Affirmative Action in Michigan

In 2006 Michigan voters, via a voter's referendum, constitutionally banned public sector affirmative action for race and gender in education, employment and contracting. This meant that race or gender could officially no longer be taken in account when deciding who was accepted to a given school, which company won the bid for a state or local contract, or who got hired to a public sector job. This referendum was named Proposition 2 and passed easily by a 58-42 margin. The impact of this was mixed to say the least, as there is a Federal Executive Order 11246 ,which under certain circumstances requires federal contractors (ie. public universities) to have affirmative action programs or goals. 

But honestly few people in Michigan cared too much about the impact on employment or contracting so much as they did about the impact on education. Proposition 2 was passed as a reaction to two cases involving the University of Michigan and two different plaintiffs,  Jennifer Gratz (pictured above with Ward Connerly) and Barbara Grutter, who upon being denied admission to the undergrad program and the law school program respectively, threw the mother of all temper tantrums and literally decided to make a federal case out of it. Ultimately Gratz won her case and Grutter lost, for reasons which I am sure The Janitor can explain in great detail. Basically the Supreme Court decided that the undergrad affirmative action admissions policy was too strict and too close to a quota while the law school admissions policy was more narrowly structured, although Justice Sandra Day O'Connor noted that she did not expect that the law school's policy would be necessary 25 years from her decision approving it.

A 50% win wasn't good enough for Grutter and especially Gratz so in short order they hooked up with Ward Connerly, a man who proves that yes you can still make a living as a token minority, and convinced the majority of Michigan voters to alter our constitution to make it crystal clear that public sector affirmative action wasn't allowed any more, no way no how. Period.

Now here's where it gets kind of tricky. The other side (i.e. the good guys) decided to fight this ban in court. Although it was a long shot and I wasn't totally convinced of the validity of the legal arguments, to many's surprise, recently they actually won in federal court-The US 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appeals court said Proposal 2, which was [passed] by a 58-42 percentage margin, is unconstitutional because it restructured Michigan’s political process in a way that placed special burdens on minorities that deprived them of equal protection under the law.“The majority may not manipulate the channels of change in a manner that places unique burdens on issues of importance to racial minorities,” Judge R. Guy Cole said in an opinion joined by Judge Martha Daughtrey. Judge Julia Gibbons dissented, saying she didn’t think Proposal 2 impermissibly restructured the political process.Cole and Daughtrey were appointed by President Bill Clinton. Gibbons was appointed by George W. Bush.Attorney Washington said Michigan colleges and universities provide preferential treatment to a variety of groups, including veterans, the poor and students from rural areas. He said Proposal 2 discriminated against blacks, Latinos and native Americans.Today’s decision is the latest development in a long and bitter battle over race admission policies in Michigan colleges and universities.

Needless to say Miss Jennifer wasn't too happy about this turn of events:

Gratz, however, said the majority opinion is “ludicrous and illogical.”
“This court is saying that we place a burden on minorities by treating them equally with non-minorities…that we have to treat people unequally in order to treat them equally,” Gratz said, “That is insane.”

And Michigan, which is now under Republican management, has promised to appeal.

But Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette said this afternoon the decision will be appealed to the full 6th U.S. Circuit, and that, in the mean time, Proposal 2 will remain in effect.
"MCRI embodies the fundamental premise of what America is all about: equal opportunity under the law," Schuette said in a statement. "Entrance to our great universities must be based upon merit, and I will continue the fight for equality, fairness and rule of law."

Article

Court Decision

I think that Grutter's and Gratz's arguments were ultimately unconvincing because there were several white people that had received admission to the law school or undergraduate program that had less competitive scores or grades than they did. In addition as supporters of affirmative action court pointed out there were several other categories of students who received diversity points in the admission process (geographical/poverty/veterans) besides just racial minorities. However I also must confess a slight bias against affirmative action in so-called objective criteria (i.e. grades/tests) while having a HUGE bias for it where the criteria aren't objective (real life/the workplace). In the workplace I've just seen and experienced too many instances where it's not what you know but who you know, who you are, how people respond and relate to you. I've seen whites with high school degrees making the same or more money than blacks with college degrees. I've seen whites picked out and groomed for promotion by white managers while blacks languish in the same area for years.  In virtually every organization I've been in the further up the chain you go the fewer and fewer black people you see. There I think some form of affirmative action is not only a good thing but required.

