In the post below, you'll notice that I've cross-posted the subject to my new blog EqualityTalk.com. EqualityTalk is MORE THAN A BLOG THOUGH.

It's also a "Wiki". The purpose is to act as a clearinghouse and knowledgebase of race issues. I strongly encourage all my readers to help out and make entries, particularly about your own biographies and areas you are particularly involved. This is a long-term project - equipped with a technology - that I think has great potential.

EqualityTalk was originally designed to be a forum, but the forum technology just hasn't taken hold. So I've gone to a traditional WordPress blog - but I'd love to have two or three other co-moderators, so feel free to apply to me in person. ET is also non-partisan, although my position on the issue is clear, I would still accept moderators of any perspective as long as I deem them to be civil, respectful and someone I can work with. Anyone can participate on the comments forum, as well.

Finally, this allows me to do something I've wanted to do for a long-time. Split my blogging so that it has more topic focus. ET allows me to move all my race, gender, and equality traffic into a logical place, while keeping my Michigan politics angle here (and that may move, since this blog is still not that focused). So check both blogs if you're a regular reader, and add ET to your feed if possible. Also, add to the wiki.

Cross-posted at EqualityTalk.com (see next post for announcement).

Joining the pantheon of weird, and bad, arguments against anti-preference ballot initiatives, is this attempt to paint the Curator (like a Regent) of the University of Missouri and lawyer for the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative (MoCRI) as having a "conflict of interest" or being ineligible to represent MoCRI in court because he's on the board of control. The Columbia Missourian covers it here:

As a University of Missouri curator, David Wasinger has sworn to uphold affirmative action laws in hiring and admissions at the system’s four campuses.

As a private attorney, Wasinger and a colleague are aiding the effort to persuade voters in 2008 to dismantle racial and gender preferences in public employment, contracting and education.

Opponents of the anti-affirmative action proposal, known as the Missouri Civil Rights Initiative, call Wasinger’s involvement a conflict of interest that also damages the university’s credibility.

“This is an initiative that can do harm to the university and its admissions policy,” said Jim Kottmeyer, a Democratic political activist. “Yet you’ve got a curator out there representing the group.”

First, I doubt he's "sworn to uphold affirmative action laws" specifically, although even as a lawyer he's sworn to uphold them. Since MoCRI has no conflict with "affirmative action laws," its irrelevant anyway. Nonetheless, the curator is not using his title for the initiative, and you'd think from this argument that his status as curator strips him of his private First Amendment rights. Whether the initiative harms or helps the university is a matter of opinion, of course, but it doesn't matter either way.

Even the newspaper gets it right in the rare obvious editorial moment:

The curators’ conflict-of-interest policy prohibits members from voting or “attempting to influence the decision of the university” on any issues that would result in “material ... or personal financial gain.”

Under that standard, Wasinger’s dual duties would seem acceptable, barring a curator vote to support or oppose the ballot proposal.

Ah, but reality means nothing, as:

But the perception of undue influence remains, said Gwen Grant, president of the Urban League of Greater Kansas City.

“If it’s not a conflict of interest, it certainly smells like one,” she said.

Perception of conflicts of interest can be an important issue, but "perception" is too broad and malleable to allow it to take over your life. If it did, no one would do anything on this issue because opponents "perceptions" are so outrageous and detached from reality.

(in the world of academia, as this argument here proves, the reality is that you must support preferences and there is no other option)

The question I have to ask is: if someone working for or another curator of the university works to oppose the initiative, is that a conflict of interest? Will the Democrat leaders complaining here insist on their neutrality?

Peter Schmidt, a deputy editor at the Chronicle of Higher Education, has written a new book entitled "Color and Money: How Rich White Kids Are Winning the War over College Affirmative Action," which is due to be released in early August. The link above and Amazon ad now in the right bar provide further detail, and while ZR earns a referral fee through Amazon, clicking it does not obligate you to purchase (although ZR would be happy if you chose to do so, and, in general, would be happy if you used us as an "Amazon portal" whenever you choose to use their or their affiliates like Office Depot, etc., online services).

Schmidt has been the Chronicle's "beat" reporter on affirmative action since well before the Michigan lawsuits were concluded, and is considered by both sides of the debate to be a neutral and unbiased resource on the topic. As such, he is a rare and valuable resource, and ZR looks forward to reviewing the book. His website "Color and Money" also provides details, along with a chapter-by-chapter listing of the content, which appears exhaustive.

