hoping to help some of you see the choices we have about addressing racism and sexism so that we could possibly make those (better, I believe) choices in the future. Maybe we’ll get to that eventually.

[PS: Ha! Ha! Murph pushed the “Rant” button on the Blaine doll! ;-)]

From Murph, “Proposal 2’s opponents, I feel, did a rather poor job of explaining why this was a bad idea.”

Thanks for the feedback, Murph, any suggestions for how it could have been better?

Someone recently said to me “most politicians underestimate voters’ intelligence and overestimate their attention span.” That seems to be a factor here.

Another thing that interests me. The only age group to vote against prop 2 were people under 40. One thing they have in common is they all entered the work force after the Supreme Court banned quotas.

The other interesting exit poll is that folks who said they are financially secure tended to vote against prop 2 while those who didn’t feel secure voted for it.

Deleted a whole-sale cut-n-paste job with an inline image and a headline in the “Name” field. Please cut that out, thanks.

I don’t know what to tell you Steve. The results are what I expected (looks like Larry and I split the difference) and I haven’t heard one supporter of Proposal 2 talk about how they are going to help address the inequities that still exist. Most likely, they are gearing up for the next state where they can take the battle against AA. As I expected, the only groups that are making an effort to figure out what to do post-Proposal 2 are the same groups that were making the effort before it.

OK, I gotta make this fast, my “day job” has me very busy right now.

Anti-War Candidates

Well I guess it depends how you look at it. If you’re a believer in the Democratic Party, this election’s been a big success. Of course none of the non-Democratic candidates got in, except for that one Socialist from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, who moved “up” from the House to the Senate.

But a Democrat victory is still better than a Repuglican victory.

Mike Rivero makes a great point:

“The Democrats will be thinking about 2008. They have two years to prove they are really different than the GOP. We can USE that! As soon as they get into office in January, flood their offices with demands for full investigations into the lies that led to Iraq. Tell them that their name on the door is written with erasable marker.”

The Democrat anti-war candidates that got in look pretty compromised. For instance:

The Nation magazine posted an opinion yesterday, “Anti-War Candidates Running Unexpectedly Well.” Which anti-war candidates? The Nation names five: Sherrod Brown, Bob Menendez, John Yarmuth, Paul Hodes, and Carol Shea-Porter.

Take a look at these candidates’ campaign pages to hear their views on the war.

Brown: http://www.sherrodbrown.com/pages/iraq

Brown sympathizes for dead troops but not dead Iraqis. Brown’s principal complaint is that the troops had “inadequate support,” translation: more money, soldiers needed, not less. He says nothing about an exit plan, much less an immediate withdrawl, and closes by saying, “We need to listen to our military leaders closely and work with them on specific goals in Iraq so we can bring our troops home.”

Brown is NOT an anti-war candidate! He is a war apologist.

Menendez: Bob Menendez is a Homeland Security fanatic, see http://www.menendez2006.com/issues/security/
As for Iraq, he says he was against the war, but now offers no words calling for an exit plan, at least on his campaign page.

Yarmuth: Yarmuth doesn’t even have an “issues” page on his website, http://www.yarmuthforcongress.com/ but AP reported,

‘Congressional hopeful John Yarmuth called the Iraq war a “disaster and a fiasco” and said America should remove its “military footprint” there. However, Yarmuth said he did not favor Congress setting a timetable for a withdrawal of troops.

’”This administration has been wrong, wrong, wrong,” Yarmuth said. “Anne Northup [his oppoent] has supported them from day one, and this last-minute conversion to say that Don Rumsfeld should go, when actually George Bush should fire him, is a transparent attempt to divorce herself from a failed policy.”’

Why no timetable? Why does Yarmuth’s rhetoric sound like just that—rhetoric?

Hodes: Hodes’ platform has some good aspects like immediatel withdrawl of Guard and Reserve, making him the closest to anti-war yet. But then he has some suspicious tenets like “Require the Iraqis to forge a political solution to the current crisis” and “Immediately focus our mission on training the Iraqi military and police and security for their operations” which is candidate-speak for “we’re going to covertly fund our own terror campaign, Conta-style, to install a U.S.-friendly regime.”

Shea-Porter: Shea-Porter is the only one on this list to explicitly support withdrawl. And she just barely won.

So while the Dems may now have a Congressional majority, the anti-war movement still really doesn’t. We’ll see this when the new Congress begins session.

Also, look for the Democrat victory to take the spotlight off of vote fraud and ballot tampering. Expect to see the results of the third party candidates marginalized, and the media enforcing the belief that the Democrat party is the only viable anti-war party.

