Posted on 08/20/2006 6:51:53 PM PDT by Westlander
The effort to put an anti-affirmative-action proposal before Michigan voters was wrought with fraud and should be blocked from the November ballot, lawyers for the proposal's opponents argued in federal court Friday.
But lawyers representing the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative and state elections officials told U.S. District Judge Arthur Tarnow that voters would be harmed if they're not allowed to decide whether to ban race and gender preferences in government hiring and public-university admissions in Michigan.
(Excerpt) Read more at clickondetroit.com ...
It's simple: Are we all going to be equal before the law or not? Are we going to use racial stereotypes (like white guys have had everything handed to them) to base our laws on or not? Are we going to deny people chances on the basis of race (and lack of dark skin) or not?
From Keith Butler's site
"I do not support quotas or set aside programs for anyone. However, after much study of this issue, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot support Ward Connerly's proposal. I have come to the conclusion that his proposal goes too far and has hidden unintended consequences.
Let's be clear, the U.S. Supreme Court in its decisions concerning the University of Michigan outlawed the use of added points for minority applicants. Regarding the University of Michigan Law School, the U.S. Supreme Court said that an applicant's life circumstances could be evaluated in determining admissions. President George Bush praised the decision saying, "I applaud the Supreme Court for recognizing the value of diversity on our Nation's campuses. Diversity is one of America's greatest strengths." I agree with President Bush and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ward Connerly's proposal will not end discrimination in Michigan. His proposal will not end or outlaw, cronyism, favoritism, `Legacy' admissions, geographic discrimination, or athletic preferences.
This proposal will however terminate many worthwhile programs including, any Michigan program that aims to increase opportunities for women including recruitment, training, and outreach programs in public education and employment.
Efforts to hire more women for certain jobs would be banned. Programs aimed at attracting women to specific educational areas like science or nursing would be banned. Same sex classes for young girls would be banned. Summer job programs, fair housing and lending programs, apprentice programs or any gender-based program for training or outreach would be banned under this proposal. And these restrictions would be put into the state constitution.
This proposal is wrong for Michigan. We still live in a society where some among us still need assistance. We do not need quotas or set-asides for anyone, but is it wrong to encourage young girls to take math and science courses? Is it wrong to support a program that encourages young black men to go to college? Is it wrong to encourage single mothers to complete their education? I don't believe it is."
I guess the people are allowed to decide *only* when they're likely to decide.....wisely.
That's pretty much what the USSC decided in the Michigna Law School case, where "life circumstances" CAN be considered....that means, if you have not been irresponsible (aka, a "victim" of society), you don't get extra consideration.
Isn't "affirmative action" just another way of saying, "racial profiling?"
"In Michigan,leftists want to keep "affirmative action" off the ballot and in Massachusetts leftists want to keep homosexual "marriage" off the ballot."
Well, They wont keep it off the ballot, and it will pass in November. It will be one more thing the liberals can whine about.
How many times have they already tried and failed to get this off the ballot in court?
Lawyers argue over everything! They'd argue over whether the sky was blue if they could get enough people to pay them $400/hour to do it.
Your points would be valid if your concepts were allowed the other way. Example can a scholarship be givened to white males only to redress a certain social problem? Under our current system (with or without AA) it would be demonized and deemed illegal,. If white male only programs are illegal, guess what all other programs should be illegal.
> This proposal will however terminate many worthwhile programs including, any Michigan program that aims to increase opportunities for women including recruitment, training, and outreach programs in public education and employment.
Efforts to hire more women for certain jobs would be banned. Programs aimed at attracting women to specific educational areas like science or nursing would be banned. Same sex classes for young girls would be banned. Summer job programs, fair housing and lending programs, apprentice programs or any gender-based program for training or outreach would be banned under this proposal. And these restrictions would be put into the state constitution.
This proposal is wrong for Michigan. We still live in a society where some among us still need assistance. We do not need quotas or set-asides for anyone, but is it wrong to encourage young girls to take math and science courses? Is it wrong to support a program that encourages young black men to go to college? Is it wrong to encourage single mothers to complete their education? I don't believe it is."<
Wrong - the law is supposed to treat us equally. Affirmative Action doesn't do that. You said so yourself. We're all supposed to be judged by the same standards - that's what a lot of civil rights leaders tell me anyway. But it's interesting that they believe the way to do that is by givign themselves special treatment.
From Keith Butler's site
These are not my words just a different perspective from Keith Bulter
Well, I disagree with him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.