Through my trusty "FOIA subscription" (FOIA confers a right to receive all regularly created future issuances of public records) to the Michigan Civil Rights Commission's press releases, I received this gem of arrogance from this afternoon. Before you start crying at contradictions, follow me through the next page teaser.

For Release: June 29, 2007

Contacts:
Trevor Coleman, Director of Communications Harold Core, Public Information Officer
Detroit: 313-456-3790 Lansing: 517-373-8787 Lansing: 517-241-3986

Michigan Department of Civil Rights Responds To Supreme Court Ruling

Read more »

Gordon Trowbridge of the Detroit News reports on this outrageous reaction of rage against Leon Drolet for being appointed to the Michigan advisory board of the US Commission on Civil Rights. The Michigan Civil Rights Commission apparently doesn't like Leon:

A statement issued Monday by the Michigan Department of Civil Rights said: "By selecting a candidate with a one-issue civil rights platform at odds with every established civil rights organization, the U.S. Commission has all but erased its credibility as a proponent for civil rights."

Note the Commission's reason - "selecting a candidate ... at odds with every establish civil rights organizations". So if you're position is at odds with the "establishment" - regardless of its soundness or the people's will or even whether we should simply have 11 member boards that have some people with differences of opinion.

My gosh - the USCCR appointed an 11 member board with REAL "diversity" and the loudest advocates for fake and controlled diversity complain. They complain because they can't control it.

It's even wierder though. Kary Moss was offered a position on the board. She refused. Apparently, if the civil rights landscape isn't owned by those agreeing with her, she has to take her marbles home.

Kary Moss, state director of the American Civil Liberties Union, was among those Marcus named as new members, but she told The News on Monday she would not serve -- because of bureaucratic confusion over selections and disagreement with Bush administration policies.

Drolet said he hoped to work well with members with different philosophies. "I hope this appointment means a growing awareness of how we see civil rights," he said. "We've got to get away from lumping people into groups."

Notice the difference between Drolet and Moss. Moss won't work with the other "selections" (Drolet) and won't accept an appointment by Bush, while Drolet wants to work with "members of different philosophies." That's a huge difference in philosophy.

Moss would have been more effective accepting the appointment and at least trying to work with people - rather than crying because her team isn't dominating the debate anymore (although they still have plenty of voice).

Is this ever ironic. Especially for regular readers of ZR.

The Michigan Civil Rights Commission issued this odd press release on 5-21. Their releases come straight to ZR's inbox:

Civil Rights Department Affirms Right To File Complaints Without Retaliation

Lansing, MI * The Michigan Department of Civil Rights (MDCR) released the following statement today in response to a report issued last Wednesday by the Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC) recommending the suspension of Lansing Judge Beverly Nettles-Nickerson.

“While neither the Commission nor Department has any current involvement or legal interest in the matter involving Judge Nettles-Nickerson, it is imperative to clarify that the legal right of Michigan residents and visitors to file complaints with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights is protected. Both the Elliott-Larsen and Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Acts explicitly provide protection from acts of retaliation for civil rights activity, including filing a complaint with MDCR.

It is our sincere hope that the JTC did not intend to imply that Judge Nettles-Nickerson should be disciplined in any way for exercising her right to file a civil rights complaint if she believed that she was being subjected to illegal discrimination. A suspension for filing an allegation of illegal discrimination would violate state and federal civil rights laws designed to protect those who stand up against discrimination from any acts of retaliation. Such a message from a legal authority would have a chilling effect on the state’s ability to protect persons who legitimately believe they may be victims of illegal discrimination.

While we take no position on the veracity of any fact claimed by any party in this matter, we ask the Judicial Tenure Commission to amend its complaint to clarify that they are not seeking to discipline Judge Nettles-Nickerson for the act of filing her complaint with the Michigan Civil Rights Commission and Department.

We further call upon the Supreme Court and any appointed Special Master to clarify that, regardless of what decision they may ultimately reach in this matter, their ruling is in no way predicated upon the protected act of filing a complaint with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights."

I mean, who could be for allowing retaliation against people who file complaints?

