November 18, 2006

Racial Driscrimination Supporters Seek To Overturn Will Of The People For Equality In Michigan

But in doing so, they need to seek the overturn of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as well as the recently approved Prop. 2. After all, the ballot initiative took its language straight from that landmark civil rights legislation.

In the wake of a decisive Nov. 7 vote to prohibit race- and gender-based preferences in employment, education and contracting, leaders in government and academia who fought to preserve affirmative action are now hurrying to assess the impact. Officials said the response is likely to start with a court challenge.

Business and civic leaders who opposed the anti-affirmative-action measure are gathered here on Friday to develop a strategy. The University of Michigan Board of Regents is also meeting, with announcements expected soon. At City Hall, Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick (D) is drafting an ordinance that would favor companies based in the city, which is more than 80 percent African American

"The voters went to the polls and Proposition 2 passed, and we have to live with it now," said Matt Allen, the mayor's spokesman. "As of December 22, there can be no more gender or race preferences."

The first attempt to block the new law in court was filed soon after the election, although courts have upheld a similar California law.

"There will be both offense lawsuits and defensive lawsuits filed to understand what this actually means for Michigan," said Kary L. Moss, executive director of the Michigan office of the American Civil Liberties Union. "I do think it's necessary for the courts to slow this thing down and . . . interpret some of the language."

But really, how much is there to interpret -- or object to -- in a law that declares that state and local government entities "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"?

After all, the 1964 Civil Rights Act forbids discrimination based upon "any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin". After more than four decades, how can an enactment like the MCRI even be controversial -- unless one supports discrimination or preferences based upon one or more of those categories?

Posted by: Greg at 04:29 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 405 words, total size 3 kb.

1

But of course the opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act warned that passage of such  would lead to exactly this kind of phenomenon.


Posted by: Ken Hoop at Sat Nov 18 07:10:10 2006 (DZbll)

2 The problem is not that the 1964 Civil Rights Act is being follwoed as written -- the problem is that it is NOT being followed as the plain language of the statute requires.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Nov 18 07:31:44 2006 (0xIfv)

3 Which is what the conservatives...and those further right...warned would happen at the time.

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Sun Nov 19 13:35:46 2006 (rXpxz)

4 In other words, KKKen, the 1964 Civil Rights Act as written is perfectly acceptable and in concert with American values. It is the subsequent interpretation by liberals that is in error.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Nov 20 02:46:52 2006 (Q0Cmy)

5

In other words, to use your sophistry while straightening it out to make a more poignant- and accurate-point, you are implicitly portraying all the conservatives who voted against it were retrograde at the least and "racist" at the worst. All conservatives voted against"civil rights" legislation then--but you're a "more enlightened" "modern" "conservative," right Groggy?


Posted by: Ken Hoop at Mon Nov 20 07:30:28 2006 (DZbll)

6 No, KKKen -- I simply note that the law itself is acceptable, but subsequent interpretations and regulations rn contrary to the statute.

Indeed, proper application of the statute would require the striking down of every government quota and set-aside program not addressing specific instances of discrimination.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Nov 20 13:53:09 2006 (Pwb8Z)

7 Actually, a good chunk of those so-called "consevatives were, in fact, stone-cold racists who were active white supremacists, such as Sen. Robert Byrd. Indeed, they have more in common with today's liberal race segregators than they do with true American conservatism.

On the other hand, some of the others were states-righters who believed such matters wee better handled on the local level, not recognizing the depth of the race-supremacy in southern states -- folks like Goldwater, who came to recognize his error in opposing the law.

And KKKen, if you are a "true" conservative, I want not association with the word. Fortunately, your kind are rejected by true conservatives.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Nov 20 13:57:02 2006 (Pwb8Z)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
10kb generated in CPU 0.0068, elapsed 0.0152 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.01 seconds, 36 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]