Archive for MCRI
In 2006, 58 percent of Michigan voters barred the state from discriminating against or granting preferences to individuals or groups in government employment, contracting, and education. A school district in Detroit seeks to circumvent the law and hire teachers and administrators based on race. (Source)
The Plymouth-Canton Community Schools “urges” schools to look for cues on resumes that may indicate an applicant’s race. These race proxies include colleges attended, Greek organization membership, and job history.
Here’s the strange (and inconsistent) thing about people who support this nonsense: they’d raise Cain if employers looked to these cues to eliminate people based on race, particularly applicants’ names. The same people would agree that so-called bias against “black” names is wrong. But a bias in favor of someone who belongs to “black” organizations is okay? Double standards irk me to no end.
The “problem” as reported in the article is less than three percent of staff are minorities, while almost 25 percent of the students are minorities. To that I say, so what? Would proponents of government-sanctioned race-based hiring support government-sanctioned segregated schools? If the paucity of black teachers poses such an educational crisis for black students, why not create and maintain separate schools for black and white students, and hire only black teachers for black schools, and white teachers for white schools?
Well, that’s obviously ridiculous and illegal, right? Why is it any less so to hire teachers based on race in integrated schools?
“I would remind them that Michigan voters, in 2006, passed an initiative that makes it unconstitutional to use skin color when making hiring decisions within the realm of public education,” Jennifer Gratz told the Detroit Press. Gratz was a plaintiff in Gratz v. Bollinger, in which the Supreme Court ruled the University of Michigan’s use of race in admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause. “They should hire the most qualified teachers, and race and gender should not be a factor.”
Parent Ann Marie Hudak said, “Who says minority teachers can’t be qualified? Our teaching population should reflect the student population, because, based on statistics, kids who see themselves reflected in teachers tend to score higher on tests, and it’s important for our children.”
To answer Hudak’s question, nobody said minority teachers weren’t qualified. The point Gratz was making is employers should hire based only on qualifications, not skin color. There definitely are qualified minorities, but their membership in a racial group isn’t, nor should be, a job qualification.
And why should the teaching population’s race reflect the student population’s? Is this an edict handed down from on high, or an ethical principle, or a law? I’d like to see statistics that purportedly show black students “tend to score higher on tests” if they have black teachers. Even if true, in a parallel universe, the government may not consider race a job qualification.
Filed under: MCRI | |Comments off
On November 7, 2006, 58 percent of Michigan voters chose to bar the state from granting preferences to or discriminating against individuals or groups in government employment, contracting, and education.
Western Michigan University (WMU) has gotten the message. The school’s Incentive Scholarship Program was once Hispanic-only; now it’s open to all students, regardless of race.
Now, that didn’t hurt, did it?
An excerpt:
“The university chose nine Michigan school districts and one intermediate school district, based on their percentages of free and reduced-price lunches, to participate and allowed schools to choose the students based on criteria set by WMU. The schools must also name a representative, who can be a teacher or counselor, to monitor and work with the student.
…
“[T]he use of the free and reduced-lunch standard allows WMU to continue one of the program’s original purposes: to help under-represented populations and those who might be unable to pay for college.”
WMU found a race-neutral way to target certain racial minority students, without explicitly targeting racial minority students, and students of other races may benefit.
Filed under: MCRI | |Comments off
Last week I blogged about an ill-advised blacks-only field trip that was part of an Ann Arbor elementary school’s blacks-only “Lunch Bunch” program, since disbanded. After a group of black students visited a black “rocket scientist,” parents complained. Principal Mike Madison said he didn’t intend to segregate or exclude others; he wanted to “address the societal issues, roadblocks and challenges that our African American children will face as they pursue a successful academic education in here in our community.”
Leon Drolet, chair of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), wrote an op-ed for the Detroit Free Press. As you may know, MCRI launched a campaign to amend the state constitution to bar the government from granting preferences to and discriminating against individuals or groups in contracting, hiring, and admissions based on race. The measure passed in 2006 with 58 percent of the vote.
