Bro. Askia
New Member
From the Chicago Tribune
http://new.blackvoices.com/news/bv-...,0,2354659.story?coll=bv-news-black-headlines
New battle on affirmative action
Opponents plan to seek ban via vote in Michigan
By V. Dion Haynes
Tribune national correspondent
July 8 2003
LOS ANGELES -- Seeking to attack the Supreme Court decision that upheld affirmative action in higher education, the University of California regent who sponsored ballot initiatives dismantling racial preference programs in California and Washington plans on Tuesday to launch a similar measure in Michigan.
"The president isn't going to [dismantle affirmative action] and Congress isn't going to do it. We have no choice but to use the ballot box," said Ward Connerly, who is expected to announce the Michigan initiative in a news conference at the University of Michigan.
"We hope we can get a critical mass of states saying, `This isn't right,'" he added. "Then, hopefully, the president, Supreme Court and Congress will take the issue up again."
The high court decision of June 23 on University of Michigan admissions policies has not quelled the longstanding and divisive debate over affirmative action. Immediately after the ruling was handed down, affirmative action supporters in California and Washington began exploring how they might use the ballot to lift the bans on racial preference in admissions. And officials at the University of Texas and University of Georgia, whose court-ordered bans were lifted by the ruling, announced plans to reintroduce preference programs.
Now affirmative action opponents are appealing directly to voters in their attempt to block the Supreme Court ruling. Justices left the door open for this method, pointing out in their opinion that their ruling does not invalidate bans that states may want to impose on themselves.
Connerly's measure, tentatively called the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, is being prepared for the November 2004 ballot.
Amendment's wording
Like California's Proposition 209, Connerly said, the Michigan measure would amend the state constitution yet not mention the phrase "affirmative action." Patterned after the wording of 209, the measure would spell out that the state could not "discriminate against or provide preferential treatment to individuals or groups on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin" in the awarding of jobs, school admissions and contracting work.
But the proposal could have a key difference. Connerly said he is considering adding a clause that also would prohibit schools from using so-called legacy preferences in their admissions policies, that is, awarding points to the children of alumni.
The legacy policies have been criticized mainly by affirmative action supporters who say it is unfair for universities to ban racial preferences while maintaining the legacy preferences. Connerly said he led an effort on the University of California Board of Regents in 2000 to stop the practice of considering children of out-of-state alumni within the in-state pool of applicants.
"I think it's wrong for institutions to use the legacy policies," Connerly said. "Obviously, this is new territory and we're having our attorneys look at it."
The Supreme Court struck down the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy, which awarded 20 points for underrepresented minorities--blacks, Hispanics and American Indians. But the high court upheld the school's law school admissions policies, which use race as one of several factors when evaluating applications.
An opinion poll taken early this year indicated that 63 percent of Michigan residents were opposed to the University of Michigan's affirmative action policies--not necessarily meaning that they would support a ban on all preference programs.
Still, affirmative action opponents are energized by the prospect of a nationwide movement targeting the policies at the ballot box. The opponents are talking about launching similar measures in the 20 or so states--as well as several cities and counties--that allow the introduction of citizen initiatives.
Some of the states and communities that they are considering include North Dakota, South Dakota, Missouri, Colorado, Allegheny County in Pennsylvania, and Ft. Lauderdale, Orlando and Tampa in Florida.
Targeting the states
"This should be an effort in which more than one state is targeted," said Edward Blum, senior fellow at the Center for Equal Opportunity, based in Sterling, Va.
"It's important for people to understand that the Supreme Court took something away from them," Blum added. "The only way to get it back is to go city by city, county by county and state by state."
Julie Peterson, a spokeswoman at the University of Michigan, expressed displeasure over the proposed ballot initiative.
"The Supreme Court rendered a wise, fair and balanced decision on how universities may appropriately use affirmative action in assembling a student body that is both academically excellent and racially diverse," Peterson said.
Connerly, who is African-American, began his quest to dismantle affirmative action in 1995, when he persuaded the University of California Board of Regents to ban racial preferences in admissions. He has argued that preferences violate the U.S. Constitution and stigmatize minorities by giving the impression that they are less qualified.
The next year, California voters approved the statewide ban on affirmative action. In 1998, Washington state voters approved Initiative 200, which was modeled on Proposition 209.
Those measures sparked racial divisions in the states. Connerly, who founded an anti-affirmative action organization, the American Civil Rights Institute, now is sponsoring another proposal in California called the Racial Privacy Initiative.
The initiative, which would either go on the ballot this fall or in March 2004, seeks to stop government agencies from collecting racial data on residents and classifying them by race and ethnicity. Exempted from the proposal would be police departments and hospitals as well as agencies that collect the data for the federal government.
The proposal has been blasted by civil rights groups and scholars, who fear the lack of data would hamper efforts to monitor racial disparities and discrimination.
Meanwhile, Connerly and others involved in the Michigan effort said they plan to establish a local group to raise the money to finance the campaign and collect the more than 250,000 signatures needed to qualify the measure.
