MSU Listserv


EQUITY Archives

EQUITY Archives


EQUITY@LIST.MSU.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV at MSU

LISTSERV at MSU

EQUITY Home

EQUITY Home

EQUITY  July 2005

EQUITY July 2005

Subject:

Pro and Con Editorial OpinionArguments on the State BallotInitiative

From:

Rudy Redmond <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Retention & Graduation Issues Concerning Minorities in Higher Education <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:20:10 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (204 lines)

ditorial: Affirmative Action
We all favor diversity, now plan out best path

by Frank Wu
Detroit Free Press
July 17, 2005

------------------------------------------------------------------------

As we deliberate over affirmative action, it is crucial not only for 
supporters of the programs but also everyone who cares about racial 
justice that we start the dialogue effectively. We can apply two 
lessons from law school.

The first lesson in law school is the importance of framing the 
question. In any argument, the side that determines the question to 
be asked has effectively determined the answer that will be given.

Nowadays, if you ask anybody whether he or she believes in diversity, 
the answer is an enthusiastic "yes." It doesn't much matter what a 
person's ethnic background might be or his or her political 
preference. Virtually all of us agree that our institutions should be 
meaningfully inclusive.

We are embarrassed to see that a college campus, a major corporation 
or a government agency is almost all-white or has only token numbers 
of African Americans. Even if the causes of the situation are 
complex, we know that it isn't enough to make excuses.

Yet if you ask anybody whether he or she supports racial quotas or 
so-called "reverse discrimination," the answer is an equally adamant 
"no." There are no advocates for stupidity, laziness or incompetence 
over intelligence, diligence and talent. There should be, however, 
skepticism about stereotypes that assign traits to groups as well as 
superficial definitions of merit.

And there our predicament becomes apparent. Our abstract consensus 
about racial diversity is threatened by the practical realities of 
racial disparities. We may desire diversity, but we are not sure how 
to address disparities. It turns out that it requires considerable 
effort to ensure that classrooms, boardrooms and courtrooms are 
integrated; it simply doesn't happen automatically.

Accordingly, we must reframe the question. We might challenge 
ourselves, especially those of us who are privileged to hold 
leadership positions, to make good on our shared ideals of democracy 
and equality. Our public discourse would be transformed if we simply 
asked, "What will we do as a society to achieve diversity and 
eliminate disparities?"

In every aspect of our day-to-day lives, there are measurable 
differences between the average circumstances of racial minorities, 
particularly African Americans, and the dominant majority. In 
addition to cases of egregious bigotry, past and present, there also 
are subtle instances of racial bias that we might not recognize in 
isolation but that become undeniable in the aggregate. In the Detroit 
metropolitan area, racial effects are obvious in housing segregation, 
which leads in turn to dissimilar educational opportunities. Even if 
we eliminate the most blatant exclusionary practices, there are still 
social patterns that mark neighborhoods by color.

As we struggle to come up with a response, we should look at all the 
options. It turns out, not surprisingly, that the most effective 
means of addressing disparities is to confront the basis for the 
disparity: race. Other factors, such as socioeconomic class, do 
matter, but none are as important as race. Although we may not wish 
to rely on race for any decision-making, we may not have any choice.

The second lesson from law school that might be beneficial is the 
technique of reasoning by analogy. Perhaps a useful comparison may be 
drawn between disaster relief and affirmative action.

When other people are suffering because of a tornado or hurricane, we 
don't withhold aid because we were not responsible for their problem 
and we didn't intend the harm. Nor do we suggest that they be 
responsible for their individual circumstances, and we ought to stop 
gathering data about their condition. If a tornado strikes Michigan, 
we direct resources here; if a hurricane strikes Florida, we direct 
resources there.

When our fellow citizens are suffering due to racial bias, traceable 
to human actions rather than natural phenomena, it makes even less 
sense for those of who are relatively privileged to say we weren't 
responsible for their problem and we didn't intend the harm. 
Likewise, we shouldn't hold people responsible for the prejudices 
directed against them or suppose that the issues are resolved if we 
don't have information. We should be willing to adopt policies that 
target the populations in need.

The Supreme Court has set forth constitutional principles to guide 
us. In the pair of University of Michigan affirmative action cases 
decided in 2003, the justices recognized that diversity is a 
"compelling state interest." Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in the 
majority opinion, "In order to cultivate a set of leaders with 
legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry, it is necessary that the 
path to leadership be visibly open to talented and qualified 
individuals of every race and ethnicity."

