Words

A couple of days ago I wrote (MCRI: Defiance Failed; Obfuscation Begins) that

the forces that tried unsuccessfully to keep [the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative] off the ballot have turned their efforts to a combination of alarmism and obfuscation, i.e., to an attempt to have the proposal worded in such a way as to distort its true meaning in order to scare people away from it.

The Michigan Board of Canvassers will meet shortly to approve the language that will go on the November ballot, and both supporters and opponents have submitted proposed language to the board. It is quite revealing.

Jennifer Gratz, director of MCRI, emailed me the language that her group, sponsors of the proposal, submitted, as well as proposals from BAMN and One United Michigan, which oppose. The ballot will contain the proposal itself and a brief explanation. First, the MCRI proposed language:

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO PROHIBIT PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OR DISCRIMINATION BY STATE GOVERNMENT

The proposal would amend the state constitution to prohibit preferential treatment or discrimination by state government, state universities, colleges, community colleges, school districts, counties and local governments to any individual or group based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.

Short, sweet, clear, accurate.

Now here’s BAMN’s proposal:

A PROPOSAL TO IMMEDIATELY BAN ALL AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, EQUAL OPPORTUNITY OR INTEGRATION PROGRAMS FOR WOMEN OR MINORITIES BY ANY STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

The proposal would amend the Michigan Constitution to:

Immediately ban all affirmative action, equal opportunity or integration programs that consider race, sex, color or national origin in:

• The recruitment, selection, admission or retention of students in any state university or college or in any local school district
• The recruitment, hiring, training or employment of any person by and state or local authority; or
• The awarding of contracts by any state or local authority.

Wow! BAMN proposes language not only to ban “all” affirmative action programs, whether they employ racial preference or not, but also all “equal opportunity or integration programs”! [UPDATE: As Jennifer Gratz points out in a comment below, the ballot language is merely descriptive. It is not what would be enacted into law. Thus, the previous sentence should have said that BAMN’s proposed language claims that MCRI would aboliish all equal opportunity programs, etc. — jsr].

It has long and widely been reported that BAMN was formed by the Revolutionary Workers League, a radical Trotskyist splinter group (see here and here, for examples), but this language almost makes you wonder if they haven’t been taken over by David Duke or the KKK. Although they will claim that they propose this language to reveal the “true nature” of MCRI so that people will vote against it, maybe they actually want to outlaw all “equal opportunity and integration programs.”

Here is the proposed language from One United Michigan, sort of BAMN lite:

A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO IMMEDIATELY ELIMINATE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS FOR WOMEN AND MINORITIES IN STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND PROHIBIT THEM IN THE FUTURE.

The proposal would amend the state constitution to immediately prohibit governments in Michigan, including state universities, colleges, community colleges, school districts, counties and local governments, from using any affirmative action and outreach programs in the operation of public employment, public education, public contracting, health care services or community policing, defined as those programs intended to foster diversity by offering consideration to an individual based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin as one of many factors among otherwise qualified individuals. The proposal would amend the Civil Rights article of the Michigan State Constitution.

I continue to find it odd, and revealing, that proponents of racial preferences define “civil rights” as racial preference. They literally cannot conceive of civil rights as non-discriminatory equal treatment.

Finally, under court order the state itself has proposed language. Michigan Secretary of State Bureau of Elections Director Chris Thomas has sent the following language to the board of canvassers:

A proposal to amend the state constitution 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. The proposed constitutional amendment would:

• Ban 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. Public institutions affected by the proposal include state government, local governments, public colleges and universities, community colleges and school districts.
• Prohibit public institutions from discriminating against groups or individuals due to their gender, ethnicity, race, color or national origin. (A separate provision of the state constitution already prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin.)
• Should this proposal be adopted? Yes No

Although this proposal is certainly far better than that proposed by BAMN and One United Michigan, I think it has serious problems that I hope MCRI supporters will have the chance to address.

It is presented as a “proposal to amend the state constitution to ban affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment….” (Emphasis added). It would “[b]an public institutions from using affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment….” Fine, but would it also ban preferential treatment in programs that were not defined as “affirmative action programs”?

Call me paranoid, but how much of a stretch is it to imagine Mary Sue Coleman, president of the University of Michigan, or one of her race managers explaining, “Oh, your honor, our taking race into account in our admissions is not an affirmative action program at all. It is a diversity-enhancing program!”

Finally, I think it is altogether fitting and proper to give the last word on this matter (at least in this post) to Jennifer Gratz, who has done such an incredibly fine job steering MCRI toward its appearance on the Michigan ballot. In an eloquent OpEd in the Lansing State Journal today, she writes:

Much has been made recently of the use of words in MCRI’s effort to secure enough petition signatures to put this question before voters. We use “civil rights” in our name because we believe that civil rights belong to everyone, regardless of race or gender. Our opponents call this deceptive and would position themselves as the arbiters of who can use such language.

Still, others worry, misguidedly, that our ballot proposal would end affirmative action programs in Michigan. It won’t. There is nothing affirmative about a state-sanctioned policy that gives special preference to one group and not to another because of race or gender. Such policies do nothing but further calcify the chasms already separating communities in Michigan.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor put it best when she wrote in Grutter v. Bollinger that “race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time.” MCRI and the more than 500,000 Michigan residents who signed our petitions believe the time is now.

We cannot un-ring the bell of racial intolerance and oppression that has created chords of disharmony simply by changing which group now is the subject of discrimination. Equal treatment under the law are words understood by all.

That’s the point behind MCRI’s ballot initiative, and it is one that people of Michigan are qualified to debate civilly and decide in the most democratic way possible – in the voting booth.