Lieberman

It’s thanks to Lieberman that the Senate race is still up in the air right now. Lieberman was the most pro-war of any Democrat, and a true supporter of Israeli interests at the expense of America (and Iraq). Because of that (and also because of his fascistic views as a “social conservative”), the Democrats voted him out in the primary, and the bastard ran as an independent. The Republicans, putting the interests of Israel even above that of their own party (or perhaps just betting on the more likely winner) abandoned their candidate and swung the vote for Lieberman. Great, now we have a “third party” in the Senate. Not a Green, not a Libertarian, but a Zionist.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/stoller/271649343/

Rivero makes another great point about Lieberman:

“If the Dems do win those last two Senate seats (last reports are they are both leading in the final count) expect Bush to appoint Lieberman to the cabinet (maybe replace Rumsfeld). This would let the GOP Governor of Connecticut appoint a replacement Senator, handing that seat back to the GOP.”

Proposal 2

This was the biggest bad joke of the election, yet most people still don’t even understand why. The University’s President painted this as a loss for their “essential diversity” but the implications are much worse.

http://www.mlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-20/1163000682224320.xml?aanews?NEA&coll=2
-source for Coleman’s position

First of all, it’s not just a loss for “diversity,” it’s a real loss to racial justice. Michigan is a segregated state. There is no reason to sugarcoat things. Other than in college towns, the racial segregation in Michigan is obvious everywhere you go. Even in Ann Arbor, visit Angell and Bryant schools and see for yourself.

There is plenty of expert testimony that clearly shows that blacks and Hispanics face distinct racial discrimination in Michigan, a discrimination that is separate from (though often compounds with) economic inequality. See plenty of it at

http://www.bamn.com/doc/1998/980720-reconsideration.asp
http://www.bamn.com/doc/1998/981117-appeal.asp

But that is the past.

The travesty today is that the whole MCRI initiative was wrought with fraud. Every dirty trick in the book was used.

As BAMN noted:

“After a 6-month investigation, the Michigan Civil Rights Commission found that “MCRI’s efforts to change the Constitution of the State of Michigan rest on a foundation of deliberate and orchestrated fraud… [MCRI] targeted African American citizens on a statewide basis.’

“Federal District Court Judge Arthur Tarnow was unequivocal in his denunciation of the voter fraud perpetrated by the anti-affirmative action campaign. His ruling stated, “[T]he MCRI engaged in systematic voter fraud”; …if it “passes, it will be stained by well-documented acts of fraud and deception.” He also lambasted state officials for their failure to protect the integrity of Michigan elections. “[T]he state has demonstrated an almost complete institutional indifference to the credible allegations of voter fraud.”

Despite his finding of systematic voter fraud, Judge Tarnow failed to remove the proposal from the ballot. The reasoning he gave was that because white voters were victims of voter fraud as well as black voters, no one would receive the protections of the Voting Rights Act. This makes no sense, and contradicts all previous applications of the Voting Rights Act in U.S. history.”
http://www.bamn.com/doc/2006/061005-stopprop2.asp

And in the background behind all this, there was the massive disenfranchisement of primarily black and Hispanic voters. Greg Palast goes into meticulous detail in his article at http://www.gregpalast.com/how-they-stole-the-mid-term-election#more-1530

“Two million legitimate voters will be turned away because of wrongly rejected or purged registrations.

“Add another one million voters challenged and turned away for “improper ID.”

“Then add yet another million for Democratic votes “spoiled” by busted black boxes and by bad ballots.

“And let’s not forget to include the one million “provisional” ballots which will never get counted. Based on the experience of 2004, we know that, overwhelmingly, minority voters are the ones shunted to these baloney ballots.

“And there’s one more group of votes that won’t be counted: absentee ballots challenged and discarded. Elections Assistance Agency data tell us a half million of these absentee votes will go down the drain.

“Driving this massive suppression of the vote are sophisticated challenge operations. And here I must note that the Democrats have no national challenge campaign. That’s morally laudable; electorally suicidal.”

Whether or not this tipped the Prop 2 vote will probably never be certain. Since the Democrats are back in power, they’re much less likely now to investigate the vote fraud, despite the incredible documentation of it all over the web.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/archives/cat_vote_fraud.html

So, for minorities, this election sucked. Time will tell whether or not the Democrat Party will do anything about it.

John Q., I don’t know what gave you the (inaccurate) impression that I expected any Prop 2 proponents (other than perhaps Carl Cohen) to do anything else if it passed, but you apparently have that impression.

Where are all those Prop 2 people now?

Now is their chance to stampede into all those under-funded K-12 schools and turn them into educational powerhouses!