But what if the complaint is provably fraud? Whoa. Isn't this the same Commission that chastised the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) for alleged-signature-gathering "fraud" (even as it agreed in March 2007 with the premise of MCRI arguments about the limitations of Proposal 2, thereby contradicting the substance of its previous fraud allegations) and declared that it had the right to investigate such fraud. And if a sitting Judge corruptly abuses the Commission by filing a fraudulent complaint against her cohorts, shouldn't she be disciplined as a result? The Commission "takes no position on the veracity of any fact" claimed by anyone ... yet it takes a position that the complaint is entitled to unlimited deference? If I file a frivolous lawsuit - or commit perjury, I'm going to face a serious set of consequences. So too should someone who abuses the Commission's process, if it is provably the case that it was knowingly abused.

Read more »

You almost think these guys have changed sides. Here, in this Detroit Free Press guest op-ed, Commissioners on the Michigan Civil Rights Commission (MCRC) Lind Parker and Mohammed Abdrabboh write this shocker:

At the heart of both Proposal 2 and the idea of affirmative action is the concept that greater and more widespread opportunity is better for everyone.

You’d think that until you saw this:

Eligibility for these funds typically requires the establishment and documentation of procedures to ensure inclusion in opportunities related to public contracting, employment and education.

We confirmed that such procedures most often do not require preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.

Of course, we have yet to see the evidence of such federal requirements, despite the 64-page report there is no attachment that seems to show that.

The Michigan Information and Research Service (MIRS) provides a daily inside-Michigan politics newsletter based out of Lansing, and is one of the best news sources for in-depth coverage of issues and events. It does have a significant subscription fee, but I recommend it for anyone who makes politics a business and can afford it. Where-ever MIRS, or its competitor Gongwer, appear, you will get the most in-depth reporting possible in the Michigan media (that's partially because of its format and focus, of course).

This article was forwarded to me as a fair use, and I post it in that vein as part of a larger analysis of Wednesday's events (spread out over several upcoming posts) and since it directly deals with ZR. The pictures are mine, and viewable at Flickr (TM), and add a visual narrative to the events (the entire collection at my flickr account here). I will shortly be adding full audio of the meeting and the very interesting exchange between Mark Bernstein, the Commission, and myself.

The article is the best media publication to capture the events of the meeting of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission (MCRC) to release its Proposal 2 impact study. Note how the Commission is caught up in its own contradictions on the treatment of speakers issue, as well as its other contradictions in the report and generally over time:

CRC Finds Most Programs Unaffected By Prop 2

The Michigan Civil Rights Commission (CRC) this morning approved a report to Gov. Jennifer GRANHOLM that essentially found that only 18 percent of state department and agency-level diversity programs might be in "jeopardy" under Proposal 2 — the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) that voters approved overwhelmingly last fall.

The 66-page reported titled "One Michigan" at the Crossroads: An Assessment of the Impact of Proposal 06-02 By the Michigan Civil Rights Commission was completed by staff attorneys in the Department of Civil Rights (DCR) at the request of the Governor.

In requesting the report, the Governor had asked for a review of the impact of Proposal 2 on existing state programs and how the state might continue to pursue the goal of encouraging and maintaining diversity.

"Following an exhaustive review of all state laws and programs, we've crafted a recommendation that we feel will allow us to promote diversity while complying with the new law," said Mohammed ABDRABBOH, chair of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission.

In detailing the report, Michigan DCR Director Linda PARKER told the Commission that the MCRI (Proposal 2) does not eliminate all Affirmative Action programs.

"Only those that discriminate and grant preferential treatment [are banned]," said Parker. "This proposal does not end equal opportunity or the critical pursuit of diversity and inclusion in the state of Michigan."

Parker said a total of 17 state departments and six public agencies were reviewed. The Departments of State and Attorney General declined or did not respond to requests for interview and inclusion in the review.

Perhaps realizing that some might question the authority of the CRC to perform a legal review of state agency programs — an area that is the purview of the Office of the Attorney General — Parker noted that the report does not constitute legal advice.

"We are not stepping into the shoes of counsel for the State of Michigan," Parker explained. "It is important to note the mission of this Commission. This is a quasi-judicial body that receives its authority under the Constitution. It's on that basis that we submit this report."

Major findings of the report include:

- Only two of the agencies reviewed practice Affirmative Action or have Affirmative Action plans that discriminate or grant preferential treatment barred by the MCRI. Those are the Departments of Transportation and Environmental Quality, which are required to maintain those programs under federal funding requirements.

- A total of 45 state programs were reviewed. Of those, eight or 18 percent were viewed as possibly in conflict with the language of Proposal 2.

