General discussion

Locked

Vote to end discrimination coming

By jdclyde ·
Language of the ballot proposal:
http://www.michigancivilrights.org/ballot.htm

"A proposal to amend the constitution to prohibit The Universisty of Michgan, and other State Universities, The State, and all other state entities from descrimination or granting preferential treatment based on Race, Sex, Color, Ethnicity, or National Origin."

This was put on the ballot by the MCRI, Michigan Civil Rights Inititive. Required to get it on the ballot is 350,000 valid signitures. Over 500,000 signitures have been submitted and over 400,000 of them have been verified.

Controversy. The activits group BAMN, "By Any Means Necessary" is claiming fraud and misrepresentation, dispite having shown no proof of this.

Part of the claim is that people were confused by the "Civil rights" in the MCRI name to mean something that it isn't. MCRI is for Civil Rights for ALL citizens of Michigan.

Governor Jennifer M. Granholm has forwarded the unfounded complaint on to the "Michigan Civil Rights Commission" for review dispite the fact that this board has been an outspoken opposition to the MCRI. She had also admitted in an interview that she didn't think there was anything the MCRC could do about this, as far as removing this proposal from the ballot.

Is this good legislation? After what point is reverse discrimination not a good thing anymore for a civilization? Because of past discriminations, how long should future discrimination continue?

When did "Civil rights" not apply to everybody equally, and when should it start?

NOTE: This does not remove anti-discrimination from the books, it just will make it apply to everyone INdiscriminately so NO ONE could be discriminated against based on WHAT they are.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

88 total posts (Page 1 of 9)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Touchy subject

by JamesRL In reply to Vote to end discriminatio ...

I do feel that at times when a group is discriminated against systemically, it is necessary to provide a hand up from time to time.

But affirmative action fails to do this in the right way.

If the university wants to help the disadvantaged participate in higher education and bring those benefits, then focus on more than just the race factor. W

Why should a poor white student with the same marks as a rich black student be shunted aside? Thats unjust. I will grant that it happens more the other way around, but we have to be just in every case, not just the majority of cases.

If the university wants to help, let them bring educational enrichment programs into inner city schools to boost their confidence, and entice them to go to college. Let them create more scholarships and give them to kids (of any race) who attend those inner city schools and can't afford university - why focus on race when poverty is the real issue?

If I am rich, and I get my spot bumped because someone else who is disadvantaged got a scholarship, I have other options. If the person got that placement based only on race, and not other socio-economic factors, that is racism.

James

Collapse -

True, but it goes beyond that

by jdclyde In reply to Touchy subject

This also addresses hiring by the state, as well as all subcontracting that goes on.

The "hand up" turned into a "hand out" that never helped the inner city poor that needed the help in the first place, which is why Detroit is on the verge of bankrupsy.

The fact that they re-elected a known thug who had been shown to be abusing his position and running up outragous bills that he illegally paid for through his office. Is this racist to say this? No, BOTH candidates were black, yet only one had been shown to have the city of Detroit paying to lease a brand new lincoln Navigator for HIS WIFES personal use as well as dinners and trips.

Collapse -

Racial discrimination is just plain wrong

by Montgomery Gator In reply to Touchy subject

Race and ethnicity should not be considered in any way. I would vote for the proposed amendment if I lived in Michigan. "Reverse Discrimination" is just as unjust as "old fashioned" discrimination against minorities. Just like the old saying goes, "two wrongs do not make a right".

Collapse -

I do understand the intent

by jdclyde In reply to Racial discrimination is ...

that if a race was held back for no other reason than they are that race, they would not be as qualified to start entering into workforce.

The "HAND UP" idea is noble, but wasn't administered correctly and has gone on for too long.

It's time has passed.

Collapse -

well...

by jkaras In reply to Vote to end discriminatio ...

I think it has good intentions, but I think more effort needs to be waged on other things. Discrimmination is illegal in itself. The way I think I am interpreting this is that now everyone can get sue happy claiming their rejection was due to some bias and not acedemic. I can see it now; I got turned down because I am a bisexual-Asian-African-hippie-middle class-American with asthma.(if I left anyone out my apologies) There is enough people not going to college and it doesnt have to do with ethnicity, it's financial or a rediculous gpa score.

First off they need to control the price of education, then enhance it with better teaching methods. Right now our youth are being exploited through sports pushing them through the system and not teaching them. What is a good school nowadays? A good sports program, not acedemics. Government needs to step in to hold the Universities and colleges accountable with jail time not dismissal or fines. Boosters can replace any amount of fines levied. Its funny that a New York judge can hit a Teamster union to drive buses or pay 1 mil a day, but a college gets a small fine?

