jump to navigation

Affirmative action is discrimination November 21, 2006

Posted by C.A.R.D in affirmative action, Card, Citizens Against Racism and Discrimination, Discriminate, Discrimination, Diversity, ethnicity, Michigan, national origin, Racism, Racist, reverse racism.
trackback

Last week, Michigan voters overwhelmingly passed the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative and made Michigan the fourth state to ban affirmative action for minorities and women in public universities and state government. The outcome of the vote is a huge blow to those who subscribe to the religion of “diversity,” especially University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman. For those of us who believe all individuals should be treated equal under the law regardless of their gender or skin color, MCRI’s passage is a sign that we may be on the verge of winning the fight against the inherently discriminatory practice of affirmative action.

MCRI is similar to the ballot initiatives passed in California in 1996 and Washington state in 1998 as it prohibits “public institutions from using affirmative-action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes.” Florida is the other state that banned the use of racial preferences. In 1999 Gov. Jeb Bush pre-empted a threatened-ballot initiative by issuing an executive order banning affirmative action in state agencies and universities.

Ward Connerly and Jennifer Gratz have voluntarily put the burden upon themselves to fight racial preferences. Connerly is a conservative, black businessman and former regent of the University of California system who previously led the effort in California to ban affirmative action. Gratz was the lead plaintiff in Gratz v. Bollinger, one of the cases challenging the University of Michigan affirmative action’s policy cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003. Gratz and Ward led the small, poorly funded operation to a 58-42 victory on MCRI despite being outspent, 3 to 1.

Since the beginning of the campaign, the political deck was stacked high against the passage of the MCRI. Speaking of diversity, MCRI had widely diverse opposition. Big business, labor, religious groups, gubernatorial candidates and both political parties openly opposed the initiative. The vocal and strong opposition from the political establishment helped chisel an early 75 percent approval down to below 50 percent in polls taken right before the election.

That is what makes the results of this election so encouraging. If affirmative-action supporters were unable to prevent the initiative from passing when they had everything in their favor from funding, organization, a fairly liberal state and a sweeping Democratic election tide, how will they ever be able to defeat initiatives in less favorable states and election cycles?

Americans widely oppose the use of racial preferences. One poll taken in 2003 by the Los Angeles Times and Newsweek found that Americans opposed racial preferences by about 2 to 1. Nevertheless, those who sit high in the ivory towers of universities and rule from judicial tribunals persist in imposing affirmative action upon the populous.

The day after Michigan voters made their opposition to affirmative action clear to state policymakers by approving the MCRI, Coleman held a defiant news conference saying she’d use the full resources of the university to legally challenge the newly passed initiative.

“We are Michigan, and we are diversity,” Coleman chanted three times. “I will not allow the university to go down the path to mediocrity.”

In the weeks leading up to the election in Michigan, the conservative Center for Equal Opportunity released statistics it obtained from the University of Michigan.

The SAT median for black students admitted to Michigan’s main undergraduate college was 1160 in 2005, compared to 1260 for Hispanics, 1350 for whites and 1400 for Asians. High school grade point averages were 3.4 for black applicants, 3.6 for Hispanics, 3.8 for Asians and 3.9 for whites. This meant that black and Hispanic applicants in 2005 with a 1240 SAT and a 3.2 GPA had a 9-in-10 chance of getting in, while white and Asian applicants with the same scores had a one in 10 chance of getting in. Unfortunately for Asian students, affirmative action most often discriminates against Asians even though they are a minority.

Contrary to what is said by those in academia and the judiciary who hold very high opinions of themselves and their beliefs, affirmative action has not been shown to help those it is intended to benefit. To the contrary, it often puts unqualified applicants into environments where they can’t compete. For example, a study by UCLA law professor Richard Sander shows that due to racially preferential admission practices, half of black law students cluster at the bottom 10 percent of their respective law school classes. Statistically, black law students also flunk out at a rate two-and-a-half times the rate of whites.

No supporter of affirmative action has been able to adequately answer the age-old question that has dogged it since its inception. How does one solve the problems of discrimination through more discrimination?

It is time for all public institutions especially universities to end the destructive policy of affirmative action. Hopefully we will see other states mimicking Michigan in the years to come.

C.a.r.d Source: Lsureveille.com

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: