AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOES SET UP NONPROFIT TO HOLD DEBATES
Foes of affirmative action have created a non-profit entity separate from the ballot campaign committee to hold forums on the issue around the state until the November election when voters are expected to decide whether to adopt a constitutional amendment banning race- and gender-based affirmative action programs by governmental entities.
The events sponsored by Toward a Fair Michigan typically include invited representatives of both backers and opponents of the ballot proposal, though generally not political candidates. However, a February 1 event at Oakland University includes Republican U.S. Senate candidate Jerry Zandstra, the only candidate in that race to support the ballot proposal, and organizers said the other two candidates have not yet committed to appearing.
Republican National Committeeman Chuck Yob, a member of the board of directors of the 501(c)3 organization and a firm supporter of the ballot proposal, said the aim of the events is to keep debate within mainstream parameters and avoid the extremes he said typify the formal groups battling both for and against the issue.
"The people who are for affirmative action go way out of bounds and the other side does the same thing," he said. "Toward a Fair Michigan is sponsoring debates with the best speakers we can get. We want people to understand the pros and cons."
David Waymire, spokesperson for One United Michigan, which is a leading group campaigning against the ballot proposal, called the nonprofit a "front group" by Ward Connerly of California, who has spurred affirmative action ballot issues in several states.
"They set up a 501(c)3 to funnel money as an 'education' group," Mr. Waymire said. "This is an effort to put their best foot forward through other means and not have to report campaign finance reports."
Barbara Grutter, chair of the group's board, emphasized its Michigan-based composition and said most of the funding has come from foundations as well as some individuals but none from Mr. Connerly. She said she is unaware of similar entities established when other states had similar issues on the ballot.
Mr. Yob said the group is relying on private contributions for its funding for debates with different sets of debaters at each event around the state. "This is educational," he said. "It goes away from what you're going to see in August and September. We don't want to see extreme people debating"
Ms Grutter was the plaintiff in one of the two signature cases on affirmative action that were decided in 2003 by the U.S. Supreme Court. Its president is Michigan State University political science professor and former U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Chair William Allen, both of whom support the ballot proposal.
The nation's highest court rejected the arguments of Ms. Grutter as it said the University of Michigan law school could consider race when admitting students to the law school. (The plaintiff in the other case, which invalidated U-M's undergraduate affirmative action admission policies, Jennifer Gratz, is executive director of the ballot campaign committee).
Ms. Grutter said the goal of the debates that are co-sponsored with other organizations (upcoming forums will be February 23 at Grand Valley State and then at Northwood University in Midland) as well as in videos and literature the group has prepared is to have a civil discussion on an issue that many people are afraid to touch.
Additionally, she said the website will soon include questions that have and will be raised at the debates, with responses from several persons on each side, such as Wayne State University professor Robert Sedler who opposes the ballot proposal.
Mr. Waymire acknowledged the events he has attended do include representatives from both sides, though he said those favoring the ballot proposal always go last and he questions the quality of some selections of those speaking against the proposal. And he said some advocates of the ballot proposal have suggested government take other steps to avoid using affirmative action, such as spending millions more in urban schools.
While the group's website includes a goal of discussing alternatives to affirmative action, Mr. Yob said, "You can't talk about equality if we're giving preferences. We don't need preferences and we don't need quotas; we need to make sure that people are based on their qualifications when they come in."
Opponents of the ballot proposal object to using the term preferences, saying affirmative action is a means to compensation for past discriminatory treatment. And Mr. Waymire said any discussion of alternatives cannot be treated seriously until some other program is actually adopted, supported and tested for its effectiveness.
"We should implement those alternatives and make sure they work before we eliminate the one program that does best job of overcoming the effects of discrimination," he said.
While the principle individuals who formed the group do support the ballot plan, Ms. Grutter noted the nonprofit itself has no position and added, "I think you will be impressed what comes out of this. It's a measure of our confidence in our position and arguments that we are able to have a very open, civil conversation that we invite opposing positions."
|
