In an article today the Catholic News Service joined the crowd of those who claim that the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative “would make it illegal for institutions that receive public funds to practice affirmative action in hiring and admissions.”
As the text of the MCRI ballot proposal clearly states, it would ban
affirmative action programs that grant preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethicity, and national origin in public employment, public education and public contracting.
Thus it would leave untouched any affirmative action program that does not employ racial or ethnic preferences.
The article also declares flatly that
Affirmative action is the use of gender and race data in hiring and admissions for the purpose of giving qualified women and minorities equal opportunity. Many public institutions in the state rely on affirmative action to maintain diversity and fairness for women and minorities in workplaces and on school campuses.
You might think that fairness and accurace would require the reporters at least to acknowledge that affirmative action, as defined in the presidential executive orders by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson implementing it, meant exactly the opposite, a requirement that “affirmative action” be taken to ensure that people be treated “without regard” to race. Nor does this arbitrary definition acknowledge the argument of MCRI supporters that racial preference and “equal opportunity” are incompatible; the essence of racial preferences is precisely not treating people of different races and ethnicities the same.
The article also quotes some Catholic worthies:
“As people of faith, we are obliged to pray and work for our society to overcome the past and present effects of discrimination,” said Msgr. Robert McClory, chancellor of the Archdiocese of Detroit, at an April 6 press conference in metro Detroit for One United Michigan.
“We look with hope for the day when the effects of discrimination will be overcome,” he added. “Sadly, that day has not yet arrived and therefore we oppose this ballot proposal.”
Of course, the University of Michigan wisely refused to defend its racial preferences using Msgr. McClory’s argument, since the courts have rejected this defense.
At least the obfuscation in Michigan is ecumenical.
Can the church still use affirmative action in hiring priests?
Actus, I do think it is kind of funny that a church that has segregated exclusive priveleges based on gender would even want to be seen on this issue (maybe that’s why though – this will buy them some lack of grief from the left on that issue).
John,
I thought of blogging this. My take was how remarkably “originalist” in its definition of “affirmative action” the church was. Each of the quotes in the press release I agree with. Those are exactly the types of “affirmative action,” I, and MCRI, support, and would continue to allow. The Catholic position seems to be that enforcement of anti-discrimination law is proper, and the only flaw in the argument is that MCRI would somehow (miraculously) prevent that.
“Actus, I do think it is kind of funny that a church that has segregated exclusive priveleges based on gender would even want to be seen on this issue (maybe that’s why though – this will buy them some lack of grief from the left on that issue).”
Once you get over hteir bigotries, they can be surprisingly good on social justice.
Actus, that has to be the most amazing statement of liberal principle I’ve ever heard from you. Sounds like what you’ve done with Robert Byrd, that Democratic Senator (?) who was a klansman.
“Once you get over hteir [sic] bigotries, they can be surprisingly good on social justice.”
So Actus, this really isn’t about equality, its about your political agenda. As long as they ally themselves mostly with your side, their good?
Well, its understandable if the Catholic Church is confused about the permissible uses of affirmative action. That’s because the officials at UM are too.
On April 12 in a New York Times story about the use of DNA tests to legitimize claims for minority preferences, Lester Monts, Senior Provost at UM said this:
“If someone appears to be white and then finds out they are not, they haven’t experienced the kinds of things that affirmative action is supposed to remedy,” said Lester Monts, senior vice provost for student affairs at the University of Michigan, which won the right to use race as a factor in admissions in a 2003 Supreme Court decision.”
Apparently Lester didnt get the memo that affirmative action is only to be used to promote “diversity”, not to “remedy” past wrongs inflicted by now dead people on other now dead people.
“So Actus, this really isn’t about equality, its about your political agenda. As long as they ally themselves mostly with your side, their good?”
If they do good they’re good. Its not such a hard credo to live by.