So it is up to us to open that path.

FRANK WU is dean of Wayne State University Law School. Write to him 
at 471 W. Palmer St., Detroit, MI 48202



Editorial: Affirmative Action
Aim for true equality by ending preferences
by Carl Cohen
Detroit Free Press
July 17, 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative is adopted by the people of 
Michigan in 2006, our state, and our state universities, will no 
longer be permitted to discriminate in any way by race or national 
origin.

Will the MCRI end affirmative action? That depends entirely on what 
one means by affirmative action. If one means giving special 
preference to some racial or ethnic groups, as the University of 
Michigan now does, then of course affirmative action in that sense 
will be ended. If one means taking positive steps to ensure that all 
persons of all races are treated equally, then the MCRI will give 
strong support to affirmative action.

For example: Have examinations and other qualifications for 
employment or admission been distorted by racial preference for 
whites? Yes, they have. Affirmative action is essential to cleanse 
such instruments of all ethnic bias. MCRI supports such affirmative 
action categorically. With the adoption of the Michigan Civil Rights 
Initiative, all forms of racial discrimination, including 
discrimination in housing and lending, would be explicitly prohibited 
by the Michigan Constitution. That is wholesome affirmative action.

"Affirmative action" has many meanings and many forms. Its ambiguity 
is the reason courts and legislators now avoid the phrase. But it 
originally meant, and should still mean, the steps we take to 
eliminate racial unfairness. Executive Order No. 10925 (issued by 
President John F. Kennedy in 1961, and still in effect) obliges every 
contractor with the federal government "to take affirmative action to 
ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated 
during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or 
national origin." That is affirmative action of which we can be 
proud, and that is exactly the force of the Michigan Civil Rights 
Initiative.

Three years after that executive order, one of the greatest pieces of 
legislation in our national history, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 
was adopted, recognizing the need for affirmative action to eliminate 
all racial preferences. "No person in the United States shall, on the 
ground of race, color, or national origin ... be subjected to 
discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal 
financial assistance." That's Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act. 
Equal treatment, not preferences. That's affirmative action as it 
ought to be.

Does the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative support that? Of course! 
That is precisely what the MCRI says: no discrimination by the state, 
no preferences -- no one to get more, or less, because of the color 
of her skin or the national origin of her ancestors.

The term "affirmative action" was later kidnapped by advocates of 
preference. Now, as we know, it commonly means exactly what 
affirmative action was originally intended to eliminate. The phrase 
was turned on its head. And the result is that very many people are 
understandably confused. Most Michiganders want to be fair, want to 
be inclusive and welcoming to all, want to be truly nondiscriminatory 
-- and we do want affirmative action in this original and honorable 
sense. But most Michiganders also despise preference by race.

The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative simply says that in our state 
the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution will be taken 
seriously. In our state, the great Civil Rights Act of 1964 is to 
mean just what it says. No ambiguity, no confusion. Here it is:

"The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential 
treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, 
color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public 
employment, public education, or public contracting."

Is that the thrust of the Civil Rights Act, or of the Michigan Civil 
Rights Initiative? It is the sense of both, of course!

The words are those of the MCRI; they deliberately echo, almost 
exactly, the words of the Civil Rights Act. To vote against the MCRI 
is, in effect, to vote against the Civil Rights Act.

Why would anyone do that? Why oppose such a clear statement of the 
principle of equal treatment? The reason can only be that opponents 
of the MCRI wish to retain racial preferences, now often hidden. Or 
they hope to introduce new preferences for some ethnic groups. They 
may have good motives -- as many in my university do -- but acts that 
are wrong are not made right by good motives.

Our governments, and our universities, are great teachers. They must 
not be allowed to discriminate by race or national origin. When that 
principle is firmly embedded in our state Constitution by the passage 
of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, we will all be proud.

CARL COHEN is a professor of philosophy at the University of 
Michigan. His research formed the basis of the legal challenges to 
the university's use of affirmative action in admissions. Write to 
him at [log in to unmask] 
-- 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2020
March 2018
August 2017
February 2017
October 2016
July 2016
June 2016
April 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
August 2015
July 2015
May 2015
April 2015
February 2015
January 2015
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
July 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.MSU.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager