|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Civil Rights Mendacity in Michigan Barrett Kalellis You would think that the straightforward spirit and language of Michigan's 2006 ballot proposal to "ban 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" is consistent with reinforcing the U.S. Constitution's 14th (equal protection) amendment. But for those who have followed the uphill battle of ballot supporters simply to get Proposal 2 before voters this fall, and to hear the distortions and opprobrium from the mouths of opponents, one can only conclude that political mendacity lies at the heart of this contentious issue. After all, human relations departments uniformly make the claim in every job ad that "applicants are selected without regard to race, religion, age, gender, etc." What they don't tell you is that whenever affirmative action is involved, this overlays a secret agenda which trumps and invalidates the standard disclaimer. This is what the ballot proposal is trying to fix, based on the infamous, though not unique, practices by the admissions staff at the University of Michigan, who gave minority applicants bushels of extra points just for being favored – at the expense of those not favored. "Affirmative action" is two weasel words that, although initially used to describe positive measures in reaching out to qualify minorities, have in practice devolved into simple quotas and timetables used by supporters to rig hiring and contracting functions. After an unsuccessful and devious attempt to keep the proposal off the ballot, opponents now have thrown all sorts of objections up against the wall just to see what might stick in the minds of voters in November. Michigan's business, union and media establishments have uniformly disparaged this proposal, including the gubernatorial candidates from both parties, generally offering the argument that it will "turn back" civil rights progress, or "deny opportunities" to women and people of color. With paeans to the shopworn "diversity" theme, they make the preposterous implication that if adopted, businesses and institutions will revert ineluctably to pre-1960s discrimination.
Story Continues Below
Hurling everything but the kitchen sink is the modus operandi of detractors to defeat this seemingly commonsense proposal: irrelevant and chop-logic statistics about women's job compensation levels, unisex bathroom fears, reduced job opportunity scares – even a return to housing discrimination – anything to cloud the issue and prevent the voting public from expressing its true feelings about state-sponsored preferential treatment. I suppose establishment organizations each have their own reasons for opposing color- and gender-blind restrictions. Businesses have become used to the status quo, and most likely fear the return of costly civil rights litigation – it is easiest just to hire by the numbers. They will do what is in their best interests anyhow, so if achieving diversity is important to them, they can hire whomever they want. Liberal groups, public sector employees unions and the education establishment view affirmative action as a way to force statistical "equality" as another tool in their kit of social engineering remedies. No matter if this practice tramples the rights of others who do not belong to the preferred group. Minorities and women are, of course, in favor of what is essentially "cutting in line," as long as they can keep doing it with impunity. This explains the violent shouting down and threats on supposedly "diverse" college campuses when the proponents are invited to debate. Pace George Wallace, "Affirmative action now, tomorrow and forever." The general public has instinctively understood that affirmative action has always borne the stench of awarding admissions or job preferences to those who might not be able to achieve them on their own merits. The use of this scheme to achieve pre-ordained racial or gender results seems no different than allowing the children of legacy alumni at colleges to sidestep the ordinary requirements for admission.
On a recent Detroit news program, Deborah Dingell, a member of Michigan's Democratic House committee and a leader in the opposition to Proposal 2, claimed with a straight face that passage of the initiative would "slam the door" in the face of women and not allow them to be hired strictly on their own merits or to be paid comparably with men. Dingell, the wife of powerful U.S. Congressman John Dingell (D.-Mich.), was awarded a high executive position with General Motors many years ago. Did anyone ask, with delicious irony, if she needed affirmative action? Barrett Kalellis is a Michigan-based columnist, writer and pundit for NewsMax.com, whose articles appear regularly in various local and national print and online publications.
Editor's note:
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Print Page 
Forward Page 
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2008 NewsMax.Com |