However one can make a convincing argument that because of historical and ongoing segregation, discrimination and consumption and endorsements of racist beliefs that blacks are still suffering from a disbelief in their own abilities and that this shows up in tests and grades. If this is really the case then it is incumbent upon society to provide some form of corrective to this reality.

Although I find this argument to have merit I don't think that Gratz or more importantly the Supreme Court will. Honestly I think this is just a road bump to the Supreme Court allowing Proposition 2 to stand. It's a huge step from saying that you can allow affirmative action to you must allow affirmative action.

QUESTIONS:

What's your take?

Do the voters of Michigan have the right to ban state public sector affirmative action?

Do you think affirmative action is a winner politically?

Do you find the Court of Appeals' reasoning valid?

School Integration-What's in it for you???

People moving out/People moving in

Why/Because of the color of their skin

Run,Run,Run but you sure can't hide

Ball of Confusion-The Temptations

As you may have heard, Detroit has lost a lot of people.

The census report states that Detroit is currently home to about 713,000 people.  This means that Detroit stands to lose revenue sharing funds from the State of Michigan as well as from the Federal government. Detroit will also (unless the state legislature rewrites the laws) lose the ability to levy an income tax on non-Detroit workers or add fees to utilities bills or several other Detroit-specific actions. The reasons for the increasing population decline are myriad but are mostly centered on such issues as 1) crime 2) poor public schools 3) high taxes and high insurance costs 4) lack of job opportunity 5) older housing stock.

Of course the local political establishment demanded a recount but it’s rather unlikely to get one or reach the magic ceiling of 750,000 residents, which allow it access to all the items mentioned in the above paragraph. That’s all neither here nor there. Anyone paying attention locally would have seen this coming a long time ago. What IS interesting though is that unlike the initial wave of departures in the fifties or the accelerated exodus in the sixties or seventies, those leaving Detroit in waves now are mostly Black people. In fact proportionately so many Black people left the city that Detroit’s proportion of citizens who are white may have increased.  Again, there are still more reports to be released.

This Black hegira has had some positive and negative results. South East Michigan (Metro Detroit) is no longer the most segregated area in the nation.

We’re number 4. Whoopie. Believe it or not, 3 of the 10 most segregated census tracts are found in Michigan.

Not Mississippi. Not Alabama.

Michigan.

That’s the positive side (the slight decline in segregation) -if you consider integration to automatically be a good thing. This also might mean that in the suburbs at least both major political parties might have to start competing for black swing voters, which could mean a slight decline in race-baiting or in being taken for granted.

The negative side though is that the arrival of large numbers of Black students in suburban public schools has led to increased white parental removal of their students from those schools.  Some white parents are sending their children to public schools further away; some are choosing private schools, charter schools or home schooling.  Although most people are too polite to say why openly, bottom line is that when they have any sort of choice, many whites simply do not want their children attending primary schools with large or even noticeable numbers of blacks.  There is a tipping point and it seems to be somewhere between 5-10% Black enrollment.

Because the housing market is so depressed it gave many Black Detroiters who were so inclined the ability to move to the inner ring of suburbs around Detroit. Many whites can not afford to move out yet but if past events are any predictor of future ones, in roughly a decade or two some of these formerly majority white suburbs will be majority black. With a few notable and laudable exceptions the public schools in Detroit are to the point where one local columnist mused that one way to fix the public schools would be to outlaw private schools, on the assumption that if the better off were forced to attend, then something more would be done.

The trend is particularly notable in Macomb County, which led the state in increase in black population, and where one in 10 students takes advantage of schools of choice, often to study in classrooms that are whiter than their neighborhoods.
The result for many of the more than 13,000 Macomb County students now taking advantage of schools of choice programs is daytime segregation and nighttime integration, said Jason Booza, a demographer at Wayne State University who has studied the racial and spatial dynamics of Metro Detroit for a decade.
"It's the continuing self-segregation of groups," said Booza, an assistant professor of family medicine at Wayne State University. "It's a pattern we've seen in Detroit for 100 years."
The connection between race and schools of choice is a hot potato among educators, who maintain that parents make choices based on quality of education, not the color of their children's classmates.
Kurt Metzger isn't so sure. "This is totally about race," said Metzger, a demographer and director of Data Driven Detroit. "There is a tipping point. When schools reach a certain percentage of African-American (students), whites start looking elsewhere."

Metzger, who has studied the racial makeup of schools, believes schools are not comfortable talking about the racial component of schools of choice.

"I believe the white population is much more willing to stay in schools with an increasing Asian population or a Latino population (than an African-American population)," Metzger said. "You hear code words: It's getting rougher, or the quality has gone down."

In the past, white residents uncomfortable with black neighbors sold their homes, Metzger said. Because of declining home prices, many can't move now — but they can move their children.

The impact is an increasing disparity between rich white districts and poor black districts. As students pull out of increasingly minority districts and take their state aid with them, the schools are forced to cut more programs, making more students decide to leave.

"It's institutional racism, and we need to talk about it," Metzger said. "We can't keep closing our eyes." 

Full Article

         

Again, with the exception of comment boards or when they are among an entirely same-race group, many whites are not willing to speak candidly about WHY they don't want their children going to school with Black children. This is something that needs to be addressed honestly. The other thing that needs to be discussed is how long can this game of musical chairs continue. One can not force someone else to like you but de facto segregation also has larger costs for everyone.

QUESTIONS

So what do you think? What does integration mean to you? Is integration automatically a good thing? Is it important to you?  Do you respect someone who tells you upfront that they don't like you or would you rather people hid their feelings behind politeness or passive aggressive behavior? How do you manage the inherent conflict between freedom and equality? What is the solution to the achievement gap in schools?

Alexandra Wallace's Anti-Asian Rant

I am like SO not racist...

If you hadn't heard, recently a UCLA poli-sci student and part-time model named Alexandra Wallace posted a video of herself mocking students of apparent Asian descent, their supposed propensity for rude behavior in libraries and other cultural differences. As people tend to do she also felt it necessary to mock the sound of East Asian languages, which are often either tonal or pitch accented and have quite a contrast in timbre to English.

As might be expected, the video was not well received by many people. There was quite vicious and violent language posted in response to the video-including alleged death threats.

"Wallace contacted university police early Sunday evening after receiving numerous death threats via e-mail and phone, said UCPD spokeswoman Nancy Greenstein. Police advised her to take a number of precautions and are currently working to ensure her safety, Greenstein said."
Phil Gussin, Wallace’s political science professor, said Wallace contacted him with concern about how she would take her finals. Gussin said Wallace told him that police advised her to reschedule her final exams in light of the death threats and information posted online that listed her class schedule and exam locations.
Greenstein said police are working with Wallace to determine when she will take her finals.
Gussin said he is concerned for Wallace’s safety and is frustrated at the violent response some people have expressed. “What Wallace did was hurtful and inexcusable, but the response has been far more egregious,” Gussin said. “She made a big mistake, and she knows it, but … they responded with greater levels of intolerance.”

The chancellor said he was "appalled" at the video. Wallace removed the video and apologized.

“Clearly the original video posted by me was inappropriate. I cannot explain what possessed me to approach the subject as I did, and if I could undo it, I would. I’d like to offer my apology to the entire UCLA campus. For those who cannot find it within them to accept my apology, I understand.” 

Robert Naples, (associate vice chancellor and dean of students)  called the video “beyond distasteful,” saying that her comments in no way represent the views of the UCLA as a community.

Naples said he personally received more than 100 e-mails of complaint from individuals all over the country, primarily from people affiliated with UCLA. The university has yet to get in contact with Wallace, but hopes to meet with her as soon as possible to determine the appropriate response, Naples said.

“We’ll be taking a look at the language that she uses in the video to see if it violates any codes under the student code, perhaps regarding harassment,” Naples said. However, the student code in no way usurps the authority of the First Amendment, Naples said.

Watch the entire short video below.

When I saw the news about the video I thought it would be worse than what it was. Of course I've been out of college for quite some time. I'm not too surprised anymore about what people can say when they get too comfortable. Colleges tend to burn hotter about such things. That said, besides poor execution, what makes this any different than similar riffs by comediennes Sarah Silverman or Lisa Lampanelli? If someone is trying to be funny do we give them a pass as opposed to someone who is trying to be serious (or FAILING to be funny)? And really to me the problematic part of the video wasn't the initial presumption that only Asians have bad manners or that Asians are not from here. The really bad part was the comment about "hordes of Asians" at "our" colleges. That hints at some Yellow Peril fears. The fact that people of Asian descent make up a disproportionate number of college students in California has not gone unnoticed.

So what do you think? Is this just a tempest in a teapot? Do people need to lighten up and move on now that an apology has been made? Should the University take any official action? Or is the best remedy for speech you don't like to ignore it or use your own speech to confront it? If the Westboro Baptist Church can insult people at funerals why should we be concerned about Wallace? Should Wallace be expelled?

The Battle of Wisconsin

Well, that's that. The Wisconsin Senate Republicans used a possibly illegal parliamentary maneuver to break the gridlock over the issue of public workers rights and passed a bill which restricts the collective bargaining rights of  public sector workers. Scott Walker looks like he may have a win. For now. I am positive that if this change becomes law that Wisconsin will become a virtual new Eden of economic development as businesses fall over themselves to move to a state with weakened public sector unions who gave up money and rights to lure these companies there. I mean low wages and weak unions are the stepping stones to prosperity, right?

In an 18-to-1 vote, the Senate Republicans approved the restrictions on collective bargaining.

Republican Sen. Dale Schultz, the lone no vote, warned his GOP colleagues: "This issue is not going away."

"In 30 minutes, 18 state senators un-did 50 years of civil rights in Wisconsin. Their disrespect for the people of Wisconsin and their rights is an outrage that will never be forgotten," Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller said. Miller and other Senate members said they would now be coming back to the state and continuing the fight.

The Senate bill severely restricts collective bargaining for tends of thousands of the state's public worker unions and increases their health care and pension contributions.

The measure has prompted massive demonstrations in the state capital by the bill's opponents and triggered a wave of recall campaigns targeting both the governor's supporters and opponents in the legislature.

On Wednesday night in the Capitol, the ground floor and first floor appeared nearly as full as they were during the first days of the demonstrations more than three weeks ago, and protesters stayed in the Capitol overnight, defiantly chanting "recall" and "Whose house? Our house!"

Outside the Assembly chamber, Barca allowed protesters to fill out forms listing themselves as witnesses to a violation of the state's open meetings laws, stemming from the Republicans' earlier conference committee meeting. 

Let's be honest about this and drop the niceties for one moment. I know that there are reasonable people on both sides of the spectrum. I know and work with a great many honorable and decent Republican leaning people. I don't think they strangle puppies and foreclose on widows before breakfast-at least not all of them.

But make no mistake, the modern Republican Party has one overarching purpose that unites it and that is a war against working people. They want cheap labor with no restrictions on business, the wealthy and the powerful. That's it.

The other goals which are popular among some subgroups among the Republicans-immigration restrictionism, creationism, libertarian fundamentalism, anti-abortion activism, neo-con war mongering, scaring white people about all the fertile non-whites, increasing the police and warfare state powers, telling Christians that gays are out there being gay, while getting their opponents hot and bothered are simply not as important to the Republican leadership as ensuring that the rich and connected can do what they want, when they want and how they want while getting richer and more connected. This is why Republicans mount ongoing attacks on any institution which does not serve or is not dominated by the wealthy. Unions are front and center. Republicans have to struggle to say anything nice about unions because fundamentally Republicans and their corporate bosses simply do not believe that unions have the right to exist.



Unions are bad for you. Trust me on this.

The ultimate goal for many conservatives is to reverse the entire past century of union struggle and government spending and protections directed at middle class/lower class people. No matter what the issue is - food safety, oil drilling regulations, discrimination, manufacturing, workplace safety regulations, the ability to sue for damages, protection from police abuse, cash and food subsidies for the poor and /or disabled, the ability for non-property owners to vote, social security and yes the ability of workers to organize and agitate for better working conditions and pay- it's a pretty safe bet that conservatives will be found arguing that the market knows best, anyone harmed should just get over it,  there should be no restriction on the ability of the corporation or employer to act as it pleases and government shouldn't protect people.