- Despite passage of Proposal 2, state agencies aren't barred from consideration of gender or ethnicity.

- State agencies may conduct outreach to groups based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin so long as that outreach is not exclusive to groups based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.

Parker noted that among the recommendations, the most significant from the report was to encourage state agencies whenever possible to seek federal funding. With federal funding comes requirements that Affirmative Action programs be utilized.

"We see a double win," explained Parker. "The opportunity to pursue federal funds and the ability to promote diversity." In the report, the department identified several sources of federal funds that can be pursued by the state.

In opening the meeting, Abdrabboh pointed to the examples of California and Washington. In the case of California, he noted that Proposition 209 under Republican Gov. Pete WILSON "implemented a series of sweeping cuts that resulted in decreases in minorities."

"Fortunately, California is so diverse, the sheer number helped ensure the most basic diversity," Abdrabboh explained. He pointed out that in Washington, the experience was much different because Democratic Gov. Gary LOCKE "like Gov. Granholm, understood the promotion of diversity in the state was a vital component."

Much like the political history of Proposal 2, today's meeting was not without controversy.

During the public comment section, Apaxu MAIZ teed off on Abdrabboh's comparison of how the governors of California and Washington dealt with similar proposals.

"Is this personality driven? I'd be very uncomfortable if this is an amendment that is subject to being personality driven," Maiz said, at one point appearing to seek a response from the Commission.

At that point, the Commission counsel told Maiz the public hearing portion of the meeting was for statement only.

Next, Chetly ZARKO, the former treasurer and media director for the MCRI, spoke. During his remarks, he was openly critical of the Commission and the "secret process this Commission used in developing this report and the illegal process the Commission used to investigate fraud last year."

Zarko argued that the Commission essentially flip-flopped its position from one year ago when they argued all programs dealing with gender or ethnicity would be barred under Proposal 2.

"This Commission made it very clear during the hearing process that everything was going to be impacted [by MCRI] and the sky is falling," Zarko said. "I think you're right to say that this doesn't impact all programs. I think you're right to say that diversity is valued. We've been saying that all along."

At one point, Commissioner Mark BERNSTEIN began to ask Zarko a series of questions aimed at the legal definitions used in Proposal 2 and whether Zarko felt the right to vote was a civil right.

"Yes it is," responded Zarko. "The First Amendment is a civil right as well."

As the questions went on, Maiz began to stand. After the exchange continued, he objected that it was unfair that the Commission wouldn't respond to him.

"Why is it good enough for him, but not me?" Maiz asked. The Commission's counsel then said the public comment is for the expression of opinion and the commission may respond if it sees fit.

"That's not what you said earlier," Maiz responded.

At that point, Zarko piped in that Maiz wasn't being treated fairly.

"The Commission neither considers nor prefers your input," Zarko said.

Obviously, the definitions of prefer and consider overlap (Venn diagram it) and he will fail with that linguistic trickery.

UPDATE: It dawns on me that I have not linked to the report itself. Here is the raw 64 page report itself., from the Commission website in PDF format.

ZR has been doing a bit of research on Constitutional Convention in Michigan, and this fascinating history at the Bentley Historical Library's online archive, written in 1996 by a U-M researcher, presents to us revelation after fascinating revelation of the process by which the Michigan Constitution's equal protection clause only contained reference to race and national origin and not to sex. This, of course, was a core issue to the anti-MCRI group 44 years later, and also represents evidence of a danger of Con-Cons (Constitutional Conventions).

When Proposal No. 26 came back to the convention for a third and final reading on May 7, Cudlip noted that Kelly, Joiner, and many lawyer delegates were "very much disturbed" at the action the convention had taken regarding the sex issue. Cudlip read from Kauper's letter to explain why all reference to sex as well as the Donnelly amendment should be dropped from Proposal No. 26. "Women," he said, "need to be discriminated against for their own benefit many, many times."

There was quite a debate in 62 about the issue, and Proposal 26 was originally lost by 4 votes. Kauper is a U-M Law Professor who was giving the Convention scholarly advice. At that time, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had not been passed, and there was no experience with its "bona fide" exception (segregated restrooms, lockerrooms, etc.).

But that's a remarkable quote in a remarkable time-frame.

The rest of the scholarly history goes on to discuss other issues of the Convention, notably the controversy over creating a state Civil Rights Commission like the US Commission that had recently been formed at that time. The Commission was created.