Second they need to re-evaluate the gpa standards. Kids are killing themselves over the pressure of not getting straight A's or college is out of the question. Let's be realistic and not go back til you were in the third grade. Most feel that their first year of High school dictates their chances not their overall duration and their senior year.

Lastly, college has the most discrimination through it's own students, when they get into their cliques. There are a lot of stuents that make very big mistakes just to be liked when their home is thousands of miles away.

Collapse -

No, that is what was already happening

by jdclyde In reply to well...

There was over the last few years lawsuits because RACE was used as an admissions factor and would allow access to people with lower qualifications because they were a "minority" and the college was seeking "diversity" through discrimination.

The same happens now with state hiring, with quotas on having to hire based on "we need another of this ethnic group" instead of "we need someone that can do this job".

It has gotten out of hand, and gone on for way too long.

What it is saying is stop ALL discrimination.

Collapse -

Affirmation Action is becoming obsolete

by faradhi In reply to Vote to end discriminatio ...

I do not like affirmation Action.
However, there is still a basic need to help those who are still being discriminated against with a step up.

James touched on one. There is a need to balance any program with a socioeconomic status modifier. Race discrimination is less of a factor. Where anyone that comes from a lower socioeconomic status is often still discriminated against.

There is still a need of some sort of action for women. Their salary's still lag behind men. An example, my wife was hired by the state. She was offered $15,000 less than a male hired at the same time that actually had less experience and did the same job. In a recent WindowsITPro magazine survey (published in the December 2005 issue), Women are making about $6,000 less on average than Men.

In short, I like that affirmation action as it exists is coming under scrutiny. There is still a need of some form of Affirmation Action like program.

Collapse -

Already illegal

by jdclyde In reply to Affirmation Action is bec ...

and that wouldn't change.

If this can be proven, then it is means for a lawsuit.

Now to show another side of the coin, I personally got hired in for a lot more than my female counter-part that was already here. Why? I turned down the job when I found out what the offered pay was. They came back a week later and offered me more so I took it.

Pay rates. If it is a set scale, it is easy to prove discrimination based on gender. But if it is based on what the people negotiate when they get hired, there is NO legal recourse. Looking at raises though would show a bias.

This legislation does is meant to stop ALL discrimination, and punish ANYONE who discriminates based on the set aspects.

Note: It will still be legal to discriminate against over weight people and smokers. These are not protected groups, although people have tried over the years to add the over weight classification.

So no, there is NEVER need for affirmative action as affirmative action says to make your decision based on discrimination instead of saying to treat everybody equal.

Collapse -

I disagree

by faradhi In reply to Already illegal

AS IMPLEMENTED, affirmation action discriminates. However, I stated I do not agree with Affirmation action as it is CURRENTLY implemented. I do believe, however, that there needs to be some sort of LEVELING program.

On average all things being equal, if a Male makes $50,000 for a job a female should be making the same. Same applies to Race or Religion or anything else. It should be illegal to pay someone with the same experience less for the same work on the basis that they belong to a protected group.

Even if it was illegal (which it is not), Proving it is another story all together. They were both brought in at the same pay level. He was paid the max and she was paid the min. Do you really believe that guy would risk his job and future jobs to rat his employer. (It would effect his future because the industry they worked in is very close knit and other employers would find out) Further, This was a state job with set pay scales. Pay rates are confidential. How do you prove it?

There needs to be some law to LEVEL the playing field.

Collapse -

Not up on that, but

by jdclyde In reply to I disagree

I would think that there already ARE law covering that, it is just up to you to prove it?

And the same thing happens between the same genders. Not everyone is paid the same, regardless if they are all the same gender or not.

My mother was an administrator for the academic side for IT at a local college. She was down sized out, and the man that was in charge of the administrative side of IT (staff vs students) was given BOTH sides even though he had less qualifications of less experience AND less education. 11 others, all women and/or minorities had similar things happen. After the law suit, it seems it is legal to do that. Go figure.

But hiring based on gender or race won't fix this. An audit of the books is what would be required and then PROVING that the differences are based on that gender or race.

Remember, innocent until proven guilty, and when you bring this case they don't have to prove why they did what they did, YOU have to prove why they did what they did. Burden of proof is a difficult thing to get.

I don't have an answer to the glass ceiling. I just know that discrimination isn't the answer.

Back to Community Forum
88 total posts (Page 1 of 9)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums