6-24-06, 9:01 am

A group of wealthy out-of-state businessmen have financed a ballot initiative to turn back the clock on civil rights in Michigan. They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to force the people of Michigan to vote on their divisive views this November 7th and misleadingly called their campaign the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI). Far from protecting civil rights, this measure would amend the state constitution to ban existing affirmative action protections from racial, ethnic or gender-based discrimination in public education, hiring at state agencies and in the awarding of state contracts. This ballot initiative exposes all Michigan residents to the dangers of a society divided by racial hostility or sexual discrimination.

What do affirmative action policies do?

Michigan’s affirmative action policies address discrimination in jobs, housing and education. These policies require state agencies and institutions to review and remove hidden biases in hiring, promotion and compensation practices. They increase workplace diversity by reducing discrimination against women and underrepresented minorities by allowing race, ethnicity and gender to be among the various factors considered when evaluating qualified candidates. Affirmative action policies require state agencies to reach out to women and underrepresented minorities for employment as well as for receiving state contracts. In education, affirmative action policies allow public universities to use race and gender, among other characteristics, such as whether or not an applicant is the child of an alumnus (a so-called legacy), to make decisions about accepting qualified candidates for admission. In addition, these policies require the state to establish mentoring and training programs to retain employees from underrepresented groups. Affirmative action is based on the principle that all the people should have equal access to the benefits provided by the state, and the state has the responsibility to take steps to make sure this is a reality.

Several major US Supreme Court decisions over the past 25 years have upheld affirmative action policies. In its 1978 decision in the case of the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the Court ruled that diversity could be 'a compelling governmental interest' that permits race to be considered in the admissions process. The following year, the Court ruled in the case of the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Weber that a union could include affirmative action policies in its collective bargaining agreements. In Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, California, the Court ruled that affirmative action policies created to remedy past discrimination were Constitutional. In 2003, the court upheld these earlier views in two decisions involving the University of Michigan, one of which was authored by former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

Why is affirmative action still needed?

Despite the gains that over two decades of affirmative action policies have posted, serious problems continue to divide Michigan. Incidents of race-based violence still keep Michigan third on the FBI’s list of hate crimes. According to One United Michigan, a coalition of individuals, businesses, labor unions and community groups that oppose the MCRI’s proposed ban on affirmative action, persistent income disparity by race, ethnicity and gender, instances of job and housing discrimination and unequal access to education are important reasons why affirmative action policies are still needed.

Income disparity point to continuing discrimination by race and gender. According to US Bureau of Labor Statistic figures for May 2006, the median weekly pay of white men is $763. Women as a whole earn a median of $600. White women earn $607. Black men earn $577. Black women earn $542. Latinos earn $506. Latinas come in last with $438. The poverty rate for African Americans is three times higher than for whites. For Latinos it is more than twice as high. Women and girls make up 56 percent of the 37 million people living below the government’s official poverty line.

Income inequality results in no small part from lack of equal access to education. This fact is reflected most sharply in higher education. More than 31 percent of white men (over the age of 25) hold bachelor’s degrees or higher. This figure is almost double that of African American men and women, according to recent US Census Bureau surveys. African Americans account for only about 5 percent of all doctoral degrees, though this figure has steadily risen since affirmative action policies were put in place. While more than 45 percent of white high school graduates are able to attend college, only 39.7 percent of African Americans with high school diplomas do.

Even when men and women hold similar occupations, suggesting similar education and experience, the income inequality persists, according to figures tabulated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Men who hold well-paid management and professional positions earn a median weekly salary of $1,160. Women in those occupations earn about $350 less. In sales and office professions, men earn close to $700 per week, while women take in a mere $532.

According to the Asian American Justice Center, white men make up only 48 percent of the college educated work force, but hold 90 percent of the top jobs, 96 percent of CEO positions, 86 percent of the law partnerships and 85 percent of the tenured college faculty positions.

In Michigan, the gender pay gap at 67 percent is wider than the national average, according to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Women are only 10 percent of the state’s engineers, 30 percent of its doctors, and less than 30 percent of its lawyers. In the construction and building trades, women hold a meager 4 percent of positions.

What will this initiative do?

If passed, the proposed ballot initiative in Michigan would not protect civil rights. It would ban affirmative action and relevant programs and policies that are designed to end discrimination. Legal experts say programs that help women gain equal pay for equal work will be ended. Higher education scholarships, fellowships and grants that help women and minorities will be outlawed. The ability of state and local governments to determine fair hiring policies will come under fire. Equal housing and lending programs that require lenders and real estate companies to treat people of color and women equally when considering home sales and mortgages will be eliminated.

And based on the experiences of other states that have passed similar ballot initiatives, some public health programs that provide gender specific care like breast, cervical and prostate cancer screenings as well as programs that aid female victims of domestic abuse may also come under fire. Also in danger are requirements that state and local agencies collect data on race and gender statistics could be eliminated.

What happened in other states?

This proposed affirmative action ban in Michigan is patterned after similar ballot measures passed in California in 1996 (Prop 209) and Washington state in 1998 (I-200). A 2004 study published by the California-based Discrimination Research Center (DRC) and Equal Rights Advocates (ERA) shows that the passage of Prop 209 in California had devastating effects on equal access to education and public contracts for minority and women students, business owners and workers.

In California’s construction trades specifically, since 1995, the study shows that even with a growth in available jobs the number of women fell by 30 percent. Prior to 1995, affirmative action policies that required contractors who accepted business from the state to apply outreach, training programs and hiring practices designed to attract and keep minority and women workers in the building trades had helped boost the numbers of women in that industry. According to the study, while affirmative action policies were in place, some California contractors met and even exceeded the goals set by state agencies with regard to hiring women workers. Since the ban on affirmative action, this positive development has been eroded.

In the immediate aftermath of Prop 209’s passage, according to the DRC/ERA report, state officials who were legally mandated to identify and eliminate racial or gender discrimination in their agencies no longer had the tools to do so. Many state agencies simply threw up their hands in frustration. A survey conducted in 1998 of several California public schools and institutions found many simply eliminated all affirmative action policies and even stopped collecting data on gender and race for fear of violating the law. A pending lawsuit, citing provisions of Prop 209, is challenging the legality of state funded gender-specific health care programs.

Other surveys conducted by California-based organizations found that enrollment of minority students in California’s two top universities, UCLA and UC Berkeley, fell dramatically in the years following passage of Prop 209. The number of women professional hired at the UC Davis is reported to have fallen by 39 percent since passage of Prop 209. In fact, the Los Angeles Times reports that of the more than 4,800 students that enrolled at UCLA for the fall term this year, only two percent were African American – the lowest in decades. State contracts to minority and women-owned businesses has fallen by 25 percent, according to data provided by Americans for a Fair Chance. Meanwhile, job discrimination in California seems to have not been eliminated. According to a survey of employment agencies several years after the passage of Prop 209 by The Testing Project, employers appeared to prefer to hire white applicants to African American applicants almost three to one – with no available legal remedy to even the playing field.

In Washington state, the passage of I-200 is considered such an embarrassment to that state’s reputation that the legislature is considering various means to amend the measure to restore affirmative action programs.

Who is behind the campaign to ban affirmative action?

MCRI is backed by an organization of the same name, which is funded almost entirely by the ironically named American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI), headed by Ward Connerly. Connerly, a Republican, authored California’s Prop 209 and led its campaign in 1996, which eliminated affirmative action policies in that state. His organization spearheaded and financed the effort in Washington state in 1998, which, after a misleading campaign that promised to protect civil rights, banned affirmative action there. ACRI provided over half a million dollars to the Michigan anti-affirmative action campaign in 2004 alone. ACRI is reported to have received more than $400,000 from San Diego-based software developer John Moores, $300,000 from Fox Network mogul Rupert Murdoch, a $250,000 loan from Colorado-based beer magnate Joseph Coors, and hundreds of thousands of dollars from wealthy businessmen from San Francisco, Kansas City and Dallas.

Connerly has long been hostile to affirmative action and civil rights, to the point of declaring his support for racial segregation. In a 2002 CNN interview, Connerly said, 'Supporting segregation need not be racist. One can believe in segregation and believe in equality of the races.' In 2003, Connerly admitted to violating California’s campaign finance laws by failing to report the sources of more than $1.7 million ACRI received. Some of that money paid for a failed 2003 campaign in California to ban the collection of racial data, and some, Connerly said, helped fund projects like the Michigan anti-affirmative action campaign. According to an Associated Press report, Connerly paid a $95,000 fine to settle the issue.

As if a campaign to promote divisions and inequality is not enough, deception is key tactic of the anti-affirmative action campaign. MCRI used its large financial resources to hire a small army of signature collectors trained to solicit signatures by encouraging voters to think that they were supporting civil rights. Many witnesses at a hearing held by the Michigan Civil Rights Commission in late May testified that they were deceived into signing the initiative. One African American woman told the commission that she signed because she was told that its passage would provide Black youth with better educational opportunities. As a result of this hearing and other testimony, the Commission found that widespread deception had taken place. Lawsuits to remedy the situation are still pending. MCRI’s trouble with the truth is also reflected on its website. Under its FAQs, readers can find the erroneous claim that the initiative would not ban affirmative action.

To defeat this deceitful initiative and protect civil rights, Michigan business owners, labor unions, faith communities, civic groups and individuals have organized a broad coalition called One United Michigan. The coalition is led by the state AFL-CIO, the UAW, the NAACP, the Michigan Catholic Conference, the National Women’s Political Caucus, the ACLU among many others. It has been endorsed by groups as diverse as Michigan Peaceworks, Pride at Work, the Gray Panthers, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, Latinos United, the Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services, the Coalition of Labor Union Women, the Sierra Club, the Detroit Hispanic Development Corporation, the Detroit Federation of Teachers, the Associated Students of Michigan State University, the Anti-Defamation League and the Michigan Council of YWCA. Business groups, civil rights organizations, political parties, lawyers’ groups, fraternities and community development organizations have also signed on. Local organizing chapters have been set up in almost 20 counties across the state with more on the way.

If MCRI passes, it will hurt all of Michigan’s working families. It will dismantle existing protections against discrimination. Minority and women students, workers and business owners will find access to schools, employment or government contracts more difficult. Affirmative action policies nationally have helped an estimated five million minorities and six million women hold positions with higher job classifications than they would have otherwise. Those people who benefit are our mothers, sisters, daughters, spouses, neighbors and friends. When they benefit, we all benefit by the existence of affirmative action policies. When discrimination hurts them, it hurts all of us. We share a stake with them in ending discrimination and creating ways to overcome lingering barriers. Let’s unite around the positive aspects of our democracy – equality and social justice – and reject the divisive goals of the ultra right. Vote no on November 7th.



--Send your letters to the editor to