If there is another Convention in 2009 or 2011 (hopefully there isn't, but...), let's work to abolishing both the MCRC and the Board of Canvassers. Keep that in mind if you're on the left and think a Convention might be a good idea - you can be certain I'll be running for delegate if it happens.

The Michigan Daily has an interesting story speculating on the next state for a Civil Rights Initiative, modelled after CCRI, WCRI, and MCRI (California, Washington, and Michigan Civil Rights Initiatives).

Here's my analysis, cross-posted on their response section (UPDATE, as a reader correctly pointed out, I left the office before I realized neither Wisconsin or Texas were states allowing citizen initiatives. I errantly assumed the writer had researched this, which was a mistake I should not have made. There are 18 Constitutional amendment states - see here http://www.iandrinstitute.org/statewide_i&r.htm):

Florida is probably out because it has been tried there (in the infamous 2000 election year) and the infamous Florida Supreme Court pulled out an arcane and twisted ruling requiring petitioners to use roughly six petitions to get it through (the legal principle of not addressing "multiple objects" was applied, requiring a separate petition for race and gender and a separate petition for each of the public hiring, contracting, and education).

This was the result of, or following, Governor Jeb Bush's backing away from the plan (thinking it would protect George Bush in 2000), but only after he issued an executive order called "One Florida" which ended preferences in most of higher education. Although a weaker version of California, Washington, and Michigan, One Florida can be called a victory in most significant aspsects, so Florida is out.

Texas is off the list because it is not an initiative state, and Hopwood ended preferences there for many years, but when Grutter happened that legal ruling lost force. There has been serious talk in Texas of going back to preferences - for this reason, I'd consider some kind of legislative pressure there an important priority.

Wisconsin is off the list because it is not an initiative state, although legislative pressure would be nice since it is the home of the selective U-Wisconsin. Topping my list is Oregon, Arizona, and Colarado, in no particular order. Colorado's legislature narrowly (one vote) refused to pass similar legislation, and there is a strong base of supporters in Colorado. Colorado is also the home of the Adarand Construction company, which is famous for a strong US Supreme Court decision in the 90s on set-asides. It is also the home of Coors Brewing, which has been ridiculously savaged by opponents because the now-dead former owner donated to Connerly. That might present a difficult political dynamic. UPDATE: Other considerations - Nebraska, an initiative state with one moderately selective institution, Montanan only because it lost a Senate seat for the R's (although that makes it a better-timed candidate if the R's care at all in 2012) and has a tradition of petitioning, and Ohio, which would be a Michigan-sized target and of political interest to everyone in 2008 (this alone could bump them up to the top, or completely knock them off the list).

Oregon would present some operational considerations favorable to Ward Connerly, who is a few miles (well, quite a few, but 300 compared to Michigan's 2000 is a big difference) south of the border in Sacramento, and Arizona presents a similar situation, perhaps with slighly more selective law schools and undergraduate institutions.
[UPDATE: Legislative pressure should be applied in both Texas and Wisconsin to change the law through traditional legislation.]

(UPDATE, given my error in which states allow citizen initiatives, I'd say the front runners are Arizona, Oregon, and Colorado).

Earlier today I received an email from the public relations officer of the Michigan Civil Rights Commission and a statement on its behalf condemning the people's decision in passing Proposal 2 (MCRI, or the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative).

It's rather humorous, if not a bit contrived. Here it is entirely:

State of Michigan
Michigan Department of Civil Rights

For Release: November 08, 2006

Contacts:
Trevor Coleman, Director of Communications
Detroit: 313-456-3790 Lansing: 517-373-8787

Harold Core, Public Information Officer
Lansing: 517-241-3986

Michigan Civil Rights Commission and Department
Statement Regarding Proposal 2

Lansing, MI - Michigan Civil Rights Commission Chair Mark Bernstein and Michigan Department of Civil Rights Director Linda V. Parker today released the below statement regarding the outcome of the Proposal 2006-2 vote creating a Constitutional amendment banning affirmative action in Michigan.

"This is a very sad day for Michigan as our state has delivered a message on race, gender and equality that is deeply disturbing. It is unfortunate that affirmative action was presented to voters within a deliberately racial context that preyed upon the fear of Michiganians as opposed to the hopes created by the rich diversity of our state. The proponents of Prop 2 succeeded only in stoking the fires of racial miscommunication; they have worked to divide rather than unite Michigan.

