AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BAN PROPOSAL CALLED TOO DIVISIVE
MACKINAC ISLAND - A debate that underscored the deep divisions of the proposed ballot issue banning affirmative action programs left the two sides agreeing only that discrimination exists but with opponents saying the mere presence of the issue on the ballot will be so divisive as to harm the state.
The question of how to redress the disadvantages faced by minorities and women got no easy answers from a panel that tackled the subject at a packed early morning session at the Detroit Regional Chamber's annual leadership conference which had several sessions devoted to resolving racial issues.
The audience response tilted strongly in favor of affirmative action programs as a means to ensure diversity in universities and workplaces but one critical question is whether it helps or hurts to even have the debate on the proposal.
The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which awaits certification for the 2006 ballot, would ban the use of race, gender, ethnicity or origin in granting preferential treatment by public bodies such as universities. It is modeled after a similar proposal approved in California and follows a U.S. Supreme Court decision which overturned a quota-based University of Michigan admissions policy but upheld another one that used race as a factor to ensure a diverse learning environment.
Wayne State University Professor Frank Wu said it will be a mistake to throw the issue into the public debate arena, saying, "What we need is dialogue, consensus and action.
"People are so irate and angry about discrimination but they direct it to affirmative action, they rarely direct their anger to the discrimination that existed for decades," Mr. Wu said. But he said the clear answer should not be to eliminate "the most effective remedy we've found."
But Rep. Leon Drolet (R-Clinton Township), a key player in the drive to put the proposal on the ballot, the state should look forward to the debate, despite its inevitable divisiveness, because "it will move us forward." He said the answer to problems arising from discriminating against people based on their color is not to give preferences to people based on those same factors.
Paul Hillegonds, DTE Energy vice president and former president of Detroit Renaissance, said not every affirmative action plan is implemented well, but it does not justify a constitutional amendment. "At stake is Michigan's ability to compete in a global economy," he said.
University of Michigan professor Carl Cohen, whose freedom of information requests on the use of race in that institution's admissions policies sparked UM lawsuit, said it is impossible to ignore that bias exists in society, but said the premise of the amendment is to preclude the state from showing favoritism. "Anyone who says there is not discrimination in the state is blind," he said, "but that is not state action."
First Gentleman Dan Mulhern, sitting in the audience, disputed that view, saying the drastic differential levels at which the state provides funds around the state does make it "misleading to say it is not state sponsored or there is a state role. How do we address the collective actions of society?"
He said a similar effort that was successful in California did not eliminate affirmative action, but forced the flagship university system to target more efforts to elementary and high schools in order to raise the qualifications of students by the time they are ready to apply for admission. Mr. Cohen said overall applications are as high as they once were and the graduation rate is improved.
But Mr. Wu warned that without affirmative action, university enrollment of African Americans would be one-third to one-fifth of current levels.
Mr. Cohen said nothing in the initiative prevents companies from reaching out to larger pools of applicants to include minorities. But the reach of the proposal is still being understood, with Mr. Drolet acknowledging a university could not accept a gift if it was restricted to providing financial aide to minorities.
Proponents gathered over 500,000 signatures for the proposal, a record number, and it awaits certification by the Board of State Canvassers for the November ballot.
In a separate presentation, Kweisi Mfume, former president of the NAACP, said he hopes Michigan will turn down a ballot proposal to ban affirmative action programs by universities and other public bodies because it represents an attempt to turn back the clock.
He said the language of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiate is "couched in a way to distort the message."
He said merit - a concept used by proponents of the proposal who say better qualified persons are losing out to minorities and women due to affirmative action - is at the heart of genuine attempts to bring diversity to college campuses and work environments.
"Merit, not manna from heaven, not quotas, but rather judging people on content of character is what affirmative action is all about," Mr. Mfume said.
Ms. Granholm said the effort to ban affirmative action "is wrong," and said it is important from a moral and economic perspective to use affirmative action to create diverse environments.
|
