Michigan's Prop 2 to ban affirmative action

AGDee · #1 10-28-2006, 08:17 AM

It's the hottest issue going on in Michigan and is apparently being watched carefully in other parts of the country. Apparently the same group who got this passed in California is trying to get it passed here. There were legal controversies over how they got it on the ballot. It's titled The Civil Rights Initiative, but bans affirmative action.

Opponents say it is a step backward for Civil Rights, will hurt programs like free mammograms and ovarian cancer screenings because they are for women only and for free prostate cancer screenings because they are only for men.

Proponents say it is a step forward because it will eliminate reverse discrimination and focus only on race, not women.

The proponents are very misleading in their ads, in my opinion, but I think they are getting the support of people who don't realize the full impact.

While I think it would be great if we were at a point where affirmative action was no longer necessary, I don't think we're there.. in fact, I think we're far from it.

Some links (pro and con) for reference:
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...8/1068/OPINION

http://www.grandhaventribune.com/pai...1600508865.bsp

http://www.cew.umich.edu/PDFs/MCRIecon6-25.pdf

http://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_arti...?storyid=63805

http://thesouthend.typepad.com/tsene...rallies_a.html

Discuss.. please keep it civil.

Tom Earp · #2 10-28-2006, 03:33 PM

Amazing how our duly elected morons seem to legislate our morality.

It usually comes with a price doesn't!

It just doesn't seem to matter to us as citizens anymore.

Now trial segregated class rooms by gender in Missouri.

ann.coulter2 · #3 10-29-2006, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AGDee

While I think it would be great if we were at a point where affirmative action was no longer necessary, I don't think we're there.. in fact, I think we're far from it.

Can you cite a few instances where affirmative action has had a positive effect?

In the areas I'm familiar with, affirmative action in the schools, busing for integration, etc. has been abandoned as a failure.

Do you favor affirmative action in the NBA, requiring each team to take a token number of white guys who can't jump and a number of short guys of any race?

Or requiring each NHL team to take a few southern boys who can't skate?

DeltAlum · #4 10-29-2006, 04:11 AM

Were any of you who say that Affirmative Action has had NO positive effect alive prior to the sixties or seventies?

AnchorAlum · #5 10-29-2006, 01:42 PM

Affirmative Action sure had it's place in history.

Anyone who forgets the way this country was before the civil rights initiatives of the 60's couldn't have been alive. I WAS and I remember. I believe PBS is re-airing Eyes on the Prize. It's one of the most worthy programs ever shown on television, and I hope millions of new viewers see it each time it airs.

But to say that mammograms and prostate screenings would be eliminated is a use of ridiculous scare tactics. It might make some feel that you shouldn't have to tell lies to prevent the passage/rollback of a worthy law.

In 40 years we've come too far, and changed too much, to think that we still need the full blown mechanisms of Affirmative Action, though. Those are my feelings.

KSigkid · #6 10-29-2006, 03:19 PM

Regardless of people's feelings on this, I get a bit bothered with the "if you weren't here, you don't understand" argument. Just because people lived through a certain time period doesn't mean they have a greater understanding of a topic than someone born more recently. It sounds more like a cop-out to limit debate. Just a pet peeve of mine.

I hadn't heard anything about this, although I haven't had as much time to check the news lately. Is it definite that it will be on the ballot, even with the legal challenges? It will certainly be something to watch for on election day.

DeltAlum · #7 10-30-2006, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Regardless of people's feelings on this, I get a bit bothered with the "if you weren't here, you don't understand" argument. Just because people lived through a certain time period doesn't mean they have a greater understanding of a topic than someone born more recently. It sounds more like a cop-out to limit debate. Just a pet peeve of mine.

Your opinion is noted, however sometimes experience really is the best teacher. Some things simply don't translate to the printed page.

Not always.

PM_Mama00 · #8 10-29-2006, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnchorAlum

Affirmative Action sure had it's place in history.

Anyone who forgets the way this country was before the civil rights initiatives of the 60's couldn't have been alive. I WAS and I remember. I believe PBS is re-airing Eyes on the Prize. It's one of the most worthy programs ever shown on television, and I hope millions of new viewers see it each time it airs.

But to say that mammograms and prostate screenings would be eliminated is a use of ridiculous scare tactics. It might make some feel that you shouldn't have to tell lies to prevent the passage/rollback of a worthy law.

In 40 years we've come too far, and changed too much, to think that we still need the full blown mechanisms of Affirmative Action, though. Those are my feelings.

I don't think they are scare tactics. If this proposal is passed, it will pretty much do away with things like Title IX. I'm wondering how this would affect Greek Life.

And Affirmative Action had its place in history. Yes. But I think it's quite ridiculous when a person who is considered just a SMIDGEN of minority gets into a college like Universtiy of Michigan, when a caucasian person who had a better GPA, more activies in high school, and better standardized test scores misses his chance because a certain quota needs to be filled.

AGDee · #9 10-30-2006, 12:32 AM

Some stats to show that we aren't there yet.. from a CNN article in December 2004:

On average, women make 78 percent of men's wages, according to a 2003 study by the U.S. Department of Labor. This is, however, a marked improvement over 25 years ago -- in 1979, women made 62 percent of what men earned

At the current rate of change, working women will not achieve equal pay until after the year 2050. That's almost 100 years after President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law, prohibiting discrimination based on sex resulting in unequal pay for equal work.

The pay gap differs by race, with the earnings of white women being just 78 percent of those of white men; black women making 91 percent as much as their male counterparts; and Hispanic women earning 88 percent of what Hispanic men earn. The Rutgers School of Management Relations says this is primarily because white men still earn the most among all groups of workers.

Females doctors only earn 58 percent of their male counterparts' salaries. Even in predominantly female fields like nursing and teaching, women still earn less than men: female nurses earn 91 percent and female teachers earn 87 percent of what their male counterparts do.

The link: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Careers/1...ref=sitesearch

I believe this article shows that it has had a positive affect. I'm not convinced that without affirmative action in place, more people wouldn't be discriminated against based on race and/or gender. Just as I don't think the citizens of the US would elect a female or minority President, I don't think we're ready to ditch affirmative action.

And yes, the legal challenges are done and it is on the ballot billed as a Civil Rights Initiative, which most people I've talked to agree is a deceiving title for this proposal.

I believe the outcome will be determined by two factors:
1) Who gets out to vote
2) Whether the people who get out to vote actually understand what the proposal means