the salt makers

It is always a pleasure to pick up the Michigan Daily. It is somewhat akin to visiting http://www.timecube.com/ or http://www.realultimatepower.net/ . You read the front cover, and you know, basically immediately, what level these people’s minds are operating at. They are children. Today was a special treat.

In the upcoming Michigan elections, voters will decide on Proposal 2, or the so-called Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which would make it illegal for schools, employers, or contractors to discriminate against students on the basis of race, gender, or ethnicity. In effect, it outlaws certain affirmative action practices. A similar proposition (prop 209) passed in California ten years ago, effectively minimizing, though not eliminating, affirmative action policies (http://hrweb.berkeley.edu/seads/faq1.htm).

Needless to say, the left-wing politicos on campus are not amused.

Accordingly, the school newspaper today contained a six page pamphlet on why Proposition 2 “will immediately eliminate opportunities for women and minorities to have equal access to jobs, education, and contracts.” The pamphlet was written by the ACLU.

The pamphlet’s case against proposition 2 is very simple. They simply repeat increasingly ridiculous hyperbole (sometimes spicing it up with creative grammar). The core message is simple: cutting affirmative action means discriminating against minorities.

This shit is priceless.

Will Youmans: “I only had two black student in my class at UC Berkeley (after California passed proposition 209). I think these initiatives tell minorities basically get the message that they are not wanted.”

Brandon Jessup: “Eliminating the path for the next Barak Obama, Antonio Villaraigosa, Jennifer Granholm, William Jefferson Clinton and others is the purpose of ending Affirmative Action.”

Taina Gomez: “As the first in my family to go to college, I needed a supportive community of other students of color… Walking down Sproul Plaza during my first semester, I tried to find faces I could relate to, those who looked like me. I had a hard time finding one. It was then that I began to feel deceived, conned.”

Stephanie Chang: “Why, as a twenty-something Asian Pacific American woman, do I care about affirmative action? … Because opportunities need to continue here in Michigan for all of us, not destroyed by California millionaires who don’t know what’s best for Michigan. This is my fight because race matters.

My two personal favorite come from Taina Gomez again: “Our low numbers meant less of us in classrooms, departments and organizations…. More work fell on fewer students of color.”

What?! I’m not a teacher, but I’m pretty sure that the number of colored students has no effect on your workload. I really don’t think that Berkeley assigns a set amount of work to racial blocks.

Gomez continues, “Constantly, we were forced to tackle issues of race, discrimination, and hate, which the university, out of fear of being sued or labeled too liberal, or a violator of free speech, often did not.”

Simply breathtaking. Berkeley is afraid of being labeled too liberal? Berkeley? Due to this fear, they allow students to give hate-speech? Right. I’m pretty sure hate-speech is rampant at the Berkeley campus. Oh no wait. What I mean is, very rarely at Berkeley, a person might wrestle away from the thought police long enough to speak about race without using socially acceptable clichés (“minorities face structural racism all the time,” “republicans disenfranchise black votors,” “it is harder to advance if you are a woman”). Then the thought police promptly flog that person.

The ACLU pamphlet contains 8 articles. 5 are extended personal statements by students, graduates, rappers, and various others.


Of the remaining three:

• One attacks Proposition 2 for calling itself “The Michigan Civil Rights Initiative,” charging that this title is criminally deceptive. Since the proposition calls for equal treatment for all races, I do not find the argument especially compelling. Interestingly, in 2004, neither did the ACLU. They defended a lottery petition against litigation. The petitioners were charged with using deceptive language to get signatures. Back in 2004, the ACLU argued that ruling against the lottery petition would be tantamount to the courts deciding which opinion is correct. Way to stand by your convictions, ALCU. Fucking douchebags. (http://www.chetlyzarko.com/original-content/ACLU-two-faces.html)
• The second is titled, “Michigan’s Economy Can’t Afford to Turn Back the Clock on Civil Rights, Experts Say.” Wow. Can’t wait to read this one. I wonder how they can possibly show that affirmative action is good for the state economy. Reading…………………………… Alright. Don’t take the title literally. By “experts” they mean one researcher—Susan Kaufmann, Director of the Center for the Education of Women at the University of Michigan—and two baseless opinion quotations from an Ann Arbor business owner and a Detroit Councilwoman. Susan Kaufmann’s research (published here http://www.cew.umich.edu/PDFs/MCRIecon6-25.pdf and pseudo-contested here http://plaintruth.blogspot.com/2006/09/kaufmann-scare-monger-susan-kaufmann.html) seeks to prove that minorities in California lost opportunities after prop 209. Of course they lost opportunities. Prior to 209, minorities were given opportunities that were not commensurate with their abilities. Revoking a racially biased screening process will reduce opportunities for minorities. The study goes on to claim that “Michigan will fail to attract companies” if Proposition 2 passes, using the anecdotal evidence that “Recently, GM and Alcoa have stopped recruiting from the University of Wisconsin-Madison… because the student body is not diverse enough.” Um, Susan. Wisconsin-Madison is not located in California. How’s recruiting going for Berkeley students? Pretty fucking good, right? She must also be unaware that California’s GDP has grown 55% since proposition 209 was passed, fourth best in the nation. In the same time frame, Michigan’s has grown 10%, third worst in the nation.
• Finally, an attack piece on Ward Connerly (a black man), the force behind the MCR Initiative. The article states the following: “Orphaned at an early age and shuffled between relatives living in Washington and California, Connerly’s future seamed (their misspelling, not mine) uncertain. Yet his determination led him to … Sacramento State University where he was the first to pledge the all-white Delta Phi Omega fraternity and was elected student body president. With a promising future in politics, Connerly’s zeal for race relations grew exponentially, yet as many other black youth fought for civil rights and black solidarity, Connerly veered sharply to the right. In fact, during a New York Times interview he said “Reveling in blackness—black is beautiful, black power, black consciousness—just creates an invisible wall of difference that sets us apart.” That Bastard.

To learn more about the MCRI, visit

http://www.aclumich.org/

http://www.michigancivilrights.org/

But it does, and it does.