There's no shame in their game. They created a crisis and moved to exploit it. This time though they may have bitten off more than they can chew. It's up to the people of Wisconsin to make sure that Walker and his friends are recalled or pay the price at the polls. It's up to the rest of us to look in our own states and decide what we can live with. Governor Walker is hardly an outlier-though he may be an out and out liar.

If you work for someone else for a living, if you have a net worth of less than $1 million, if you know people whose salary is calculated in a two digit hourly rate, if you know what the minimum wage is, if an unexpected car repair messes up your budget for the next 3-6 months, if you financially could not afford to take a few years off from your position, the Republicans are not on your side. It's that simple.

The only question left is which side are you on?

Questions: Is this the beginning of the end for public sector unions? Will this energize the middle class and working class to throw out the Republicans in 2012? Why did the people of Wisconsin vote Walker into office if NOT to do this? Do you think that restricting or eliminating public sector unions is a good idea?  Will everyone have forgotten about this in a year or so?

Are Chinese Mothers Superior?

Are Chinese Mothers Superior?

The Wall Street Journal recently published an excerpt from a new book  (Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother) by Amy Chua, (Yale Law Professor, Harvard Law grad (cum laude), writer and apparently a very intelligent person) that seemed to answer yes to that question.  When I read the article I thought it was a satire but it wasn’t.  I couldn’t imagine the Wall Street Journal or any other mainstream publication publishing anything that apparently endorsed the superiority of Caucasian/Black/Latino mothers.

To be fair both in the article and especially after publication Chua was careful to parse her words just enough to not endorse a generalized belief in the absolute superiority of every Chinese mother or suggest that there weren’t demanding no-nonsense mothers to be found in every group. She stated that she would not have chosen the title for the Wall Street Journal excerpt and that her book details a journey from one place to another, where she becomes a different kind of parent.  Chua explains

Still there is more than a hint of ethnic chauvinism or to be more precise, gender based ethnic chauvinism that runs throughout the excerpts shown.

A lot of people wonder how Chinese parents raise such stereotypically successful kids. They wonder what these parents do to produce so many math whizzes and music prodigies, what it's like inside the family, and whether they could do it too. Well, I can tell them, because I've done it. Here are some things my daughters, Sophia and Louisa, were never allowed to do:

• attend a sleepover

• have a playdate

• be in a school play

• complain about not being in a school play

• watch TV or play computer games

• choose their own extracurricular activities

• get any grade less than an A

• not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama

• play any instrument other than the piano or violin

• not play the piano or violin.

Western parents try to respect their children's individuality, encouraging them to pursue their true passions, supporting their choices, and providing positive reinforcement and a nurturing environment. By contrast, the Chinese believe that the best way to protect their children is by preparing them for the future, letting them see what they're capable of, and arming them with skills, work habits and inner confidence that no one can ever take away.

If a Chinese child gets a B—which would never happen—there would first be a screaming, hair-tearing explosion. The devastated Chinese mother would then get dozens, maybe hundreds of practice tests and work through them with her child for as long as it takes to get the grade up to an A.

There are stereotypes about every group on the planet.  Is it acceptable if one group endorses the positive stereotypes about itself?  Honestly I think everyone does that in private sometimes.

What was not mentioned in the piece but does deserve some scrutiny is the higher than average suicide rates of Asian-Americans, Chinese-Americans and Chinese in general. Asian American women age 15-24 have the highest suicide rate  among all ethnic groups. Not surprisingly there are also higher rates of depression among both Chinese Americans and Asian Americans.

Still there is no direct causal evidence that the extreme parenting styles used at one time by Chua are behind those somber statistics. It’s just conjecture on my part.  I can’t imagine growing up with a parent who would never let me choose my own activities or who forced me to play the piano or violin (and only the piano or violin).  I’m not sure Chua is typical even among Chinese mothers.  I do like the idea of demanding the best from your children. I don’t think you do that by tyrannizing them, threatening to throw away or burn their toys or insisting that they only play a particular Western instrument and a particular Western music style.  

Is this sort of style one that you could use if you are or intend to become a parent?  Do the higher academic achievement rates of Chinese-Americans justify the Chua tactics? If your parent never allowed you to attend a sleepover or choose your own activities would you harbor any resentment?  Is this no big deal as every group is secretly convinced they are superior in some fashion or another?