“The school’s fifth-graders proved more adept than school administrators at recognizing the blatantly immoral and unjust nature of the segregated field trip,” Drolet writes. “After the trip was over, those who went returned to their fifth-grade class and were greeted by boos by those who didn’t go on the trip, according to the school district spokeswoman, Liz Margolis. Margolis said Madison heard the boos, and went to talk to the class.
“What happened next is disputed: Margolis claims that Madison had a ‘discussion’ about race issues with the class, but several parents and students claim that Madison yelled at the students and belittled a Muslim girl who said she also had experienced racism and discrimination.”
Madison played to racial stereotype that blacks are inferior and require special treatment, says Drolet. As is common with human nature, we don’t view special treatment as suspect if the treatment is “good.” We raise a ruckus only when it’s bad. The point is that the government should not be authorized to treat people differently based on race. Back to Drolet.
“The Ann Arbor Public Schools have a well documented history of race-based blundering at the expense of students. In 1978, the district lost a court case after one school had casually mislabeled two-thirds of the black students coming from a housing project as ‘disabled.’ The court ordered training for teachers on culturally relevant teaching and assessment strategies.
“The district was in trouble again as recently as 2008, when the state Department of Education found it was inaccurately classifying a disproportionate number of black students as ‘cognitively impaired’ and ordered corrections…When it comes to matters of race, Ann Arbor Schools can’t seem to get it right.”
Treating each child as an individual rather than as a member of a racial group (radical!) is the goal, and not a lofty one. But the government, pressured by the civil rights industry, continues, even after the people vote to restrain it.
Filed under: MCRI | |Comments off
According to the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), the sixth circuit court of appeals is hearing arguments today in Cincinnati in suits filed by the pro-racial preferences group By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) and its allies challenging the MCRI.
In 2006, 58 percent of voters passed MCRI (as Proposal 2), which barred Michigan from discriminating against or preferring individuals or groups in hiring, contracting, and admissions based on factors like race.
Jennifer Gratz (of Gratz v. Bollinger), Executive Director of the 2006 MCRI campaign and Director of State and Local Initiatives with the American Civil Rights Coalition said, “It is mind boggling that anyone could argue with a straight face that eliminating the use of race and gender in decision making for university admissions, government jobs, and public contracts is actually discrimination.”
…
“I am thankful that Attorney General Cox is fighting to make sure that the will of the people is upheld and that everyone is treated equally by Michigan’s government regardless of race or gender.”
BAMN continues its efforts to circumvent the will of the people and to convince the court to allow the state to discriminate against and prefer citizens based on skin color. In March 2008, U.S. District Court Judge David Lawson dismissed all claims against MCRI and ruled the law constitutional. In December 2008, the same judge denied the ACLU’s motion to amend or modify his March 2008 ruling.
(Pictured: Jennifer Gratz, hounded by BAMN protesters in Michigan)
Filed under: MCRI | |Comments off
Michigan Live reports that a jury found race was a factor when the former mayor appointed four black men and one woman (bypassing typical promotion procedures) to a special unit. A white officer sued, and a jury awarded him $131,000 in damages.
Plaintiff’s attorney Glen Lenhoff said, “We feel it’s wrong when [a black American] is discriminated against, but it’s also wrong when a white male is discriminated against.”
If some of the officers’ claims are true, the unit was created to pacify people complaining about the paucity of blacks and women in leadership positions. According to the article, the plaintiff’s suit was one of 47 pending against the city.
It’s worth noting that government preferences are illegal in Michigan. In 2006, 58 percent of voters barred the government from preferring or discriminating against individuals or groups based on race in hiring, contracting, and admissions.
Filed under: Judiciary, MCRI | |Comments off
I read an article this morning titled “Diversity Grows.” It sounded promising:
“Michigan’s ban on affirmative action has hurt minority recruiting at some colleges, but Saginaw Valley State University isn’t among them…By using focused recruiting and special scholarships as tools, SVSU has increased its share of under-represented minorities — blacks, Hispanics and American Indians — by 4.25 percent this fall, to 245 freshmen from 235.”