In the coming weeks and months, we anticipate a variety of lawsuits from parties on both sides of this issue. Through these lawsuits, we will come to better understand the specific impact of this proposal. We can only hope that this impact does not harm our ability to harness the diversity of our human resources to the fullest extent; in preparation for the rich ethnicity of the emerging global economy.

Although deeply disappointed by the passage of Proposal 2, I am encouraged by the re-election of our Governor who remains committed to fairness, equity and diversity in our state. In the days ahead we will work closely with the Governor and legislature to continue to fight diligently for the residents of Michigan.

For more information on the Department of Civil Rights visit the Department's website at http://www.michigan.gov/mdcr."

###

Harold Core
Public Information Officer
Michigan Department of Civil Rights
(517) 241-3986

First, Proposal 2 didn't ban all "affirmative action," at most only "affirmative action" that involves preferential treatment. Second, it seems awfully contrived, as if they want to say we're going to break this law and we have the Governor on our side but weren't quite ready to say it directly. Third, this message itself I believe abuses the public trust and is a partisan (advocating for a particular Governor, and particular position on a ballot issue) misuse of public money.

Linked above is a One United Michigan's latest TV ad. It focuses on women, naturally, and tells a couple of gargantuan lies of omission. The most deceptive point comes when it shows a woman on a doctor's examination bed, and fades to both text and audio saying that "in California, breast and cervical cancer screenings were put at risk ... because they were for women only."

The key phrase there is "at risk" and the use of the past tense "were".

This is the classic political ad expanding a grain of truth into a mountain of untruth. The careful crafting "put at risk" derives from a strange lawsuit filed by a men's group that was QUICKLY DISMISSED AND THROWN OUT OF COURT several years ago. So, of course, such programs are no longer at risk, though through a stretch of imagination I suppose they were at a tiny risk equal to roughly the odds of a snowball surviving a hot fire. So, the passage has technical accuracy, but it omits the key truth that breast cancer screenings now have a case history on their side, along with common-sense and two firewalls of protection within MCRI's language (MCRI contains an exception permitting separations based on "bona-fide" physical differences, and MCRI only affects public HIRING, public CONTRACTING, & public EDUCATION, and thereby can't affect health care).

Detroit Free Press columnist Desiree Cooper writes a shameless, and nearly truthless, op-ed against MCRI appealing to the possibility of male preferences in nursing and our current nursing shortage. She begins with this pitch:

If you're an unemployed male autoworker, one day there might be a targeted program to help catapult you into a new career. But first, a proposal to ban affirmative action in Michigan must be defeated in November.

I love it. What a pitch - "one day" "there might be a targeted program" for you, if you're a "male autoworker." Talk about head fakes. Maybe women will read this and realize the danger to them in future preferences - a point this blog has particularly made in undergraduate education generally (not just nursing), since 55% of all university enrollees are now women because of a growing achievement gap faced by boys and men. That is, 75% of private universities currently give men preference, and public universities are hinting at it as we speak. In this way, MCRI could turn out to be a savior of women rights. But back to nursing.

Cooper throws out the current nursing shortage (and glut of autoworkers) in a desperate linkage:

Here's the deal: We have a surplus of autoworkers who, odds are, will never again have a stable career in the automotive industry. At the same time, there's a field that is in desperate need of new workers.

The field? Nursing. By 2015, the shortage of registered nurses in the state will reach 18,000, according to the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth.

Why not devise a way to affirmatively move the displaced autoworkers into the nursing profession?

Sure. Why not "affirmative move the displaced autoWORKERS" into nursing. Last I checked, autoworkers came in all genders, even if disproproportionately male (partly for those same social reasons that cause women to gravitate to nursing). In fact, that's a great idea. But what does it have to do with race or gender. Let's do outreach to displaced autoworkers - all of them - and encourage retraining into health care fields. In fact, only focusing on men would limit the pool that could fill our nursing shortage, and therefore a gender-specific program would be less-efficient. Of course, a Yes on MCRI - Proposal 2 would do nothing to stop this type of outreach, since it benefits everyone, even if disproportionately male or female.

But Cooper descends down the road of her own prejudice and condescension, as witnessed in her close:

Called the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, Proposal 2 is anything but. It seeks to end governmental preferences that take things like gender into consideration. If you vote yes on Proposal 2, you may not realize that you're calling for an end to countless gender-based programs that get state support, like those that target girls for medicine and boys for nursing and gender-focused programs for diseases like breast or prostrate cancer.