But I guess that was never their intention.

They got what they wanted.

I can see where Steve is coming from here, and don’t think he’s being inconsistent. Did/does anybody expect the Prop 2 spokespeople to step up to the plate to draft better replacement systems? Nope. Seems to me that Steve’s position has been, throughout this discussion, that the people who recognize that Prop 2 is problematic are going to be the one’s stuck holding the bag if it passed, and so we’d best start thinking about that.

(Correct me if I’m misrepresenting you, Steve…)

“David’s defensive KKK jab didn’t hurt—why would it?” I didn’t say you were a KKK member, I noted that they endorsed MCRI. Our friend Mark Maynard noted this too, see link ,from Sunday,

“michigan’s prop two
Not yet sure how you’re voting on Michigan’s Proposition 2 this Tuesday? Well, you might want to consider this Think Progress post:

The man leading the effort to ban affirmative action in Michigan, Ward Connerly, welcomes the support of the Ku Klux Klan. Connerly said, “If the Ku Klux Klan thinks that equality is right, God bless them. Thank them for finally reaching the point where logic and reason are being applied, instead of hate.” ...”

The naked illegitimacy of the arguments from opponents of the MCRI inititive is never more evident as when they insistance that proponents of the inititive are racist. I suggest that these individuals would serve the interests of historically disadvantaged people much better if they faced the reality that blaming everyone else for their problems only serves a pathological need to protect themselves from any self-awareness that at least some of their problems lie within themselves. Societal racism is only part of the problem.

I guess Larry must be knocking himself out to build up those under-funded K-12 schools.

Since his first concern is to help the people he calls “historically disadvantaged”.

Okay… so we can still have affirmative action based on school quality? Say, students from schools that fare poorly on MEAP tests and such get an extra boost of consideration? And most minorities are in pretty poor schools… this also combats the criticism that upper-middle class minorities from top high schools seem to benefit especially in the current system.

How about that? Is this feasible and possibly helpful as a response?

Why does nobody talk about the reverse-affirmative action going on right now—UM, as far as I know, favors students coming from the very BEST schools—like kids from West Bloomfield need any extra help in life…

Helpful, maybe, but as people have noted, the argument that “middle-class minorities don’t deserve aff action” penalizes them for being successful.

”[S]o we can still have affirmative action based on school quality?”

Heck, you can have affirmative action for just about any reason, rationale or not, except sex, race, etc. Want to give a boost to kids whose parents went to U-M? Or live in Michigan? Or who are great athletes? All are permissible. Oh wait, we do all that now. Well, you can add any other reason to the pile as long as it doesn’t run into the restrictions of the MCRI.

BUT – as I see it, opposition to AA was never about creating a more equal society. Otherwise, supporters of Prop 2 would be offering solutions on how to address the lack of opportunity for minority students. Instead, it appears to be mainly rooted in a middle-class sense of entitlement to admission to the U-M and other universities and the perception that minorities were “stealing” the seats that proponents believe rightly belonged to themselves (Jennifer Gratz, for example).

Don’t expect them to sit idly by if alternatives to AA are crafted that appear to primarily benefit minorities. They’ll attack those alternatives as just another form of AA that benefits people who don’t deserve it (anyone but themselves) and is taking from them what they think they rightly deserve.

Does Gratz have a job? Other than being whiny? She’s sure made a nice career off of whining to ma that she didn’t get into UM out of high school.

The world is sad. How quickly we forgot about those who died, and left their families for the civil rights struggle. We as a people must become a colorless society. We have bigger fights to fight in dealing with other nations. If they see that Americans are in fighting about social justice and equality their groups will start a riot in america, and it will be bad. Life should be enjoyed we are only on this earth one time. Looking back over the past and onward into the future its up to our generation x to make a difference in this country.Laws can be changed, its up to us to push in the next two years to regain affermitive action laws. Let’s think about the United States as a whole. Like JFK said, “Lets not think about what our country can do for us but what we can do for our country.”

Gratz attended and graduated from U-M Dearborn.

http://www.michigancivilrights.org/jengratzbio.html

I love how it states “The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative does not propose to and will not end all forms of affirmative action” – right, because we can’t end AA for legacy students and athletes.

I know there are a lot of smart student-athletes at UM but it makes you wonder that if they didn’t give preferential treatment to athletes, perhaps Jennifer Gratz would have taken a spot that was given to a member of the 1997 National Championship Football team. I wonder if Prop 2 would have passed if the “outrage” about AA was applied equally to alumni and athlete preferences.

read Daniel Quinn as soon as possible! You wont regret it.