Archive for MCRI
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 | |No Comments
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 | |No Comments
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 | |No Comments
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
||