The term affirmative action often makes people think about race, but it's bigger than that.

Vote no on Proposal 2: If you don't want to think in black and white, at least think in pink and blue.

First, it's entirely untrue that MCRI would have any effect on programs for gender-specific diseases like breast and prostrate cancer. Both the "bona fide" physical differences exception built into the language and the fact it only affects public hiring, contracting, and education (not research or health care, look to California and you find these programs still in existence), protect those programs. "Targeting" boys and girls for specific professions would require some restructuring thought to insure inclusiveness, but the programs would not end. For example, encouraging boys to nursing and girls to doctoring or sciences could be done through a single poster or program that encouraged BOTH boys and girls into "non-traditional" fields. Our friends who love preferences though just don't want to spend the mental energy to think in such terms - which is indeed sad.

Second, if I used a phrase like "pink and blue" to stereotype men and women, I'd get lambasted. Cooper is perpetuating the very stereotypes she claims preferences help fight (of course, they perpetuate them) in that single sentence.

Every now and then I read a passage that gives me a chuckle. This one, in today's Detroit News article, "Religious leaders urge defeat of affirmative action initiative", by Gregg Krupa, did:

Speakers at the Bethany Baptist Church, on the west side, said the ballot proposal, if approved, would prevent blacks, women, Latinos, the disabled and others from opportunities in education and the workplace, and limit access to health care. They said it also would deprive white males from the benefits of an education in a diverse atmosphere, which speakers said is important in an increasingly diverse country.

What's remarkable about this passage is the ordering and way it is written. First, the "diversity" argument - that the "educational benefits" of diverse classrooms have an over-riding value - is what the US Supreme Court decided to "defer" to universities on, at least for 25 years. No where in American jurisprudence is the lack of preferences justified by it "preventing...opportunities" because, quite simply, not giving preference does not take away opportunities. Opportunity still exists sans preference - it's just something that one takes without governmental involvement. Indeed, a strong argument can be made that opportunity is stronger and more properly distributed without preference (that is, different opportunities). If MCRI genuinely took away opportunities (or as the passage riduculously and false asserts "limited access to health care", which is such a fabrication that it belongs in that fraud court right there with BAMN's allegations), I could understand opposition. But MCRI doesn't take away a thing - indeed, it guarantees non-discrimination on all levels.

But in this passage I particularly found the arrogance and racism of what is in that italicized passage. "White males" would be "deprived" of the benefits of "a diverse atmosphere." First, and again, I note that it follows as a distant second - almost an afterthought - justification. Second, the "educational benefit" to diversity is often couched in color-neutral terms - that is, the benefits accrue to all on campus. But the real truth is that they really are intended to socially-engineer the white population. And I note that its only the white males that are evil here - females at least need to be given the lip-service lie that they also receive preferences (they don't really, at least not substantially, and in the modern educational environment, females are grossly outperforming males anyway, so preferences for women are becoming increasingly absurd and anarchronistic). Of course, it is also not true that diversity itself has a magical "educational benefit" (for anyone), let alone one that derives only to those nasty little white males, but the way this is written nicely captures the underlying meaning of the what the diversity-forces really intend.

Dawson Bell of the Detroit Free Press reports here that By Any Means Necessary's (BAMN) appeal of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) signature collection process has been denied by the 6th Circuit.

The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals declined Monday to strike from Michigan's November ballot a proposal to ban affirmative action programs that provide preference to women and minorities.

That leaves one sole and last remedy for BAMN - the United States Supreme Court. Although I wouldn't mind seeing the case reach that location (it may just make it anyway if MCRI wins at the ballot box in an ex post facto attempt to repeal MCRI) since the Court might justifiably speak to the ballot language in MCRI's favor, but I would say the odds of that actually happening (cert being granted before the election) are as close to zero as a man landing on the moon tomorrow are. The main reason is BAMN's actual case in this iteration is that bad qualitatively, and the Supreme Court is slightly better than it was 3 years ago (although even O'Connor wouldn't have bought this one, as she not only "deferred" to university psuedo-science on diversity, but she also explicitly deferred to the lawful processes of the states, including voters in California and Washington.

So, with near certainty, I believe we can now say MCRI will appear on the November 7, 2006 ballot. Good luck. It's always been an uphill fight.