“End Race Preferences”: The fight continues in Michigan.

The debate over race and gender preferences is always an intense one. Proponents of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) believe that all people should be treated as equal individuals. We believe that any time a preference is given to an individual of one "race" over an individual of another "race," or to one gender over the other, treatment cannot be equal. We believe that all people should be judged based on character, merit, and accomplishments — not skin color or gender. I, for one, do not want to be given a preference over my brother solely because I am female — yet this is exactly what those who oppose the MCRI believe is necessary. Groups opposing the MCRI believe that preferences should be given to ensure "diversity" or to "level the playing field."
...
But instead of fulfilling their duty — and following the law — the board members chose not to certify the petition, on the grounds that some of the signers may not have understood what they were signing.

This is an unconscionable abuse of power, not merely because it flouts the law, but because it demonstrates a broader, malignant tendency toward a truly demeaning paternalism.
...
Right before the meeting of the Board of Canvassers began, one board member approached me and exclaimed that she found the MCRI shirts, which read "End Race Preferences," to be "anti-American." To which I respond: Denying people the right to vote, infringing on their right to freedom of speech and privacy of thought, and disregarding the rule of law and your oath as an elected official to uphold the Michigan constitution are the truly anti-American activities. They are as anti-American, in fact, as giving preferences to some groups while discriminating against others.

Same day, at NRO, by Anthony Dick: August 18, 2005, 8:31 a.m.

Uncivil “Civil-Rights” Group: BAMN vs. equality

The Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary — or BAMN, for short — is just as angry as its name suggests. In recent years, this radical group has done everything in its power to keep out of the hands of Michigan voters the decision on whether their state will continue to allow racial preferences in its public-hiring and college-admissions practices. And, true to its name, BAMN has employed tactics that are shameless, ruthless, and unrelenting.
...
In response, BAMN has only re-intensified its efforts. On July 19, BAMN bused in a teeming crowd of protesters to participate in an anti-MCRI demonstration at the statehouse in Lansing. During the demonstration, some of the less scrupulous BAMN protesters stormed into a nearby cafeteria and proceeded to loot it. The cafeteria — called the State Plate — is owned and operated by Patrick McGlinchey. In an interview with NRO, McGlinchey, who happens to be blind, estimated that the protesters who “stampeded” into his cafeteria caused him to lose between $300 and $500 worth of food and beverages. The Detroit Free Press later reported McGlinchey’s loss at approximately $600.
...
BAMN truly does believe that it is deceptive for opponents of racial preferences to call themselves civil-rights advocates. But the MCRI ballot and petition language could not be any clearer: It says plainly that the state and its agents “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” This text is on the petition that was freely signed by hundreds of thousands of Michigan’s citizens. The only deception comes from BAMN itself, whose spokesmen would have you believe that such equality under the law is incompatible with civil rights. The now-famous phrase “affirmative action” originated in 1965 in President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Executive Order 11246, which required government employers to “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” Notice that “without regard” bit at the end. What would BAMN have said about that?

Rosemont, I understand your sentiment; and while I think your point appears the most obvious one -- please do understand that are those who are white and fully FOR preferential affirmative action policies -- predicated upon the notion of, equally distasteful Farrakhan's ideology of separatism "40 acres and a mule".

But the issue is indeed larger.

Affirmative action did not begin as a racist or preferential "grants" program. It became such, nonetheless.

What it did become, IMHO, as relevant to today?

This thing called "multi-culturalism". America has always been "multi-cultural". So, when the term first arrived as spewed forth by lefties in their verbiage, I found it quite curious.

Over the years, I got to see that so-called "multi-culturalism" came with a a very harsh price tag.

I see no difference, really, between Cindy Sheehan's "moral absolutism" in re "grieving mother" -- and those so-called minorities being used via "moral absolutism" vis a vis the lefty hefty bag of "American Imperialism" abroad. You see, during the 80s and 90s, proponents of the ideology of preferential affirmative action ad nauseum invoked that only "blacks could speak for blacks; only women could speak for women; and now, only Cindy Sheehan can speak for grieving mothers of our honorable war dead. There was a moral "absolutism" allowed to exist under the rubric of "preferential affirmative action", the "minority" be given "preferences".

And through the use of "preferences" were many permitted to teach in colleges and universities -- not necessarily the subjects they were to teach in -- but to propound forth to youth minds a political ideology and flavor.

Therefore, I see preferential affirmative action as nothing more than a political tool used by an Anti-American coalition of like-minded ideology -- that is, to destroy our Constitution and our country, from within.

Therefore, my only disagreement with your comment?

Preferential affirmative action policies care not a whit about the color (or whiteness) or the ethnicity of the person being "denied" access.

Preferential affirmative action is about the promotion of "politics", "elections", and an anti-Constitutional ideology.

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.