|
Detroit Free Press
FROM OUR READERS | MICHIGAN CIVIL RIGHTS INITIATIVE: Will state proposal hurt women?
April 18, 2006
In response to Nichole Christian's April 14 column, "All women of Michiganshould rally against MCRI injustices": In the first place, both of the named plaintiffs in the two discrimination complaints against the University of Michigan -- Jennifer Gratz and Barbara Grutter -- were white women. Further, the majority of university admissions today are going to women. Using the logic of Christian's argument, we should be having affirmative action programs for men.
The incessant claim by MCRI opponents that prohibiting race and gender discrimination will end such things as breast and cervical cancer screening, breast-feeding promotion, etc. is "the big lie," a fallacy that they hope, if repeated often enough, will be taken as truth.
MCRI does not apply to any aspect of health care. It is specifically limited to education, employment and contracting. And even within that limitation, one of the provisions explicitly states: "Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex that are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."
Gregory Creswell
Detroit
Much progress at risk
Michigan women would be wise to follow Nichole Christian's advice and reject Ward Connerly's cynical anti-affirmative action ballot initiative. Make no mistake about it, the inclusion of gender in the initiative's language is no accident. Simply put, the initiative would reverse the progress women have made in Michigan by instantly eliminating highly successful programs that give women access to nontraditional -- and lucrative -- careers, such as engineering.
Furthermore, if the initiative passes, local police departments will lose the ability to recruit women for highly sensitive positions in domestic violence units. Our mandate to defeat the anti-affirmative action ballot initiative is not about feel-good politics. For Michigan women, it's about self-preservation.
Kim Trent
Member, One United Michigan steering committee, Detroit
Degrees of favoritism?
Nichole Christian calls for women to oppose the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative by repeating the tired cliché of "rolling back the clock." Before answering this call, remember the initiative was started because two women were denied admission to the University of Michigan because of the policies promoted by Christian. In these cases, race trumped gender.
Perhaps supporters of racial and gender preferences should be more specific about whom they favor most. When conflicts occur, what ranking should be applied and who gets to decide? Is an AfricanAmerican woman more deserving than a Latino man? How about Native Americans? Right now, we only know white men rank last.
Steve Sutton
Farmington Hills
Harmful consequences
Thank you for Nichole Christian's thoughtful column in support of affirmative action programs for women and minorities. As a life member of the American Association of University Women, I particularly understood the reference to a study commissioned by AAUW that predicts: "By 2010, one in four new jobs will be technically oriented or involve computing. However, women fall far behind in earning computer technology degrees and working in computer technology related professions."
We do understand the consequences for women and minorities if the deceptively worded MCRI is allowed to alter the Michigan Constitution. Members of AAUW of Michigan have been part of the efforts of Michigan United to educate as many segments of the voting population as possible about the harmful effects of this initiative.
We appreciate the strong rallying words.
Barbara Bonsignore
Past president, AAUW of Michigan
AAUW of Michigan Representative to One United Michigan
Rochester Hills
Programs still in place
Nichole Christian asserts that if MCRI passes, "women can forget about programs such as breast and cervical cancer screening, breast-feeding promotion, domestic violence treatment and prevention programs." Don't believe it. All these programs are available in California, 10 years after the state banned affirmative action preferences.
No shelters for victims of domestic violence in California? Not true in the least. When Christian's facts are this wrong, can her opinion be right?
Carol Allen
Program Director,
Toward a Fair Michigan, East Lansing
Equality under the law
Nichole Christian's April 14 column reveals the preference lobby's desperation to recruit white women's votes. She repeats the big lie: "White women are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action." Nonsense. MCRI chair Jennifer Gratz, like many other white women, was excluded from U-M in favor of a less qualified minority.
If government can discriminate among its citizens by race and gender, nocitizen of any race or gender is safe. Fifty years ago, blacks were out of favor and were denied equal protection of the law; today whites are out of favor and denied equal protection. Who will it be next year?
Any gains your daughters make because of gender preferences can only come at the expense of your sons, and at the expense of the principle of equality under the law.
John R. Alberti
Everett, Wash.
Download PDF version of this article ( pdf)
Back to home page |