So Saginaw Valley State University (SVSU) has done what others thought impossible: increasing “diversity” without discriminating. Wonderful! Then I continued reading:
“‘Through our private SVSU Foundation, there continues to be individual scholarships for which ethnicity is a consideration, based on the wishes of the donor, [spokesman J.J.] Boehm said. ‘But those are administered through the 
foundation, not through the university’s general fund.’”
Although the taxpayer-supported SVSU claims it never admitted students under separate standards based on race, it does use private scholarships in which race is a criteria. Isn’t that illegal? Proposition 2, which passed with 58 percent of the vote in 2006, amended the state constitution to read:
“The University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, and any other public college or university, community college, or school district 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.”
Are race-based private scholarships covered by Proposal 2? Center for Equal Opportunity president Roger Clegg told The Chronicle of Higher Education that such scholarships can come under scrutiny, particularly if the foundation administering them “shares university resources or works closely with the financial-aid office.”
In this case, SVSU has a private foundation that offers race-based scholarships administered through the foundation and not through the general fund. The story characterizes the foundation as the “SVSU foundation,” and it’s listed under the financial aid section on SVSU’s web site. We may assume the foundation shares university resources and/or works closely with the financial aid office.
SVSU’s attempt to get around Proposal 2 might be illegal.
Filed under: MCRI, Roger Clegg | |Comments off
In 2006, 58 percent of Michigan voters chose to bar their state government from preferring members of one group over another based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. Despite several challenges, the constitutional amendment still stands.
The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) is a state government entity, which means it falls under the purview of the constitutional prohibition against preferences. According to Alan Foutz of the Pacific Legal Foundation, writing in the Lansing State Journal, MDOT is gearing up to flout this prohibition.
In a letter from MDOT director Kirk T. Steudle to Senator Bill Hardiman and Congressman Lee Gonzales, both of whom chair transportation appropriations subcommittees, announced his department’s intent to increase “participation of minority and women-owned businesses on transportation projects” through the department’s Office of Business Development. Download a PDF copy of the three-page letter.
MDOT asked the U.S Department of Transportation (USDOT) to approve its goal of awarding 10.5 percent of federal funds to so-called disadvantaged business, which includes those owned by women and minorities. Under federal regulations, states must give a “fair portion” of federally assisted contracts to these businesses and may do so through race-neutral or race-conscious methods.
Foutz argues that because USDOT does not require states to use race-conscious methods to attract minority contractors in order to receive federal funds, MDOT is violating state law by using race-conscious methods. Foutz adds:
[B]ecause the absolute ban on using race in public contracting is a matter of Michigan constitutional law and not federal law, therefore, USDOT will most
likely approve Michigan’s race-conscious contracting program.
…
MDOT will most likely continue to seek authorization for its race-conscious programs until it reaches the conclusion that it simply may not employ race- and sex-based preferences. Or until it gets sued.
Someone probably will have to file suit against MDOT to stop the agency from proceeding with its plan to attract minority-owned business based on race and sex.
Filed under: MCRI | |Comments off
Michael Nietzel, president of Missouri State University, released his annual campus report for 2008, and one of his proposals is to “promote ethnic diversity” on campus. (Source)
Ethnic diversity is not an unworthy goal, but when efforts to increase diversity involve discriminating against one ethnic group in favor of another (and lowering standards for one group and not others) is most unworthy, not to mention against the law.
It’s unfortunate that the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative (MoCRI) had to suspend in May its campaign to add anti-preferences language to the November ballot. MoCRI collected over 170,000 signatures from Missouri voters in fewer than four months, but time ran out. The process was delayed by a legal challenge over ballot language and other obstacles. After the court decision, only 113 days remained to collect signatures.
MoCRI director Tim Asher said that with “the May 4th deadline looming, our only options were to abandon the effort, begin at once, or wait for the court of appeals to render a decision.”
The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which was delayed by legal challenges, finally passed with 58 percent of the vote in 2006. Let’s hope we’ll say the same about MoCRI one day.
Filed under: Diversity, MCRI, MoCRI, Tim Asher | |Comments off
||