Copyright ? 2003, The Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/
http://new.blackvoices.com/news/bv-...,0,2354659.story?coll=bv-news-black-headlines
New battle on affirmative action
Opponents plan to seek ban via vote in Michigan
By V. Dion Haynes
Tribune national correspondent
July 8 2003
LOS ANGELES -- Seeking to attack the Supreme Court decision that upheld affirmative action in higher education, the University of California regent who sponsored ballot initiatives dismantling racial preference programs in California and Washington plans on Tuesday to launch a similar measure in Michigan.
"The president isn't going to [dismantle affirmative action] and Congress isn't going to do it. We have no choice but to use the ballot box," said Ward Connerly, who is expected to announce the Michigan initiative in a news conference at the University of Michigan.
"We hope we can get a critical mass of states saying, `This isn't right,'" he added. "Then, hopefully, the president, Supreme Court and Congress will take the issue up again."
The high court decision of June 23 on University of Michigan admissions policies has not quelled the longstanding and divisive debate over affirmative action. Immediately after the ruling was handed down, affirmative action supporters in California and Washington began exploring how they might use the ballot to lift the bans on racial preference in admissions. And officials at the University of Texas and University of Georgia, whose court-ordered bans were lifted by the ruling, announced plans to reintroduce preference programs.
Now affirmative action opponents are appealing directly to voters in their attempt to block the Supreme Court ruling. Justices left the door open for this method, pointing out in their opinion that their ruling does not invalidate bans that states may want to impose on themselves.
Connerly's measure, tentatively called the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, is being prepared for the November 2004 ballot.
Amendment's wording
Like California's Proposition 209, Connerly said, the Michigan measure would amend the state constitution yet not mention the phrase "affirmative action." Patterned after the wording of 209, the measure would spell out that the state could not "discriminate against or provide preferential treatment to individuals or groups on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin" in the awarding of jobs, school admissions and contracting work.
But the proposal could have a key difference. Connerly said he is considering adding a clause that also would prohibit schools from using so-called legacy preferences in their admissions policies, that is, awarding points to the children of alumni.
The legacy policies have been criticized mainly by affirmative action supporters who say it is unfair for universities to ban racial preferences while maintaining the legacy preferences. Connerly said he led an effort on the University of California Board of Regents in 2000 to stop the practice of considering children of out-of-state alumni within the in-state pool of applicants.
"I think it's wrong for institutions to use the legacy policies," Connerly said. "Obviously, this is new territory and we're having our attorneys look at it."
The Supreme Court struck down the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy, which awarded 20 points for underrepresented minorities--blacks, Hispanics and American Indians. But the high court upheld the school's law school admissions policies, which use race as one of several factors when evaluating applications.
An opinion poll taken early this year indicated that 63 percent of Michigan residents were opposed to the University of Michigan's affirmative action policies--not necessarily meaning that they would support a ban on all preference programs.
Still, affirmative action opponents are energized by the prospect of a nationwide movement targeting the policies at the ballot box. The opponents are talking about launching similar measures in the 20 or so states--as well as several cities and counties--that allow the introduction of citizen initiatives.
Some of the states and communities that they are considering include North Dakota, South Dakota, Missouri, Colorado, Allegheny County in Pennsylvania, and Ft. Lauderdale, Orlando and Tampa in Florida.
Targeting the states
"This should be an effort in which more than one state is targeted," said Edward Blum, senior fellow at the Center for Equal Opportunity, based in Sterling, Va.
"It's important for people to understand that the Supreme Court took something away from them," Blum added. "The only way to get it back is to go city by city, county by county and state by state."
Julie Peterson, a spokeswoman at the University of Michigan, expressed displeasure over the proposed ballot initiative.
"The Supreme Court rendered a wise, fair and balanced decision on how universities may appropriately use affirmative action in assembling a student body that is both academically excellent and racially diverse," Peterson said.
Connerly, who is African-American, began his quest to dismantle affirmative action in 1995, when he persuaded the University of California Board of Regents to ban racial preferences in admissions. He has argued that preferences violate the U.S. Constitution and stigmatize minorities by giving the impression that they are less qualified.
The next year, California voters approved the statewide ban on affirmative action. In 1998, Washington state voters approved Initiative 200, which was modeled on Proposition 209.
Those measures sparked racial divisions in the states. Connerly, who founded an anti-affirmative action organization, the American Civil Rights Institute, now is sponsoring another proposal in California called the Racial Privacy Initiative.
The initiative, which would either go on the ballot this fall or in March 2004, seeks to stop government agencies from collecting racial data on residents and classifying them by race and ethnicity. Exempted from the proposal would be police departments and hospitals as well as agencies that collect the data for the federal government.
The proposal has been blasted by civil rights groups and scholars, who fear the lack of data would hamper efforts to monitor racial disparities and discrimination.
Meanwhile, Connerly and others involved in the Michigan effort said they plan to establish a local group to raise the money to finance the campaign and collect the more than 250,000 signatures needed to qualify the measure.
Copyright ? 2003, The Chicago Tribune
http://www.chicagotribune.com/